Atbatt

reverse the jury verdict and order a new trial

In an extremely detailed 148-page brief filed Wednesday, the attorneys cited multiple reasons they believe Spector was denied his right to a fair trial of apple a1060 battery . They asked the California Second District Court of Appeal to reverse the jury verdict and order a new trial.

Among the issues raised was the admission of testimony from five women who claimed they were threatened by Spector with guns in years past and the prosecution’s use of a videotape of the trial judge commenting on evidence in the case. They said prosecutors improperly used the women’s testimony to persuade jurors to convict Spector “based on his bad character and evil propensities of apple a1045 battery .” They said that was impermissible under the law.

Spector, the 70-year-old rock music producer, is in prison serving a sentence of 19 years to life for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson , who was shot through the mouth in Spector’s castle-like mansion seven years ago. Spector’s defense team argued that the one-time star of “Barbarian Queen,” was depressed and shot herself.

It took prosecutors two trials to convict Spector. The first trial ended in a jury deadlock of apple a1039 battery .In the appeal, attorney Dennis Riordan outlined errors he said were committed by Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler in both trials, calling one of the judge’s actions “startling.”

The appeal said that occurred when Fidler allowed prosecutors in the second trial to show jurors a videotape from a hearing held outside the presence of Spector and his jury in the first trial for apple a1078 battery . On the tape, they said, the judge was seen interpreting the action of a key forensic witness testifying about the position of blood spatter on Clarkson’s body.

Riordan said that in final arguments prosecutors showed side-by-side photos of the forensic witness and the judge and pointed to them as “persons who supplied crucial evidence supporting a guilty verdict of apple a1148 battery .”They quoted from a transcript in which the judge resolved a conflict over where a blood spot was located. The judge later refused to exclude his own comments saying he had the right to say what he observed in court.