 |
Uncensored Justice System Discussion
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ForensicGuy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 44
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: Recusing Judge Fidler |
 |
|
By Ryan Oliver
Daily Journal Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Attorneys for Phil Spector are calling Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry P. Fidler biased against their client and are seeking to have the judge removed from the rock 'n' roll producer's upcoming murder retrial.
Doron Weinberg claims in papers received by the court Wednesday that Fidler's bias is in reaction to the acquittals of other celebrity defendants in Southern California, including Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake.
Weinberg wrote that, when Fidler decided to allow the original Spector trial to be televised, the judge stated in interviews with Billboard magazine and the Los Angeles Times that he did so to allow the public to see that celebrities were treated the same as any other defendant.
"Given the media drumbeat that celebrities were unfairly acquitted in Los Angeles, Judge Fidler's comments can be read fairly to suggest that he intended to ensure that the Simpson-Jackson-Blake string of acquittals ended with a televised conviction of Mr. Spector," Weinberg wrote.
Jurors, however, deadlocked 10-2 in favor of conviction before Fidler declared a hung jury on Sept. 26. A retrial is scheduled for September.
Weinberg buttressed his argument by pointing out Fidler's decision to change the jury instructions when the jury initially announced it reached an impasse on Sept. 18.
The jury originally was instructed by the court that a conviction would require prosecutors to prove their theory that Spector held the gun in actress Lana Clarkson's mouth and shot her. Fidler amended the instructions to allow a theory that Spector forced Clarkson to hold the gun in her mouth herself when the gun went off.
Weinberg argues that theory had never been presented by the prosecution at any time during or before the trial.
"A reasonable observer would fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned not in an impartial effort to reach a jury verdict, whatever that might be, but rather to ensure a judgment of conviction," Weinberg stated.
The judge was served with the motion Wednesday, and Fidler has the option to either recuse himself or contest it. Recusal motions against Los Angeles County judges are heard by a judge outside the county, typically before the Orange County Superior Court.
Spector attorney Dennis Riordan declined to comment about the motion on the record. A representative of the district attorney's office could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.
Clarkson was shot through the mouth in the foyer of Spector's Alhambra mansion in the early morning of Feb. 3, 2003. Spector's defense contended she shot herself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: Re: Recusing Judge Fidler |
|
|
| ForensicGuy wrote: | By Ryan Oliver
Daily Journal Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Attorneys for Phil Spector are calling Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry P. Fidler biased against their client and are seeking to have the judge removed from the rock 'n' roll producer's upcoming murder retrial.
Doron Weinberg claims in papers received by the court Wednesday that Fidler's bias is in reaction to the acquittals of other celebrity defendants in Southern California, including Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake.
Weinberg wrote that, when Fidler decided to allow the original Spector trial to be televised, the judge stated in interviews with Billboard magazine and the Los Angeles Times that he did so to allow the public to see that celebrities were treated the same as any other defendant.
"Given the media drumbeat that celebrities were unfairly acquitted in Los Angeles, Judge Fidler's comments can be read fairly to suggest that he intended to ensure that the Simpson-Jackson-Blake string of acquittals ended with a televised conviction of Mr. Spector," Weinberg wrote.
Jurors, however, deadlocked 10-2 in favor of conviction before Fidler declared a hung jury on Sept. 26. A retrial is scheduled for September.
Weinberg buttressed his argument by pointing out Fidler's decision to change the jury instructions when the jury initially announced it reached an impasse on Sept. 18.
The jury originally was instructed by the court that a conviction would require prosecutors to prove their theory that Spector held the gun in actress Lana Clarkson's mouth and shot her. Fidler amended the instructions to allow a theory that Spector forced Clarkson to hold the gun in her mouth herself when the gun went off.
Weinberg argues that theory had never been presented by the prosecution at any time during or before the trial.
"A reasonable observer would fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned not in an impartial effort to reach a jury verdict, whatever that might be, but rather to ensure a judgment of conviction," Weinberg stated.
The judge was served with the motion Wednesday, and Fidler has the option to either recuse himself or contest it. Recusal motions against Los Angeles County judges are heard by a judge outside the county, typically before the Orange County Superior Court.
Spector attorney Dennis Riordan declined to comment about the motion on the record. A representative of the district attorney's office could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.
Clarkson was shot through the mouth in the foyer of Spector's Alhambra mansion in the early morning of Feb. 3, 2003. Spector's defense contended she shot herself. |
"A reasonable observer would fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned not in an impartial effort to reach a jury verdict, whatever that might be, but rather to ensure a judgment of conviction," Weinberg stated.
If the above was true, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to know what was in Judge Fidler's mind, then I think he should recuse himself anyway. I don't know what the Judicial Canons of Ethics in CA are, but I would think one of them would still be that any judge has to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
I think it would be a good idea for him to recuse himself anyway, just to avoid that appearance. Just my opinion, however.
J 
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billpavelic
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion, Judge Larry Fidler has always been biased against Phil Spector and the defense motion seeking his recusal does not surprise me, in the least. In June of 2007, I accused Judge Fidler, in writing, of being involved in Judicial Misconduct and sought that he refrain from ruling on the Gag Motion, due his (court's) bias. The Gag Motion was swept under the rug, so as not to expose the LADA prosecutors and their friend Judge Fidler of being involved in the misconduct. The misconduct in question dealt with perjury, suborning perjury and condoning perjury.
Best,
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pia
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 208
Location: www.freecynthia.com
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
From what I watched of the trial, I thought Judge Fidler was being fair UNTIL jury deliberations. When they came back at an impasse and he changed the instructions the way he did, I was floored.
Mine you now, I didn't watch every second of the trial so I am sure I missed a lot but up until that point, I did think he was being very fair...Oh wait. I wasn't too impressed with his admonishment of Bruce Cutler in front of the jury either. I forgot about that for a minute. I think doing what he did in front of the jurors was very poor judgment.
OT....Another judge that needs to step down is the one that will be trying Steve Gilmore's case in June. There is no way this man can be fair to Mr. Gilmore after all that has happened. In my opinion, he already showed his bias when he refused to accept the not guilty verdict.
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| billpavelic wrote: | In my opinion, Judge Larry Fidler has always been biased against Phil Spector and the defense motion seeking his recusal does not surprise me, in the least. In June of 2007, I accused Judge Fidler, in writing, of being involved in Judicial Misconduct and sought that he refrain from ruling on the Gag Motion, due his (court's) bias. The Gag Motion was swept under the rug, so as not to expose the LADA prosecutors and their friend Judge Fidler of being involved in the misconduct. The misconduct in question dealt with perjury, suborning perjury and condoning perjury.
Best,
Bill |
I missed a lot of the Spector trial, including the jury instructions part of it, so I can't say one way or the other. The parts I did observe, Judge Fidler appeared to be fair. I thought his yelling back at Bruce Cutler early on in the case was a bit unnecessary, but that's just me. 
What really bothers me is the fact that more judges are not abiding by the Canon of Judicial Ethics stating that "a judge must avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety," and remaining on a case when impropriety issues have been made public. Isn't that supposed to remove them from the case automatically? And this is not just in Los Angeles or in CA, but in many cities/towns nationwide. Don't even get me STARTED on the INeffectiveness of so-called "judicial inquiry and review commissions!"
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pia wrote: | From what I watched of the trial, I thought Judge Fidler was being fair UNTIL jury deliberations. When they came back at an impasse and he changed the instructions the way he did, I was floored.
Mine you now, I didn't watch every second of the trial so I am sure I missed a lot but up until that point, I did think he was being very fair...Oh wait. I wasn't too impressed with his admonishment of Bruce Cutler in front of the jury either. I forgot about that for a minute. I think doing what he did in front of the jurors was very poor judgment.
OT....Another judge that needs to step down is the one that will be trying Steve Gilmore's case in June. There is no way this man can be fair to Mr. Gilmore after all that has happened. In my opinion, he already showed his bias when he refused to accept the not guilty verdict. |
Wow, Pia, the judge in the Gilmore case REFUSED to accept the Not Guilty verdict? I've never heard of that happening before! I thought the judge (ANY judge) was bound by law to accept the jury's verdict whether he or she personally agreed with it or not.
You're absolutely correct, THAT judge should recuse himself, and if he doesn't, Mr. Gilmore's counsel should make a motion to have him removed from the case immediately, citing all of the reasons why.
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pia
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 208
Location: www.freecynthia.com
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't mean to stray this thread off topic but I do want to explain that. Please go here on the Gilmore forum and I will explain it as to not stray this any longer…
http://whatsayyou.net/post891.html#891
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billpavelic
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: JUDICIAL INCEST AND CODE OF ETHICS |
|
|
Overwhelming number of judges are former prosecutors. Even those few who make it from the private practice side, are "wanna" be prosecutors. The government attorneys become judges in the jurisdictions where they were prosecutors for many years. Judges are married to other prosecutors and law enforcement personnel and the "incestual" cycle is passed on from one generation to another. The same model applies to the judiciary at the Public Defender's Office and in the civil arena. The records are not kept so that the conflict of interest arguments are insulated and the internal inbreeding among criminal justice personnel protected.
The personal relationships that are maintained by the judiciary, the prosecutors office and law enforcement personnel is fair game to challenge. The right to impeach a witness, be they cops or prosecutors, is a fundamental right of every accuser. Very few citizens exercise that right. Those who rely on the Judicial, Prosecutorial or Law Enforcement "code of ethics" to keep the criminal justice system personnel in line are only fooling themselves. The “code of ethics” are simple guidelines designed to appease the outsiders and control the insiders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Re: JUDICIAL INCEST AND CODE OF ETHICS |
|
|
| billpavelic wrote: | Overwhelming number of judges are former prosecutors. Even those few who make it from the private practice side, are "wanna" be prosecutors. The government attorneys become judges in the jurisdictions where they were prosecutors for many years. Judges are married to other prosecutors and law enforcement personnel and the "incestual" cycle is passed on from one generation to another. The same model applies to the judiciary at the Public Defender's Office and in the civil arena. The records are not kept so that the conflict of interest arguments are insulated and the internal inbreeding among criminal justice personnel protected.
The personal relationships that are maintained by the judiciary, the prosecutors office and law enforcement personnel is fair game to challenge. The right to impeach a witness, be they cops or prosecutors, is a fundamental right of every accuser. Very few citizens exercise that right. Those who rely on the Judicial, Prosecutorial or Law Enforcement "code of ethics" to keep the criminal justice system personnel in line are only fooling themselves. The “code of ethics” are simple guidelines designed to appease the outsiders and control the insiders. |
Sadly, I noticed that the above is true, and anyone who is not an investigator or an investigative journalist has NO way to investigate what's going on underneath the surface and expose it to public scrutiny.
And those average citizens who don't have the immense funds to hire both a skilled defense attorney AND an experienced private investigator are probably going to be wrongfully convicted of whatever crime(s) they are charged with, even though they may very well be innocent. Forget about reporting the misconduct perpetrated by law enforcement officials at all levels that was done during trial to guarantee a conviction. The so-called "agencies" it is reported to aren't interested in doing anything that may bring their own dirty laundry into the open. I have found that out the hard way as well.
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RayStar
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| With the right jury, Phil Spector will be convicted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 8
Location: South Mississippi
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: Recusing Judge Fidler |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: |
"A reasonable observer would fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned not in an impartial effort to reach a jury verdict, whatever that might be, but rather to ensure a judgment of conviction," Weinberg stated.
If the above was true, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to know what was in Judge Fidler's mind, then I think he should recuse himself anyway. I don't know what the Judicial Canons of Ethics in CA are, but I would think one of them would still be that any judge has to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
I think it would be a good idea for him to recuse himself anyway, just to avoid that appearance. Just my opinion, however.
J |
It would seem to me that following your logic a judge should never preside over a retrial of a case on which he was the judge first time around. I disagree with that philosophy.
The weak point in Mr. Weinberg's clever words is that a "reasonable observer" could also fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned to correctly follow the law, not the more narrow interpretation that had been presented (in error IMO) to the jury earlier.
_________________
Live well, Laugh Often, Love Much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: Recusing Judge Fidler |
|
|
| PatC wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: |
"A reasonable observer would fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned not in an impartial effort to reach a jury verdict, whatever that might be, but rather to ensure a judgment of conviction," Weinberg stated.
If the above was true, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to know what was in Judge Fidler's mind, then I think he should recuse himself anyway. I don't know what the Judicial Canons of Ethics in CA are, but I would think one of them would still be that any judge has to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
I think it would be a good idea for him to recuse himself anyway, just to avoid that appearance. Just my opinion, however.
J |
It would seem to me that following your logic a judge should never preside over a retrial of a case on which he was the judge first time around. I disagree with that philosophy.
The weak point in Mr. Weinberg's clever words is that a "reasonable observer" could also fairly conclude that Judge Fidler's instructions were fashioned to correctly follow the law, not the more narrow interpretation that had been presented (in error IMO) to the jury earlier. |
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. There are many judges who have a prosecutorial mindset -- especially those who were former prosecutors before taking the bench -- and tend to believe any criminal defendant is "guilty" before the trial even begins. Such judges may not be able to avoid the temptation to give the jury instructions that will ensure a conviction rather than an acquittal.
As I said in my previous post, I don't know if Judge Fidler had the same bias toward Spector in his trial, but if he did, he should recuse himself from presiding over the second trial. A judge is supposed to be IMPARTIAL, that is his or her job. If any judge can't be impartial toward a criminal defendant, then that judge shouldn't preside over the second trial of that defendant. JMO
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 8
Location: South Mississippi
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no problem agreeing to disagree however, I don't really think we're that far off on this one. I am fully in agreement with your statement, "If any judge can't be impartial toward a criminal defendant, then that judge shouldn't preside over the second trial of that defendant. "
I was an avid trial watcher in the Spector trial and I honestly don't feel Judge Figler showed any bias against Spector. I can't quote specifics off the top of my head, but I recall thinking more than once that the poor prosecutor was swimming upstream against a plethora of defense attorneys AND the judge. LOL
_________________
Live well, Laugh Often, Love Much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
