Posted on 05/28/2007 5:20:00 PM PDT by Hal1950
LOS ANGELES- Five weeks into the Phil Spector murder trial, it's time for the prosecution to change course, moving the courtroom drama from personal stories into the critical phase of forensic evidence. Fans of "CSI" are likely to be riveted.
Now there will be discussions of blood spatter, fibers, gunshot residue, DNA and the path a bullet took when it killed actress Lana Clarkson.
A coroner and crime lab technicians are due on the witness stand beginning Tuesday to explain how such evidence can offer insight into what happened at Spector's castle-like mansion on Feb. 3, 2003.
A gunshot that lasted a second will be dissected for days on the witness stand.
"The prosecution has to show that the forensic evidence is consistent with their theory that Spector pulled the trigger or forced her to pull the trigger," said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson.
"This is a critical stage because this is where the defense has their focus," she said. "They have to anticipate what the defense is going to do."
"We have one unimpeachable witness who has no motive to lie, no memory problems, no language problems and that witness is science," said Kenney-Baden, an attorney whose specialty is forensic evidence. Her husband, Michael Baden, a renowned forensic pathologist, is expected to testify for the defense.
But first the prosecution will present an array of its own experts, mostly the staff of the police crime lab and coroner's office. Prosecutors will call no outside experts although they could have some waiting to testify in the rebuttal case if necessary.
"Lana Clarkson will have to tell her story through the evidence and from the grave," prosecutor Alan Jackson said in his opening statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
The Freakshow Trial continues. At least he cut the ‘fro.
“We have one unimpeachable witness who has no motive to lie, no memory problems, no language problems and that witness is science,” said Kenney-Baden, an attorney whose specialty is forensic evidence.”
Well, they had that same witness in Durham, too; he was named DNA. And for a year nobody believed him, because they wanted to believe the defendants were guilty.
In some cases, being innocent isn’t enough. You also have to be PC and have the media on your side . . .
Very sad and very true.
This is the part where the defense thinks they have it all wrapped up. Should be very interesting.
So far their ‘wrap up’ hasn’t been too impressive, but it did produce one funny moment this afternoon when a defense attorney, questioning Doctor Pena who had stated he was unaware of any study on a certain issue asked him:
“Well, do you know of any study you’re unaware of?”
You can count on that one ending up in the ‘great moments in trial transcripts’ file.
Is this the doc who testified about the tongue bruise being indicative of trauma before the gun was fired?
Yes. He’s actually a pretty tough subject to cross-examine because he doesn’t come across as an officious jerk, doesn’t get agitated when questioned, and keeps adopting the defense questions to go into these long narratives that aren’t helpful to them.
The defense is continuing to flop back and forth between citing a witness in favor of the issues they agree on, then trying to attack the credibility of that same witness when they disagree. I think the jury can see the contradiction. They’re far better off limiting their attack to the unfavorable evidence, then using their own witness to make their points. They’re at risk of having to say in summation, that the prosecution witness, who they’ve tried to paint as an idiot, was only an idiot when he disgreed with them, and was a fine scientist in other areas. Most jurys will see through that.
Rarely have I seen someone with his presence and ability to do a “summation”! Quite clever and a real jewel in the prosecution’s crown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.