# Why has it taken so long to put Phil Spector on trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 19, 2007, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592 "2007-03-19T17:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/1 "2007-03-19T17:32:28Z")
This article rehashes the details: > **[Spector murder trial starts with screening of potential jurors](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-mar-20-me-spector20-story.html)** > > Candidates who are not dismissed are to return next month for questioning by lawyers. But why would it take 4 years for him to be tried? ---
**Author:** ![teela\_brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d9b06d/32.png) [@teela\_brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/teela_brown)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/2 "2007-03-19T23:50:05Z")
I’m bumping up your question, **cher3** , because I’m wondering, too. The mansion this nutcase lives in is about 1/2 mile from my childhood home. It’s a weird old castly kind of place which is placed incongruously in the middle of a plain old suburb, at the top of an isolated hill. We kids thought it was a kind of haunted, menacing place back in the 60s, and what do you know, it fulfilled the promise! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/3 "2007-03-20T02:34:46Z")
[smartass answers] 1) Because the investigation got multi-tracked. 2) Because the prosecutor is a courtroom perfectionist. 3) Because the defense team put up a wall of defense motions. 4) Creative differences… [/sa] ---
**Author:** ![postcards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8e8cbc/32.png) [@postcards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postcards)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/4 "2007-03-20T14:57:20Z")
[QUOTE=The Scrivener] [smartass answers] …Because the defense team put up a wall of defense motions…[/sa] [/QUOTE] But was it a wall of _sound_ defense motions? ---
**Author:** ![Caridwen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@Caridwen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caridwen)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/5 "2007-03-20T19:03:55Z")
Because he had to get some new wigs made. > **[Seriously? OMG! WTF? » Love or hate Phil Spector’s new look?](https://seriouslyomg.com/love-or-hate-phil-spectors-new-look/)** > > Seriously? OMG! WTF? - ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/6 "2007-03-20T21:17:23Z")
> [@](#): > > How long will the trial last? Our client is a millionaire, and we get paid by the hour. Any questions? -Cartoon posted in the Jury Assembly room, Van Nuys California Superior Court. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/7 "2007-03-20T22:29:00Z")
The single greatest hitch so far has been for the district attorney and the defense lawyers to get through the juror selection process. Due to an unprecedented flurry of objections and eliminations, they now have a jury consisting entirely of attractive, slender African-American women between the ages of 18-29. Strangely, they’re all wearing the same dress… ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/8 "2007-03-20T22:31:48Z")
[QUOTE=The Scrivener] The single greatest hitch so far has been for the district attorney and the defense lawyers to get through the juror selection process. Due to an unprecedented flurry of objections and eliminations, they now have a jury consisting entirely of attractive, slender African-American women between the ages of 18-29. Strangely, they’re all wearing the same dress… [/QUOTE] Oddly enough, I was in the courtroom across the hall from his trial today and missed this. This saddens me. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/9 "2007-03-20T22:33:01Z")
I’m starting to suspect y’all don’t have any idea either. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/10 "2007-03-20T22:42:40Z")
[QUOTE=cher3] I’m starting to suspect y’all don’t have any idea either. [/QUOTE] If I had the ability to pull the docket on his case for free, I would. In lieu of that, however, my best guess would correlate, at least partially, with The Scrivener’s comments. There have probably been numerous hearings regarding discovery in the case (again, having the docket and minute orders would tell this tale). Additionally, trying to set a trial date where the court, the prosecutor and defense attorney(s) can all calendar what I assume will be weeks for a trial can be complicated business. And when new motions get filed based on discovery that has been turned over, sometimes the trial has to get pushed back. Meaning that all three “sides” have to try to find a NEW portion of the calendar year where everyone can set aside the requisite amount of time to hold the trial. If there’s a lot of discovery that gets turned over to the defense in phases, you can expect a lot of motions and a lot of trial delays. Again, that’s all hypothetical on my part – I haven’t really read anything about this case in years, and I have no idea how long the trial is expected to last. But I don’t think I’m making unreasonable assumptions. And for the record, IANAL, but I work for a law firm and probably have just enough knowledge to prove I don’t know what I’m talking about. Perhaps a real lawyer will jump in here and provide a better answer. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/11 "2007-03-20T22:59:31Z")
Four years is a long time to get a case into court, but it’s not _that_ long. Bear in mind that a lot of stuff is happening in pretrial that isn’t making the news. Spector fired his attorney and hired a new one, which might have set things back. Following that, there were some pretrial hearings where the defense attempted to suppress some incriminating statements Spector made that would have set things back further. There were a few more delays after that due to scheduling conflicts - first the defense and prosecution both had conflicts, and when the judge reset the case he accidentally set it at the same time as another case, so he had to reset it yet again. Each one of these hearings and resets is a few months apart, and it added up. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/12 "2007-03-20T23:14:25Z")
[QUOTE=Asimovian] my best guess would correlate, at least partially, with The Scrivener’s comments. [/QUOTE] Heh. If I managed to get anything right, even in a half-assed way, in a legal thread, it would be a precedent. A legal precedent. [QUOTE=Cher3] I’m starting to suspect y’all don’t have any idea either. [/QUOTE] And we weisenheimers thank you for your grace and forebearance in putting up with us. :)But, half seriously, the principle that no publicity is bad publicity probably applies to GQ threads, too. The viewings and postings that begin with wisecracks and puns can send a thread that was earlier languishing on Pg. 2 to near the top of Pg. 1 (with a bullet!) and keep it there, attracting further viewings and ultimately even some mod-jockeying – and before you can say “payola,” you’ve got a monster hit thread on your hands! In short, the wisecracks are like so much word-of-mouth that helps sell the single, so to speak. I hope you’re not still royalty pissed off. If so, I suppose we could cut-out it out, but that won’t necessarily help move the merch. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2007, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/13 "2007-03-20T23:57:53Z")
[QUOTE=The Scrivener] 1. Because the investigation got multi-tracked. [/QUOTE] Back to mono! ---
**Author:** ![Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f0a364/32.png) [@Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rube_E.Tewesday)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/14 "2007-03-21T12:45:36Z")
I also have a shrewd suspicion that the police and the D.A.'s office, still stinging from O.J., moved as slowly and methodically as they could. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/15 "2007-03-21T18:48:23Z")
Considering Spector has been out on bail the whole time, the DA must have been comfortable he wouldn’t da do run run. ---
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/16 "2007-03-21T19:08:57Z")
I’m not royalty of any kind and I’ve been around here long enough to expect sauce with the meat. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/17 "2007-03-21T19:29:46Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] Four years is a long time to get a case into court, but it’s not _that_ long. Bear in mind that a lot of stuff is happening in pretrial that isn’t making the news. Spector fired his attorney and hired a new one, which might have set things back. Following that, there were some pretrial hearings where the defense attempted to suppress some incriminating statements Spector made that would have set things back further. There were a few more delays after that due to scheduling conflicts - first the defense and prosecution both had conflicts, and when the judge reset the case he accidentally set it at the same time as another case, so he had to reset it yet again. Each one of these hearings and resets is a few months apart, and it added up. [/QUOTE] And to boil a lot of this down, isn’t it correct that the defense forfeits the right to a speedy trial if it’s their own motions that cause the delay? But the prosecution, by itself, can’t delay the process can it? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/18 "2007-03-21T20:13:49Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] And to boil a lot of this down, isn’t it correct that the defense forfeits the right to a speedy trial if it’s their own motions that cause the delay? But the prosecution, by itself, can’t delay the process can it? [/QUOTE] Yes to the first and sometimes to the second. Courts use four factors known as the “Barker Factors” (from [Barker v. Wingo](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=407&invol=514), 407 U.S. 504 (1972)) in determining whether the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated. The Barker Factors are length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. If the primary reason for the delay is because of the defendant’s own motions, he’s going to be hard pressed to claim that his right to a speedy trial has been violated. If it’s the prosecution’s delay, it will depend on why they’re doing it. Dilatory tatcics to unfairly gain an advantage will weigh more heavily than delaying to secure a crucial witness. A speedy trial challenge wouldn’t do much for Spector: the reasons for the delay have been legitimate and at least partly his doing, and he probably couldn’t show much prejudice bacause he’s not awaiting trial in the slammer. ---
**Author:** ![teela\_brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d9b06d/32.png) [@teela\_brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/teela_brown)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/19 "2007-03-21T23:27:22Z")
Is it too early to speculate just what claims the defense will make to persuade anyone that this woman committed suicide in Spector’s home? Somehow I just can’t see someone going home with someone from a club and then deciding to blow one’s head off. Unless she abruptly got a good look at him under a strong light. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-it-taken-so-long-to-put-phil-spector-on-trial/396592/20 "2007-03-22T15:25:29Z")
Well, she was an middle-aged actress having increasing trouble getting roles and making ends meet as she grew older, and I suppose people have killed themselves over less. As far as forensics go, there’s the “smoking fingernail”: > [@](#): > > The issue before the court was an item of evidence that the prosecution believed the defense was withholding: a piece of Lana Clarkson’s partially blackened “gunpowder-covered thumbnail,” as Reuters described it. > > After the proceedings Abramson told reporters that they did not have the nail. “We don’t have a piece of the nail. If I had a piece of nail, I’d blow it up poster-sized and put it on every billboard in Los Angeles County.” > > [snip] > > The thumbnail could determine the case against Spector. If a jury can be convinced that the nail broke in a struggle for the gun and the gunpowder residue came as a result of Clarkson putting her hand up to protect her face, they very well might find Spector guilty of murder. However, if the defense can prove that the gunpowder on the nail was in fact blowback from Clarkson firing the gun into her own mouth, Abramson might succeed in persuading the jury that her client is innocent. If the disputed fingernail comes to light, the defense intends to have it analyzed by forensic expert Henry Lee, who also testified at the O.J. Simpson trial. [http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious\_murders/celebrity/phil\_spector/5.html](http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/celebrity/phil_spector/5.html)