Spector Jury Gets New Instructions

Music producer Phil Spector, right, is seen with his attorney Roger Rosen during his murder trial at the Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles, Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2007. The judge in Phil Spector's trial retracted his idea of giving the deadlocked jury a new instruction Wednesday on a lesser charge than second-degree murder, saying it would be tantamount to telling them to convict the record producer of involuntary manslaughter. (AP Photo/Pool, Gabriel Bouys) (Gabriel Bouys - AP)

Fidler told the panel that to prove Spector guilty, prosecutors must prove that Spector "committed an act with a firearm that caused the death of Lana Clarkson, such as placing a gun in her mouth or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth at which time it discharged, pointing the gun at or against her head at which time it entered her mouth and discharged, pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving the house, causing a struggle which resulted the gun entering her mouth and discharging."

Fidler then added a caution.

"By using these examples I am not suggesting that any of these acts took place. These are inferences you may draw from the evidences but are not required to do so. You may reject them. These are only possibilities that you may consider," the judge said.

The judge also told jurors that to convict, the act by the defendant must be more than "drawing or exhibiting a firearm in the presence of Lana Clarkson in a rude, angry or threatening manner" and that he had to have had a state of mind called "malice aforethought," which does not require hatred or ill-will toward the victim, or deliberation.

Defense attorney Bradley Brunon objected during the legal debate, saying the judge was drafting an instruction that offered the jury numerous hypotheticals on how Spector might have caused Clarkson's death but did not include any of the defense arguments on how Clarkson might have caused her own death.

"Why don't we give them equivalent scenarios" for the defense point of view, Brunon said.

The exasperated judge said that if the defense wanted to reargue the case "that opportunity exists."

"You can't retry the case after a week of deliberations ... there really is no viable alternative other than to mistry it and do it right the next time. There's no way out of it," Brunon said.

The judge refused to declare a mistrial.

"The judge gave the prosecution everything they wanted and some things they didn't even ask for," said Stan Goldman, a Loyola University Law School professor who was observing in the courtroom. "He has in some respect turned the defense team's case potentially against them. All of the defense experts said she fired the gun."