WHEN IT came to hiring expert witnesses for his murder defence, Phil Spector went for the top of the line.
The scientists he retained to analyse evidence in the fatal shooting of an actress are a Who’s Who of American forensics, the men who wrote the textbooks for their fields.
But if the conclusions of this high-profile scientific team have helped Spector’s cause, the conduct of two members has left his defence vulnerable.
In his first trial, a judge concluded that Dr Henry Lee, the forensic scientist who gained worldwide notice for his work on the OJ Simpson murder trial, hid or destroyed a potentially important piece of evidence from the death scene.
And this month at Spector’s retrial, another scientist was accused by prosecutors of perjuring himself during testimony about bloodstains. The allegations set up the unusual tableau of the judge reading expert James Pex his rights as he sat on the witness stand.
Prosecutors have portrayed the alleged misconduct as part of a larger effort by the noted experts to twist the evidence to the music producer’s benefit as they racked up huge bills – in Pex’s case, $66,000 (€52,000). But Spector’s lawyer contests the accusations, and says prosecutors are attacking the scientists when they cannot challenge their science.
The clashes highlight the hard-fought nature of every piece of forensic evidence in a case where there are two competing versions of events and no eyewitness testimony. Spector and Lana Clarkson (40) were alone in his home six years ago when a revolver discharged in her mouth.
Spector faces 18 years in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. His defence claims Clarkson shot herself.
The effect of the attacks on the experts’ credibility is unclear. In the first trial, the defence touted Lee as its star witness, but after the judge found he mishandled evidence, he balked at testifying. The defence opted not to call him, instead relying on others to make the case for suicide. That jury split 10-2, in favour of conviction.
In this case, Spector’s lawyer claims Pex simply mixed up some photographs that were extraneous to his testimony. But prosecutors are expected to tell jurors in their closing arguments that Pex is a perjurer whose every conclusion should be disregarded.
Pex, a retired laboratory director from Oregon who has appeared on Good Morning America, Dateline and the Discovery Channel, also faces the prospect of criminal prosecution.
Under questioning he pointed out what he said was blood spatter on the grip of the gun and said it indicated Spector couldn’t have been clutching the weapon when it went off. A “more probable circumstance”, he told the jury, was that Clarkson pressed the trigger.
Pex supplemented his conclusions with photos of experiments he said he conducted in October with a blood-soaked sponge and a Colt Cobra, the type of gun used in the shooting.
But on cross-examination the next day, the prosecution confronted him with evidence showing that some of the photos were from a previous experiment with a different weapon.
Superior court judge Larry Paul Fidler said he did not have enough evidence to determine whether misconduct had occurred, but before jurors returned to the courtroom the judge informed Pex that based on the perjury allegations he had the right to an lawyer.
“I read my transcripts from yesterday. I don’t need one,” Pex replied.
The tense courtroom scene with Pex recalled the controversy involving Lee in 2007. The Connecticut scientist was summoned to the courtroom to answer charges by two former members of the defence team who said they saw him recover a small white object from the death scene. Prosecutors said he never turned it over to them and speculated that it might have been a piece of fingernail that could advance their case.
Lee denied picking up such an item, but the judge said he found the testimony of a former defence lawyer more credible and allowed prosecutors to call the lawyer as a witness.
Lee says he wants nothing to do with the Spector proceeding. “I refuse to participate in the case . . . nobody is interested in the facts and the truth,” he said. He has turned his attention to the training of law enforcement in evidence-collection, he said.