IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALSECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT - DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,Plaintiff/Respondent,v.PHILLIP SPECTOR,Defendant/Appellant.)))))))))))

No. B216425

Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BA255233The Honorable Larry P. Fidler

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

DENNIS P. RIORDAN, Esq., No. 69320DONALD M. HORGAN, Esq., No. 121547RIORDAN & HORGAN523 Octavia StreetSan Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: (415) 431-3472CHARLES SEVILLA, Esq., No. 459301010 Second Ave., 1825San Diego CA 92101Telephone: (619) 232-2222Attorneys for AppellantPHILLIP SPECTOR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.THE INTRODUCTION AGAINST APPELLANT SPECTOR OFTESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS BY THE TRIAL JUDGEVIOLATED HIS STATE STATUTORY AND FEDERALCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND REQUIRES REVERSAL..............1A.Introduction..................................................1B.Respondent’s Claim of “Forfeiture” ...............................2C.Judge Fidler’s Statements and Gestures on the VideoWere Hearsay ................................................6D.The Prosecution’s Use of Judge Fidler’s StatementsViolated

Crawford

............................................10E.Judge Fidler’s Impermissible Dual Role...........................12F.The Error Was Prejudicial......................................141.Lintemoot’s Testimony and Gestures on the Videotape..........152.CALCRIM 3550........................................173.Respondent’s Assessment of the Trial Facts ..................184.The Difference Between The First and Second Trials...........23II.THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW BOTH IN ADMITTING EVIDENCEOF UNCHARGED BRANDISHING OFFENSES AND ININSTRUCTING THE JURY ON HOW THAT EVIDENCE COULDBE CONSIDERED.................................................24A.Introduction.................................................24-i-

Table of Contents continued

B.The Trial Court’s Instruction That The §1101(b) EvidenceCould be Used To Establish “That the Defendant Was thePerson Who Committed The Offense Alleged In This Case”Requires Reversal............................................26C.The Uncharged Offenses Were Not Admissible Under an“Absence of Mistake, Accident, or Suicide” Theory.................33D.The Uncharged Offense Evidence Was Inadmissibleon a Motive Theory...........................................371.The Prosecution’s Motive Theory in This Case Necessitated an Impermissible Inference RegardingSpector’s Character......................................392.The Admission of the Uncharged Offenses WasClear Error Because of the Absence of a SupportableTheory of Identity or Common Plan or Design................413.The Record Evidence Does Not Establish the SimilarityBetween Charged And Uncharged Offenses ..................44E.The Trial Court Did Not Properly Instruct on the Definitionof Motive...................................................46F.The Trial Court Did Not Properly Exercise Its DiscretionUnder Evidence Code Section 352...............................48G.The Trial Court Improperly Allowed the Prosecution to ArgueThat Appellant’s Conduct Demonstrated a Pattern...................53H.There Was Prejudice..........................................55-ii-