Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
P. 1
B216425 Spector v People Appellant Response

B216425 Spector v People Appellant Response

Ratings: (0)|Views: 477|Likes:
Published by Betsy A. Ross
Final appellant brief.
Final appellant brief.

More info:

Published by: Betsy A. Ross on Dec 15, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2011

pdf

text

original

 
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.Respondents 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 Fidlers Impermissible Dual Role...........................12F.The Error Was Prejudicial......................................141.Lintemoots Testimony and Gestures on the Videotape..........152.CALCRIM 3550........................................173.Respondents Assessment of the Trial Facts ..................184.The Difference Between The First and Second Trials...........23II.THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR UNDESTATE 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 anAbsence of Mistake, Accident, or SuicideTheory.................33D.The Uncharged Offense Evidence Was Inadmissibleon a Motive Theory...........................................371.The Prosecutions Motive Theory in This Case Necessitated an Impermissible Inference RegardingSpectors 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 Appellants Conduct Demonstrated a Pattern...................53H.There Was Prejudice..........................................55-ii-

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->