Phil Spector lawyers seek a rehearing of the appeal

LOS ANGELES--lawyers for music producer Phil Spector have asked an appellate court to take a second look to his arguments for a new trial, arguing that the Court ignored a defence argument that the trial judge had violated its neutrality in the case.

In a petition to the California 2nd District Court of appeal, prosecutors said rejection of the Court of appeal from conviction for the murder of Spector left disbelieving legal community.

They suggested that the Court failed to consider that the judge of the superior court Larry Paul Fidler has violated its neutrality by allowing the prosecution show photographs of him among the witnesses for the prosecution. They said that this was coupled with a video of the judge explaining the evidence forensic key.

Dennis Riordan, joined by fellow attorneys Charles Sevilla, Donald M. Horgan, argued that the jury watched the band in a prosecution closing arguments, what has become the judge a witness.

"No aspect of the trial was more surprising," Riordan said, noting that in the discussions in the legal community, "the assertion that the prosecutors included several images of the President of the Tribunal among the photos of their witnesses is completed without exception by shocked disbelief."

Spector, a legendary rock music producer, was sentenced to two years ago actress fatally shooting Lana Clarkson in his Alhambra hotel in 2003. He is serving a sentence of 19 years to life in prison on a conviction of second degree murder.

His first trial ended in a hung jury. the second ended in conviction.

Video of Fidler was a hearing in which the trial judge said evidence forensic on back spatter of blood on the wrist of Clarkson. The appeal cited a Prosecutor to jurors: "see with your own eyes where (the expert)" and the judge indicated splashes back was the wrist of Lana. ""

That and other statements Fidler a Crown witness, Riordan said, and the defence had no chance to cross-examine him.

Riordan said that a judge is prohibited to testify on one side or the other in a trial, over which he presides. When the defence lawyers asked the judge said jurors his comments were not part of the evidence, Fidler refused, they said.

In rejecting the initial appeal of defence, the Court of appeal of California has validated the Fidler shares. May 2, notice found on the question of the video, "power of a Court of first instance, indeed responsibility, to clarify the evidence is well established in California."

The new defence petition shouted a reference to this notice that said the Judicial Committee did a not address the Fidler photos because it was not raised as an independent issue in brief opening. Lawyers said Spector in the new call that "the Court may not avoid face to the importance of the photographic exhibition on the basis of a procedural bar".

Riordan said the defense may be taking other issues in appeal before the Supreme Court of California, but that the Court of appeal must first consider the display of the photo, which was "the factual cornerstone of the Federal constitutional claims of the defendant".