Do celebrities accused of criminal actions get off easily?
This has been a subject of debate ever since the O.J. Simpson trial.
Some believe that reasonable doubt doesn't matter in celebrity cases
because they say that jurors opinions may already be pre-formulated
based on their opinions of a celebrity's status or fame.
Court TV is currently covering the Phil Spector murder trial, while the majority of celebrity crime cases turn into "circuses" as far as I can tell in the course of the Phil Spector trial, it has proceeded unbiasedly and without any pre-formulated notions.
Phil Spector is accused of killing actress Lana Clarkson (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) in February 2003. As a writer it is not my place to condemn, but rather to report on the facts as they are presented. Phil Spector, according to people that knew the music producer had a history of eccentric and manic depressive behavior.
The prosecution would have us believe that history in itself points to Spector's guilt. I do not think this is true, all facts for this case are independent of any prior behavior.I believe that reasonable doubt cannot be overlooked.
I believe condemning someone based on prior behavior opens anyone up to be judged for past mistakes.
The defense stated that they believed Clarkson killed herself.They presented people they say are experts or witnesses that they say knew Lana Clarkson to support their beliefs.
Ultimately I believe the evidence speaks for itself and that guilty or innocent it will be figured out reasonably after weighing the evidence.
I believe the jury will use their God-given wisdom and make an unbiased determination of guilt or innocence instead of making any leaps
