The Pellicano Trial: Setting the Table

For a while, it seemed as if Anthony Pellicano, the former detective to the stars, would never go to trial. But yesterday in federal court, with the Honorable Judge Dale S. Fischer presiding, it became clear that today the trial would finally begin. One defense attorney had the gumption to try and buy a few days to prepare for her opening remarks, but Judge Fischer quickly shut her down. The Judge was adamant that there would be no more postponements and that everybody had better buckle their seat belts, because this baby was going forward.

Over the next few weeks, my intention is to keep you completely informed on everything interesting that's happening in court -- including sharing with you all the details that I've learned during my two plus year of covering this story.

For those of you who may have forgotten over the course of the last two years, Anthony Pellicano, the main defendant in this trial, used to be the go-to-private detective and good friend to Hollywood's rich and powerful until his star got tarnished by a 30 month prison sentence on federal weapons violations. Just when Pellicano was about to taste freedom and return to his former glory days, he was indicted in February of 2006 on federal wiretapping and conspiracy charges. Ever since then, the former private detective has been languishing in jail, waiting for his day in court. This morning at 8:30 a.m. PT, Pellicano and his strange collection of co-defendants--a former detective, computer genius, telephone company worker and businessman--will begin the process of picking a jury in federal court.

Although he's been represented by counsel over the last two years, Mr. Pellicano recently opted to represent himself at his trial, an interesting and potentially suicidal decision for a guy who, if convicted, could end up spending the rest of his life in prison. Yet despite the obvious difficulties of representing yourself when you're still in custody and allegedly too poor to pay for any kind of legal assistance, Mr. Pellicano hasn't changed his mind or been shy about chatting about his situation. Yesterday he spent his time at the microphone, telling the court that he's having a few problems representing himself which include a) not getting funds for a paralegal, b) not getting relevant documents from the prosecutors; c) being awakened at 4:00 a.m. for an 8:30 a.m. hearing and d) not being allowed to carry his documents to and from court in a cardboard box.

Since the Judge basically did everything but shoot Mr. Pellicano in the neck with a poison dart to dissuade him from representing himself, she's now in "told you so" mode--as in not terribly compassionate about his situation. She suggested that Mr. Pellicano cart his documents around in a plastic bag--a suggestion that seemed so repugnant to the formerly stylish defendant that he was speechless.

Mr. Pellicano, a man once known around town for his fashionable designer suits and form fitting t-shirts, also took a moment of the court's time yesterday to address the issue of his wardrobe during trial. Not wanting the jury to draw any inferences from his prison attire--usually a over-sized green jacket and ill-fitting shirt--he requested that the Judge instruct the jury that his prison attire was due to the fact that he lacked the funds to make bail and get out of jail. Pellicano's request for a jury "clothing instruction" caused prosecutor Daniel A. Saunders to jump to his feet and counter that Pellicano's prison attire had nothing to do with him being indigent. Rather, Mr. Saunders argued that the reason for Mr. Pellicano's prison attire was because the court had found that he was a flight risk and a danger to others and had denied him bail. Mr. Saunders asked the court to merely tell the jury that they were to draw no inference from the clothes Mr. Pellicano was wearing. Or, I imagine, from the fact that he will be chained to his chair during the trial.

Since this trial is expected to last at least eight weeks, I expect that the prospective jurors will take turns today trying their best to find ways to get off of this trial. And, given the way the Judge reacted to their questionnaires, that's not going to be easy. It seems that the Judge will allow hearing disabled jurors on the panel (she plans to get them some hearing devices); she's okay with jurors who have language problems (this is a California jury, after all) and nobody is going to walk just because they don't understand legal terms (just ask the OJ jurors.) So, the only thing that is probably going to get someone excused from this trial is if they slit their wrists in open court or actually manage to persuade this Judge that they're a friend of Mr. Pellicano's--and even that is looking like a long shot these days.

Finally, if jury selection is completed today, opening arguments will begin on Thursday. Prosecutors indicated yesterday that they will be referring to audio recordings in their opening remarks and perhaps, even playing a few. And even though the prosecution indicated that it would be starting the trial by calling some expert computer witnesses (yes, that is exciting), several high profile witnesses/alleged Pellicano victims have already been subpoenaed to testify for the government. I've learned that at least a few have been told by the government that they won't be taking the stand until next week at the earliest.

Comments

[gamecock1969]

Yeah, I sure don't want another liar in the Oval Office. I've had Reagan, "We did not trade arms for hostages", among some of his lies. And Bush's lies and his cronyism, corruption and who has us bogged down in 2 quagmires based on lies, hype and cherry picking intelligence.

Forget the fact that Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of over 3000 American soldiers and the wounds and loss of limbs of thousands of others while he cut our benefits, he at least didn't have sex in the Oval Office. WOW! Isn't that special?

[marlin336w]

Guess what happened here? The author forgot to mention that Pellicano was the Private Detective Hillary hired to harass all those Bill Clinton "extra curricular activity" women who came forward and was giving them so much trouble. Pellicano was going around threatening the women, while Hillary was screaming "vast right wing conspiracy" while Bill was being "handled" by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Imagine that, the Clintons threatening innocent people because they told the truth. IRS audits done at Presidential request, private detectives to threaten lives and family, and lies told to the American public on TV while wagging your finger at the TV camera. Sounds like the "MOST OPEN AND HONEST ADMINISTRATION" to me...how about you? Do you liberals REALLY want that back? Elect the Clinton trailer trash to the Democratic nomination and there is a distinct possibility the country will get it all back again. Talk about legacy! More lies, more theft, more campaign shenanigans, more illicit pardons, more bombs dropped on innocent civilians (see Kosovo since 1993), lies about releasing her/his tax returns (what are they hiding there I wonder...remember the $5,000,000 she loaned herself for this campaign), more of all that GOOD STUFF you liberals have been just crying for.....or maybe, you'll rethink this Hillary and Bill Clinton history (hey she claims she is qualified because they were a team...yet another lie when you look at the history which is why they refuse to release her records from the Clinton Library), then come to your senses and vote for Barak Obama who is at least honest. Hillary is a lot of things, shrill, mean, foul mouthed, and just a misserable person. I would say deal with that except that America needs an honest person as President. Neither Clinton qualifies, no matter how they try to spin it.

[Garvagh]

This could be one of the great legal stories of the past 25 years, I will follow with interest!

[wrabbitt]

Shakespeare was right! two years and counting and how much money on the three ring circus called a trial? The victims have no rights anymore! Our legal system works for the criminal, OJ was guilty as sin but, he was tried twice! once guilty once not if he was guilty of murder would he have to pay Goldman? Our antiquated legal system has been blind for years now its stupid too Like Ron White said "You can't fix stupid"!

[wordsilk]

Who cares if the defendant was dapper -- what are the details of this case and why should we care?

[Garvagh]

Why should we care? Illegal wiretapping by lawyers trying to gain unfair advantage in litigation is something not be worry anyone?

[Pantelleria01]

Your article has the flavor of "guilty" floating around in it, like pepper in potato soup. Is that your intention?

I would like to know more details on the actual charges. The charges you specified seem rather vague, Who, what, where, when, why?

Interesting doings. Thanks.

[TheKat]

Oh no, simply "everything?" But why do we care?

kitty kaufman

[outnow]

I remember when Pellicano was the "spokesperson" for Michael Jackson. He had been hired to intimidate the victims I suppose. The victims"just wanted money" and so did Mr. Pellicano. No comment on what Jackson wanted. Money does such strange things - actually people do it, and the money only magnifies the "weirdness." Then it all ends up on TV, in the tabloids or in court.