NotMyselfNEMore
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 233
Oh for heaven's sake. It sure looks like it's a motion to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing the case. I have no idea what grounds they could cite; I mean, there are 5 or 6 three-judge panels there, so it's hard to imagine ALL of them should be disqualified.
To give you an example of when something like that would happen, a couple of months ago the entire AZ Supreme Court (only 5 judges, though, not like the Court of Appeals) recused themselves from a case that would affect their personal pension plans. Five Court of Appeals judges who had started after the pension rules changed were assigned to deal with the case instead.
Thank you AZL! Don't know if you still check in, but the article the motion refers to seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and only referencing the penalty phase of the trial
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/
Are they arguing that she can't be considered guilty by a judge after she's been found guilty by a jury? That the penatly phase should be thrown out here? Or are they just trying to cause confusion, and hope it sticks?
The whole argument in the motion makes no sense, IMO - Or did I miss something?
Whether you answer or not, thanks AZL, love that you're here!