nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 217
Do you have a legal question for our verified attorneys? Post them here for an answer. This is a *no discussion/ question and answer thread*
YesorNo posted this in another thread this afternoon, AZlawyer. She asked me to repost it here. Please excuse me if the format is skewed:
Quote Originally Posted by Curious in Indiana View Post
Starting bid $500? So is that what Travis' life has been reduced to? Can't the courts in AZ stop this madness!
BBM seems that the court should be able to stop it:
"...C. An inmate shall not send mail to or receive mail from a communication service provider or remote computing service. The department shall impose appropriate sanctions, including reducing or denying earned release credits, against an inmate if either of the following applies:
1. The inmate corresponds or attempts to correspond with a communication service provider or remote computing service.
2. Any person accesses the provider's or service's internet web site at the inmate's request..."
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....31&DocType=ARS
But- what do I know.
First of all, JA is not in prison yet, because she hasn't been sentenced. Second, that statute was (correctly) found unconstitutional pretty quickly after it was enacted. :judge:
Too bad.
Do you think that all the sealed hearings will be unsealed at the end of this trial or will they remain sealed pending all appeals?
Asking because I really really want to know what was going on back there.
I don't understand why the need to keep things sealed in case of a retrial. What kinds of things could never see the light of day?
Will Arias, now that she is a convicted murderer, have to wear her black and white stripes in this sentencing trial? I believe that if she is allowed to wear street clothes, it will not be an accurate representation of her.
This is the first case I have ever heard about where a defendent openly asked and wants her attorney to be replaced, and the attorney (Nurmi) openly admitted he doesnt like the defendent.
My question is does the judge have a legal basis to refuse the defendent's request to want another attorney?
Especially when both of them don't want each other.
I am honestly amazed at this, and not sure about the legal part of the judge refusing to allow him to be replaced when both want him replaced.
I was wondering why the state is going first right now?
Also, Nurmi said he intends to call Juan Martinez to the stand in this trial if his request for misconduct isn't granted. What's your opinion on that?