That "fact" section angered me too. A lot. It is outrageous that she is seemingly allowed to continue peddling her vicious lies even after she has been convicted of first degree murder.
But, taking a step back, two things imo are obvious:
1. As JM said, this trial was always about a gun and a knife and a slaughter that was premeditated.
The jury voted on a gun and a knife and whether or not the slaughter was premeditated. They weren't asked to vote on whether or not they were persuaded that Travis was a pedophile, or a sexual predator , or a bad Mormon, or a bad person.
Neither were they asked to vote on whether or not the was a liar or a horrible person. Their only job was to decide whether or not she was a person who premeditated killing Travis Alexander.
Why that distinction matters is that because the jury is silent on the individual elements of a defense case, yes, technically POSA is entitled to state her testimony as "fact."
2. Why IMO it was not very smart of POSA to present so much of her testimony at all, much less to include so many of her most egregious lies, is because it will be an easy task for the State to neutralize these "facts" by noting how thoroughly the 's testimony on those matters was impeached at trial.
And that's if they even bother to refute those "facts" individually in their response brief.
The State doesn't need to do so, actually. The "facts" presented were, at minimum, contested at trial, and POSA's presentation of them as unchallenged facts weakens their credibility.
As much or more to the point: the "facts" as presented weaken POSA's appeal (imo) because they insult the Court's intelligence by gliding over, almost entirely, the inconvenient actual facts presentee by the State that led a jury to convict the of first degree murder.
Bad idea. Bad attorneys. Bad appeal
