Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

New Posts

Love Never Fails said:
Excellent post. The comment about her never going free? I am not so sure. It would never be because she deserves leniency. <modsnip: Politicizing is not allowed>
Click to expand...

For whatever it is or isn't worth, I'm 100% certain she will not be granted a retrial, at least of the guilt phase, which in her case means no chance at freedom, ever.

I. Her 2 paths to a second shot at anything:

1. A successful appeal to the AZ SC (which isn't going to agree to hear her case), which is why she's apparently already preparing for option 2 of 2:

2. Post Conviction Relief (PCR). I've posted this umpty ump times, but one last time. She isn't guaranteed even a hearing on whatever she comes up with in her petition for a PCR.

The trial judge (JSS in this case) is the sole person who decides the petition's merits & whether to grant any hearing of any kind.

II. The only 2 grounds available for her to base her arguments for a new trial, etc., are:

a. Ineffective counsel
b. New evidence, that couldn't have been known at the time of trial, AND, that if known, would have more likely than not have changed the jury's verdict.

Context: PCR's are successful in AZ no more often than about one (1) percent of the time. The end, really. And if you look at the political context of this trial, the end about 1,000x times over. Getting rid of JM is only the most recent indication of just how DONE & OVER the AZ legal system is with the p.o.butcherer. :D

Nurmi's (real) disbarment offences occurred post trial. Whatever else can or can't be said about him, he provided her a "vigorous" defense," one that will be unassailable when & if it is heard in PCR considerations, especially when/if heard by Nurmi- battered JSS. ;)

III. Last word on this. Even if every single outrageous, unsupported, unproven & IMO entirely unethical charge against JM levied by the unethical Karen Clark were in some parallel, abstract universe, true & accurate? Wouldn't make any difference whatsoever legally. Because:

1. JM agreed to be disbarred BEFORE any one of those charges against him was litigated by the Bar at ( a Bar) trial.

2. JM's attorney expressly stated that JM's acceptance of the disbarment penalty was NOT an acknowledgement of wrongdoing that had any bearing on any criminal proceedings of any kind (including p.o. butcherer's trial).

3. NONE- as in zero, nothing, not any- of the baseless & legally unproven allegations against JM had ANYTHING to do with her guilt phase trial. Meaning, her guilt phase trial verdict of GUILTY remains & will remain 100% intact.

IV. What's left? The sentencing phase verdict. Ditto the above (plus other reasons) the first round mistrial. Intact.

As for the 2nd mistrial sentencing verdict. I think even AZLawyer was puzzled about whether or not AZ law even would permit p.o.butcherer a sentencing retrial.

Hers was a DP trial. In AZ, the State only gets 2 attempts to secure a DP verdict. No 3rd attempt is permitted. After 2 mistrials, it was up to JSS, and the default penalty she had to decide was LWOP, or........LWOP, since AZ currently does not permit parole in DP cases.

In order to prevail, the burden of proof would be on the convicted murderer to prove (after other insurmountable barriers, see above, and toss in the COA's ruling on excess publicity, etc) that she was in essence deprived of a just sentence. She can't prove that because she wasn't. She escaped the DP. JSS sentenced her appropriately, as in, the only sentence that was available according to AZ law.

All that is why I'm 100% confident her verdict & sentence are 100% locked in stone airtight, done.

Whatever satisfaction the butcherer has derived from seeing Nurmi & JM disbarred (however different the reasons & circumstances for each), it's all the external satisfaction she'll ever receive, for however long it is before she dies in prison, and for however long it is before ALL of us forget everything about her and this case other than a vague general memory of a good man, Travis, was it?, who was brutally murdered by a sociopathic ex-waitress, whatzername.
 
Last edited:
Hope4More said:
For whatever it is or isn't worth, I'm 100% certain she will not be granted a retrial, at least of the guilt phase, which in her case means no chance at freedom, ever.

I. Her 2 paths to a second shot at anything:

1. A successful appeal to the AZ SC (which isn't going to agree to hear her case), which is why she's apparently already preparing for option 2 of 2:

2. Post Conviction Relief (PCR). I've posted this umpty ump times, but one last time. She isn't guaranteed even a hearing on whatever she comes up with in her petition for a PCR.

The trial judge (JSS in this case) is the sole person who decides the petition's merits & whether to grant any hearing of any kind.

II. The only 2 grounds available for her to base her arguments for a new trial, etc., are:

a. Ineffective counsel
b. New evidence, that couldn't have been known at the time of trial, AND, that if known, would have more likely than not have changed the jury's verdict.

Context: PCR's are successful in AZ no more often than about one (1) percent of the time. The end, really. And if you look at the political context of this trial, the end about 1,000x times over. Getting rid of JM is only the most recent indication of just how DONE & OVER the AZ legal system is with the p.o.butcherer. :D

Nurmi's (real) disbarment offences occurred post trial. Whatever else can or can't be said about him, he provided her a "vigorous" defense," one that will be unassailable when & if it is heard in PCR considerations, especially when/if heard by Nurmi- battered JSS. ;)

III. Last word on this. Even if every single outrageous, unsupported, unproven & IMO entirely unethical charge against JM levied by the unethical Karen Clark were in some parallel, abstract universe, true & accurate? Wouldn't make any difference whatsoever legally. Because:

1. JM agreed to be disbarred BEFORE any one of those charges against him was litigated by the Bar at ( a Bar) trial.

2. JM's attorney expressly stated that JM's acceptance of the disbarment penalty was NOT an acknowledgement of wrongdoing that had any bearing on any criminal proceedings of any kind (including p.o. butcherer's trial).

3. NONE- as in zero, nothing, not any- of the baseless & legally unproven allegations against JM had ANYTHING to do with her guilt phase trial. Meaning, her guilt phase trial verdict of GUILTY remains & will remain 100% intact.

IV. What's left? The sentencing phase verdict. Ditto the above (plus other reasons) the first round mistrial. Intact.

As for the 2nd mistrial sentencing verdict. I think even AZLawyer was puzzled about whether or not AZ law even would permit p.o.butcherer a sentencing retrial.

Hers was a DP trial. In AZ, the State only gets 2 attempts to secure a DP verdict. No 3rd attempt is permitted. After 2 mistrials, it was up to JSS, and the default penalty she had to decide was LWOP, or........LWOP, since AZ currently does not permit parole in DP cases.

In order to prevail, the burden of proof would be on the convicted murderer to prove (after other insurmountable barriers, see above, and toss in the COA's ruling on excess publicity, etc) that she was in essence deprived of a just sentence. She can't prove that because she wasn't. She escaped the DP. JSS sentenced her appropriately, as in, the only sentence that was available according to AZ law.

All that's why I'm 100% confident her verdict & sentence are 100% locked in stone airtight, done.
Click to expand...
Thank you Hope! Love your posts, always.
 
Hope4More said:
For whatever it is or isn't worth, I'm 100% certain she will not be granted a retrial, at least of the guilt phase, which in her case means no chance at freedom, ever.

I. Her 2 paths to a second shot at anything:

1. A successful appeal to the AZ SC (which isn't going to agree to hear her case), which is why she's apparently already preparing for option 2 of 2:

2. Post Conviction Relief (PCR). I've posted this umpty ump times, but one last time. She isn't guaranteed even a hearing on whatever she comes up with in her petition for a PCR.

The trial judge (JSS in this case) is the sole person who decides the petition's merits & whether to grant any hearing of any kind.

II. The only 2 grounds available for her to base her arguments for a new trial, etc., are:

a. Ineffective counsel
b. New evidence, that couldn't have been known at the time of trial, AND, that if known, would have more likely than not have changed the jury's verdict.

Context: PCR's are successful in AZ no more often than about one (1) percent of the time. The end, really. And if you look at the political context of this trial, the end about 1,000x times over. Getting rid of JM is only the most recent indication of just how DONE & OVER the AZ legal system is with the p.o.butcherer. :D

Nurmi's (real) disbarment offences occurred post trial. Whatever else can or can't be said about him, he provided her a "vigorous" defense," one that will be unassailable when & if it is heard in PCR considerations, especially when/if heard by Nurmi- battered JSS. ;)

III. Last word on this. Even if every single outrageous, unsupported, unproven & IMO entirely unethical charge against JM levied by the unethical Karen Clark were in some parallel, abstract universe, true & accurate? Wouldn't make any difference whatsoever legally. Because:

1. JM agreed to be disbarred BEFORE any one of those charges against him was litigated by the Bar at ( a Bar) trial.

2. JM's attorney expressly stated that JM's acceptance of the disbarment penalty was NOT an acknowledgement of wrongdoing that had any bearing on any criminal proceedings of any kind (including p.o. butcherer's trial).

3. NONE- as in zero, nothing, not any- of the baseless & legally unproven allegations against JM had ANYTHING to do with her guilt phase trial. Meaning, her guilt phase trial verdict of GUILTY remains & will remain 100% intact.

IV. What's left? The sentencing phase verdict. Ditto the above (plus other reasons) the first round mistrial. Intact.

As for the 2nd mistrial sentencing verdict. I think even AZLawyer was puzzled about whether or not AZ law even would permit p.o.butcherer a sentencing retrial.

Hers was a DP trial. In AZ, the State only gets 2 attempts to secure a DP verdict. No 3rd attempt is permitted. After 2 mistrials, it was up to JSS, and the default penalty she had to decide was LWOP, or........LWOP, since AZ currently does not permit parole in DP cases.

In order to prevail, the burden of proof would be on the convicted murderer to prove (after other insurmountable barriers, see above, and toss in the COA's ruling on excess publicity, etc) that she was in essence deprived of a just sentence. She can't prove that because she wasn't. She escaped the DP. JSS sentenced her appropriately, as in, the only sentence that was available according to AZ law.

All that is why I'm 100% confident her verdict & sentence are 100% locked in stone airtight, done.

Whatever satisfaction the butcherer has derived from seeing Nurmi & JM disbarred (however different the reasons & circumstances for each), it's all the external satisfaction she'll ever receive, for however long it is before she dies in prison, and for however long it is before ALL of us forget everything about her and this case other than a vague general memory of a good man, Travis, was it?, who was brutally murdered by a sociopathic ex-waitress, whatzername.
Click to expand...
JSS had her own coup de grâce in sentencing JA, too, to the effect that JA should never ever ever be let out of prison. This doesn't bode well for any reprieve from JSS , even if that's not strictly a factor in the reasoning under the law. If someone has the sentencing video handy, you'll see what I mean.
 
Tonight (Monday) on LMN:

Jodi Arias: Dirty Little Secret
8:00 - 10:00p
Tania Raymonde Jesse Lee Soffer Tony Plana
(2013) Jodi Arias (Tania Raymonde) claims self-defense while on trial for the murder of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander (Jesse Lee Soffer).

Jodi Arias: Cellmate Secrets
10:00 - 11:00p
Jodi Arias
(2020) New information comes to light about Jodi Arias and the murder of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, as her former cellmates and closest confidants give firsthand accounts of their time behind bars with the murderess.
 
Just going thru some oldies - and was wondering what happened to Judge William J. O'Neill's case - which was scheduled for 4/28/20.

@Hope4More - do you know? TIA!
animated-smileys-laughing-024.gif
 
Arizona Supreme Court declines to review Jodi Arias' appeal

The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to review Jodi Arias' murder conviction in the 2008 killing of her former boyfriend. The state's highest court on Tuesday denied Arias' request for review without providing an explanation for the decision.

More:
Arizona Supreme Court declines to review Jodi Arias' appeal
 
geevee said:
Arizona Supreme Court declines to review Jodi Arias' appeal

The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to review Jodi Arias' murder conviction in the 2008 killing of her former boyfriend. The state's highest court on Tuesday denied Arias' request for review without providing an explanation for the decision.

More:
Arizona Supreme Court declines to review Jodi Arias' appeal
Click to expand...
Best news I’ve read in a loooong time!
 
Now that we’ve pretty much come to the end of the line for this deranged criminal, I want to thank everyone who regularly posted in the “Sentencing and Beyond” threads. The analyses and discussions presented here were insightful and thorough and far more interesting than any other Arias reportage.

Does anyone know when, if ever, everything sealed before/during/after trial will be unsealed? I seem to recall reading something about the disposition of all the sealed stuff in one of these threads but can’t remember where it was or who wrote about it.
 
nyvictoria said:
Now that we’ve pretty much come to the end of the line for this deranged criminal, I want to thank everyone who regularly posted in the “Sentencing and Beyond” threads. The analyses and discussions presented here were insightful and thorough and far more interesting than any other Arias reportage.

Does anyone know when, if ever, everything sealed before/during/after trial will be unsealed? I seem to recall reading something about the disposition of all the sealed stuff in one of these threads but can’t remember where it was or who wrote about it.
Click to expand...

(d) Access. Court records that are sealed may be examined by judicial officers. Access by the public to sealed records will be allowed only after entry of a court order in accordance with this rule.
(e) Motion; Service. A sealed court record will be unsealed only upon stipulation of all the parties, on the court's own motion, or on a motion filed by a party or another person. A motion to unseal a court record must be served on all parties to the action in accordance with the applicable rules of service. If the movant cannot locate a party for service after making a good faith effort to do so, the movant may file an affidavit setting forth the efforts to locate the party and requesting that the court waive the service requirements of this rule. The court may waive the service requirement if it finds that further good faith efforts to locate the party are not likely to be successful.
(f) Objection to Unsealing. Any party opposing a motion to unseal must demonstrate why the motion should not be granted. The opposing party must show that overriding circumstances continue to exist or that other grounds provide a sufficient basis for keeping the record sealed.
Credits
Added Aug. 30, 2018, effective Jan. 1, 2019.


17B A. R. S. Rules Fam. Law Proc., Rule 17, AZ ST RFLP Rule 17
Current with amendments received through 08/15/2020.
 
Midnight Rambler said:
(d) Access. Court records that are sealed may be examined by judicial officers. Access by the public to sealed records will be allowed only after entry of a court order in accordance with this rule.
(e) Motion; Service. A sealed court record will be unsealed only upon stipulation of all the parties, on the court's own motion, or on a motion filed by a party or another person. A motion to unseal a court record must be served on all parties to the action in accordance with the applicable rules of service. If the movant cannot locate a party for service after making a good faith effort to do so, the movant may file an affidavit setting forth the efforts to locate the party and requesting that the court waive the service requirements of this rule. The court may waive the service requirement if it finds that further good faith efforts to locate the party are not likely to be successful.
(f) Objection to Unsealing. Any party opposing a motion to unseal must demonstrate why the motion should not be granted. The opposing party must show that overriding circumstances continue to exist or that other grounds provide a sufficient basis for keeping the record sealed.
Credits
Added Aug. 30, 2018, effective Jan. 1, 2019.


17B A. R. S. Rules Fam. Law Proc., Rule 17, AZ ST RFLP Rule 17
Current with amendments received through 08/15/2020.
Click to expand...

Does this allow a family member or the media to petition the court to unseal court records?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 3,368 (members: 194, guests: 3,174)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
3,174
Total visitors
3,368
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,826
Messages
17,959,681
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top