Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1
- Thread starter KateB
- Start date
- Status
pinkandgreenmom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 674
I did. It is supposed to arrive Saturday. I will definitely report. :hills:
BBM Last ditch effort to "save" her?
Here is why I feel no sympathy for the man, and it really has little to do with the defense he put on, and everything to do with integrity and character.
He is a defense attorney by choice, the defender of the most reviled by choice: pedophiles , rapists, child abusers.
His choice, and an entirely honorable choice if one really believes, as I do, in a legal system requiring that even the worst of the worst be given a zealous defense.
Choices have consequences, though, and if what was most important to him was to be liked or admired in a lay online community, he certainly chose a peculiar area of practice, one for which he had to have known he'd be more condemned than honored.
And, if the principle he's most invested in is opposing the DP, he was successful. He won. She does not face execution by the State. Why would he feel he had to defend himself against criticism that he did everything he could to save her life?
Whatever his reasons for writing a book of personal attacks on the client whose life he saved, I don't and can't see it as a principled act and I just can't muster any sympathy for Nurmi as a person or any respect for him as an attorney.
I've bought some pretty crappy books about this case along the way, but won't buy his no matter what. I appreciate that you and others are willing to buy and report about it though. Thanks.
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 10,666
- Reaction score
- 51,852
I seem to be all about creating complexity today.....
Do we know exactly what kind of sex offenders Nurmi has represented? If we don't, it matters.
Because:
There's a large class of "sex offenders" that almost anyone can be fit into. How many of you know a 19-year-old with a 16-year-old girlfriend? Like most teenagers, they "get it on"? You might have done that too? Fact is, that 19-year-old can be charged as a sex offender. Yes, for sex fun with his girlfriend, both consenting. But hahaha, the girl's parents want to think their dear daughter is not at all interested in sex, so they press charges. There are many convictions like this. These teenagers then become felons for life and have to register as sex offenders for life. They go to jail and are under a court's supervision for years.
Keep in mind that these young men who are guilty of having sex with their underage girlfriends are not the same at all as the predatory sex offenders that come to mind when we're thinking in that category. There are tens of thousands of them.
Legislatures are beginning to look at the injustice of teenagers being convicted of a sex crime for having fun with their girlfriends. Part of the reason this is such a hot button, as most legislators will admit, is that almost all of them did the teenage thing. It's just that they weren't caught.
So, we have a problem in our system, and the attorneys who defend these teenagers (who are behaving like normal teenagers) are commendable. They also have a difficult job because there's so much stigma attached to this topic.
I have no idea who exactly Nurmi is defending, but I believe that's a very important piece of information.
Oh, and I don't mean to be sexist, but the "sex offender" label as applied to teenagers generally means boys. Plus, I'm not at all talking about teenagers who rape. I'm talking about run-of-the-mill boyfriend/girlfriend sexual activity.
Here is a link to his website detailing exactly the type of crimes his clients are charged with. Sure, he probably has defended teenagers charged with statutory rape, but he definitely has defended rapists and pedophiles too (and 100% guilty ones at that, imo). If he didn't want any more attention from defending Arias, he didn't have to use the #jodiarias hashtag to advertise his book about weight loss. :facepalm:
http://maricopasexcrimes.com/
Hatfield
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 17,014
- Reaction score
- 59,109
Interesting theories about maybe she somehow is in collusion with Nurmi to have him bad mouth her on purpose so that she can use in an appeal. Win-Win for both of them.
He gets to tell her how he really feels in public and she maybe able to use in an appeal.
I wouldn't put it past her and him to pull something like that.
Even if she is not working with him behind the scenes, I think she will still file some sort of legal action against his book and try to use it for her advantage in an appeal. She may include Juans book too in her legal filings.
So lets assume JA files some sort of appeal based on both these books, does anyone think there is some legal reason why an appeals court would agree with the appeal and grant her a new trial?
I would hope not but I am pretty surprised to see her own defense attorney spouting the types of things he is spouting about her. She may claim in an appeal that based on his own admissions now that he never did have her best interests in mind during the trial so doesn't it prove that he was not sufficient representation for her?
He gets to tell her how he really feels in public and she maybe able to use in an appeal.
I wouldn't put it past her and him to pull something like that.
Even if she is not working with him behind the scenes, I think she will still file some sort of legal action against his book and try to use it for her advantage in an appeal. She may include Juans book too in her legal filings.
So lets assume JA files some sort of appeal based on both these books, does anyone think there is some legal reason why an appeals court would agree with the appeal and grant her a new trial?
I would hope not but I am pretty surprised to see her own defense attorney spouting the types of things he is spouting about her. She may claim in an appeal that based on his own admissions now that he never did have her best interests in mind during the trial so doesn't it prove that he was not sufficient representation for her?
Well, the criminal case the AG is building definitely has SOMETHING to do with JA's trial; why else would the AG's Criminal Division put in a sealed motion for the release of sealed testimony from the trial?
Been thinking about the timing and topic of KN’s book in relation to the Criminal investigation that’s underway, an investigation evidently prompted by Sheriff Joe’s report on JA’s time in his “house.” (IIRC, the possibility of criminal charges arising from the info in that report is the reason it has not been released.)
One tweet about the book references both def and pros listening to JA’s jailhouse telephone conversations, and hearing her “scams.” KN (from tweet) surprised these weren’t played in court. Maybe? This book is a way for KN to distance himself from whatever the AG’s office has up its sleeve. If JA talked directly to, say, her PI or even MDLR about manipulating evidence/testimony … and somebody did JA’s bidding … I can see how that might result in criminal charges. And I can see why KN might be worried about getting contaminated in the resulting fallout. Through the book, he can distance himself from JA’s shenanigans.
Just a thought.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,743
- Reaction score
- 23,382
BBM. On that point, we have to give Nurmi credit- he didn't defend her because she sexually manipulated him. He's got that over Samuels...
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,743
- Reaction score
- 23,382
ILikeToBendPages
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 28,208
- Reaction score
- 70,601
Well, could it be that when Juan's book comes out it will hurt nurmi's? nurmi releasing his book before says a lot. He thinks his is going to be absolved by having her as a client, and it wasn't his fault? He needs to look to the east coast and see what happened to Jose Baez and his book that he released before Jeff Ashton's. It's was panned by many, and several bought the book and let us know what it said.
Most people already have their minds made up in do or don't liking him. He did a lot of things and said a lot of words that he didn't have to. I mean really, Jodi didn't have her hand up their butts and made them say some words or things. They didn't have to be so crude and offensive to DeAnna. What was Jodi going to do? Ask for a sidebar and tell JSS that their not saying their lines from her script?
In Nurmi's website he says that you don't have to be guilty of a crime to be accused of one. The same attack he used against Travis.
That is what Nurmi says in his ad for child molesters and rapist that need a good attorney. That to me is his choice in choosing his clientele.
Water seeks it's own level no matter how crappy.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,743
- Reaction score
- 23,382
She still had Wilmott, and Nurmi gave her the defense she asked for- self-defense, so I don't see how an Ineffectiveness of Counsel claim could fly.
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,917
- Reaction score
- 41,980
Ineffective counsel claims deal with the trial. Nurmi is no longer her attorney so anything he does now can't be used by her to call him ineffective. However, I would be concerned that some things he might say could be given more than one meaning by anyone needing to do so. IOW, something said now could possible shed light on something that occurred long ago (while he was still her attorney). It's not very likely but not impossible.
I don't care if he writes a book or speaks or escorts Sandy Arias to a New Years' Eve party. He's free to do whatever he wants. I just would like to see some discretion where it is warranted and to me that means he should not tell all. He can clear his rep, if that's his intent, and also make some cash if that's his motive, without telling ALL.
One of the cases Nurmi cited most frequently: Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US 333 (1966) about extreme publicity denying defendant due process right to a fair trial.
My (lay) understanding of the gist of US Supreme Court rulings on publicity and due process:
Applicant typically has the very heavy burden of demonstrating an actual prejudicial effect of trial publicity, to the extent that the trial was so fundamentally infected as to deprive her of fundamental fairness (convinced she can't meet that burden).
BUT. There are instances in which a lesser standard/threshold may apply, a standard expressed as a "totality of circumstances demonstrating an identifiable prejudice at trial" or even a "probability of prejudice."
Estes v. Texas, 381 US 532 (1965).
My (lay) understanding of the gist of US Supreme Court rulings on publicity and due process:
Applicant typically has the very heavy burden of demonstrating an actual prejudicial effect of trial publicity, to the extent that the trial was so fundamentally infected as to deprive her of fundamental fairness (convinced she can't meet that burden).
BUT. There are instances in which a lesser standard/threshold may apply, a standard expressed as a "totality of circumstances demonstrating an identifiable prejudice at trial" or even a "probability of prejudice."
Estes v. Texas, 381 US 532 (1965).
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,917
- Reaction score
- 41,980
I can see how excessive publicity could harm a person's ability to get a fair trial but have not seen many actual cases where that has occurred.
For Arias I can't see it being given much weight by any court. Most of her publicity was of her own doing.
She wanted people to look at her and listen to her. Until she didn't. Then she wanted secrecy.
I trust the courts that will be involved in the appeals process to use common sense.
BBM - I don't know, but it doesn't sound like he had her permission. If you click on the first post it brings up a screen cap from Aunt Sue's facebook.
https://twitter.com/lisacoco77
Oh dear Lord, Auntie Sue goes public again. She's been a central player in the Trust scam from the git go. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if she is railing against Nurmi's book as part of another killer-as-victim fundraising appeal.
In any case I wouldn't take her words at face value or assume they reflect what the killer might or might not have agreed to. She sure as heck doesn't know what she's talking about with Nurmi not listening to "experts" about the tape. What bunk.
- Status