Appeal Updates and Information *NO DISCUSSION*

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by Hope4More, Jun 2, 2016.

  1. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For comparison, Melissa DeVault's case:

    Appeal filed on July 1, 2014.

    Record completion date: June 9, 2015.

    Change of attorneys, 2 extensions for filing opening briefs granted, and yet the COA heard her appeal on December 29, 2015.

    The COA affirmed her sentence of LWOP on August 4, 2016.
     
    RickshawFan likes this.


  2. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    COA update.

    The "completed" trial record of months ago must have been a mess. I'm getting the sense that at least some and perhaps many of the supplementals being requested by her attorneys (up to 21 now) should have been part of the original record but were never transcribed.

    A while back, her attorneys asked the COA to stay the appeal ("to ensure the record was accurate and complete"); the COA was to have ruled on that motion weeks ago, but their decision is not on the record if they did so.

    Meanwhile, more supplemental transcripts are on order, latest due date is December 2. Snail's pace.
     
  3. Spellbound

    Spellbound falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

    Messages:
    18,152
    Likes Received:
    28,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news.../?hootPostID=7dd2b433d36bf7b8d313d9750e1a5c3b

    [h=1]Jodi Arias' defense lawyer agrees to be disbarred over tell-all book rather than face disciplinary hearings[/h]

    The revelations in Nurmi's book could be damaging to Arias if she wins her appeal and is awarded a new trial. Details that were kept secret during the initial trial are now out in the open. If retried, Arias could face the death penalty again.
     
  4. Spellbound

    Spellbound falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

    Messages:
    18,152
    Likes Received:
    28,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Spellbound

    Spellbound falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

    Messages:
    18,152
    Likes Received:
    28,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    COA update, December 2 (rulings through November 30, 2016).


    No ruling on the record yet on her attorney's request to stay the appeal (reason given - to ensure the trial record is accurate and complete).

    Their latest motion again seems to be about the trial record as a whole, emphasis on "seems to be" : a motion to "immediately preserve trial file."


    The COA denied this motion on November 30 (one of very few denials by the COA, btw, so maybe the motion is not so routine).

    The COA indicated it was denied "without prejudice to the filing of the motion in the AZ Supreme Court."

    (Guessing her attorneys might be arguing that the trial record completion process has been "messy" and slow enough to become an appealable issue).

    _----------------------
    Another curiosity. Not sure what this means either (or whether or not it relates to the above motion)-- to do with errors in the record or something more?

    Mike Babicky the court reporter has been ordered to "show cause," or in plain English, explain himself, about 2 transcripts: those for April 15 and April 16, 2013. Both were requested as supplemental records, both were transcribed, both were then stricken from the trial record by the COA at her attorneys' request, then came the COA's ruling ordering Babicky to explain (himself?) about those 2 transcripts.

    **April 15 transcript was about a Nurmi motion for mistrial based on attorney misconduct and witness intimidation. The April 16 transcript seems to be for a bench conference that took place just before the defense rested (JM put DeMarte on the stand next).
     
  7. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A few clarifications related to appeals motions and the COA's rulings.

    *** November 30, 2016 was the deadline set by the COA on May 24, 2016 for her attorneys to file requests to supplement the trial record.

    *** Her attorneys have requested 21 supplements. The last motion to request (#21) was filed on November 14, 2016 and hasn't been ruled upon/noted on docket yet.

    *** Of the 20 prior supplements requested, all were granted by the COA, with the exception of #11 (requested on August 31, 2016), which is noted on the COA docket as still pending.


    *** The COA granted her attorneys' request to vacate the prior official date of trial record completion, as well as their motion to postpone the filing of opening briefs.

    It looks like the granting of those motions may not have affected the COA's deadline of November 30 for supplement requests to be filed.

    That deadline perhaps explains her attorneys' request to stay the appeal (October 18) until the trial record is "complete and accurate." (The COA hasn't ruled on the request).

    It might also explain the timing (November 23) of the request to "immediately preserve the trial file," a motion the COA denied, but indicated could be taken up with the AZ Supreme Court (denied without prejudice).

    Last, I think the 2 Babicky transcripts of April 2013 were stricken for the unmysterious reason they were simply dated incorrectly (off by a year).

    So...maybe, perhaps, if her attorneys aren't trying to stall and/or don't try to have the ASC hear the "preserve file" issue, maybe perhaps opening briefs will be filed as "early" as March 2017. :)
     
  8. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,920
    Likes Received:
    9,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Heard through the grapevine:

    Something weird happened/is happening with the court record, most specifically, Mike Babicky the court reporter's share. The COA ordered that ALL of his transcripts, both electronic and paper, be tossed, purged, deleted, made to go away. YIKES. This was after Babicky was summoned to a meeting with not one but two CIA judges. Afterwards, at some point, his transcripts were ordered tossed, and he was ordered to redo ALL of them, which is over 150. The due date is in March.
     
  9. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,920
    Likes Received:
    9,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The trial record is now complete, a June 8 deadline has been set for opening appeals to be filed. Hope this is on its way to a conclusion.
     
  10. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,920
    Likes Received:
    9,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    5-May-2017 ORDERED: The parties shall have to/including 08/01/2017, in which to file any motions to supplement the record. FURTHER ORDERED: Vacating the opening brief due date. The briefing schedule will be set after a conference with counsel, to be held in due course. Anthony Mackey, ProTem Judge - Author

    30-May-2017: FILED: Motion to supplement the record #23; Certificate of Service (Appellant)
    30-May-2017: FILED: Motion to supplement the record #24; Certificate of Service (Appellant)
    30-May-2017: FILED: Motion to supplement the record #25; Certificate of Service (Appellant)
     
  11. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Background & timeline relating to the civil suit’s (absurd) accusation that Nurmi “forced” the *** into a defense not of her choosing, one that centered on smearing Travis, which she never, ever, wanted to do.



    PART 1: PRE-ARREST


    From her last journal, obviously written after she murdered Travis. Before her arrest & the next set of lies.

    (Greatly abbreviated & from an easily accessible source: https://juror13lw.com/2015/02/03/jodis-last-month-of-freedom-2008/



    5/18/08: Frustrating times. My Helio phone was stolen. It is hugely inconvenient.

    …I’m just not physically attracted to him anymore. I feel like a cloud has lifted since I moved back. He’s still a great friend w/flaws, but I have plenty of those, too.
    -------------------


    5/22/08: Sad news: I finally had “the conversation” w/Travis and it did not go well……we probably would be better off in all ways if we were not physical. He got offended and upset, then acted distant.

    I tried being so sweet & speak kindly to him….Then it got worse, he asked me who I’m seeing, have I been getting my kicks w/someone else, etc. …

    Well, even sadder is we agreed to amicably part ways. He is an amazing person, and he’s told me countless times that I am one of the most beautiful people he’s ever met – on the inside & out….


    We are truly good people at the core, both of us, but we can’t behave ourselves when we’re around each other, not even over the phone.
    ---
    -----------------

    I am mortified that my phone was stolen. It had a hugely scandalous text message from him (10 pgs!) that he sent last week. It would make a steamy romance novel sound like script from a G-rated Disney movie.


    I also had 1 or 2 recorded conversations that were equally as scandalous. I never did figure out how to play those back for him.

    Wherever my phone is now, I just hope to text messages & conversations are never discovered. yikes. It’s certainly not Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton level scandal, there’s no video, but it would be embarrassing none-the-less.
    ------------------------------------------
    He’s just so dang hot & cold. Bi-polar even, it would seem. The final chapter was finally written and the end was bitter-sweet. He said on some level, we will always be friends, but we both agreed that it’s better this way. .. And it’s very much in alignment w/the email I sent him a few days ago.


    I won’t miss his teasing or his bi-polar tendencies to snap and yell and say things he ends up regretting, but I will miss his sense of humor.
    -----------

    5/26/08:

    …I’ve somehow managed to become his whipping-girl, and we’re both addicted to it. It’s the same pattern as always, he gets pissed, goes off on me, feels bad, we “make-up”, things are mellow for a few days, then the cycle begins again.
    I’ve learned that it’s better to just let it run its course.

    Yes Travis you’re right, Travis, whatever you say, Travis. As long as I’m not too patronizing he goes right through it and then ends up being apologetic & sweet – talking afterward, and we end up having make-up sex, or in this case, phone sex. We’re crazy, being addicted to this cycle.


    …..An occasional jerk & rude, but always redeems himself. Despite his character flaws, I love him & always will. … I let him get it out of his system until he couldn’t help it anymore. We called each other and talked until it was light out. It actually wasn’t really talking. Well, dirty talk, I guess you could say. I’m just as naughty as he is, more in fact

    --------------------------------
     
  12. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Part 2, Civil Suit. choice of defense.



    July 28, 2008. Days after being interviewed by Flores and claiming ninjas, the *** writes T’s family, on his birthday, from jail. In the letter to her victim's family, among other foul and obscenities, she claims for the first time that Travis physically abused her. Nothing in the letter about pedophilia.

    https://juror13lw.com/2015/01/24/jodis-letter-to-the-alexander-family-july-28-2008/


    “Flores told me anything I might reveal about Travis would never and could never change your opinion about Travis, and since (that) fear was the only thing holding me back, I feel like I can now shed a little light…..”

    --Travis was sexually active, with multiple women, even when he was in supposedly committed relationships.

    -Travis persuaded the *** to do things, including moving to Mesa. “I could not say no to Travis.” “He would not let me escape his influential grasp.”

    --Had a “come clean conversation,” and when it was my turn, “all hell broke loose;” “he lost his temper completely and flew into a rage;” he began punching himself in the head so hard he injured his neck and back….”

    “Travis never hit me in the face, but he bruised other parts of my body. It was easy to shrug off a few bruises with my friends. That only happened 2 times. The second time in April 2008, two PPL’ers at the Tempe business mtg saw my bruises and asked- so is Travis beating you now?”

    “I played along with their joke to protect his reputation. I know it is common behavior for women in abusive relationships to protect their partner (but we weren’t in a committed relationship, and I was about to leave town).”

    By moving, I prevented any future opportunities for abuse or immoral behavior.

    “His cruelty and abuse never knew it made me angry. It only invoked pity and remorse. And shame as well. Because he acted that way out of pain and I never wanted to hurt him.”
     
  13. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TIMELINE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ***’S TRIAL DEFENSE: 2009



    All year: the Ninjas did it.

    ***’s original mitigation specialist and 1st chair attorney Schaffer interview ***’s family, former employers & boyfriends looking for helpful mitigation evidence. According to JM, the interviews instead almost uniformly reveal strikingly negative information & perceptions about the ***.

    May 22, 2009
    , the *** tells Judge Duncan she wants to go pro per because she’s unhappy with Schaffer. Nurmi writes that the *** was also angry with her mitigation specialist.

    August 10, 2009. Both Schaffer and second chair Gregory Parzych withdraw. Before they do so, Schaffer turns over to the State all the mitigation witness interviews she and the MS (over 400 pages), even though she was not obligated to do so. (Nurmi writes that he was aware of this disclosure early on, and considered it highly damaging to the defense. JM writes that the notes were critical to making his case for premeditation).

    Also, at some point in their brief tenure, Shaffer and Parzych ask for and are given access to T’s computer, which they turn on, destroying evidence (leading to the porn- on -computer debacle/farce of PP2).


    August 18, 2009. Evidentiary hearing on whether or not there is probable cause for proving the aggravating factor of especially cruel (necessary for the case to be DP eligible). Flores testifies the shot came first.

    September 2009. Nurmi takes over first chair, Washington is second chair. He writes that although he thinks ***’s ninja story is ridiculous and unsupportable by the evidence, he can’t dissuade or prevent the *** from telling it.

    Nurmi writes that Schaeffer had developed a defense strategy, but that it wasn’t one he intended to follow. He says his first read through of the evidence and his own encounters with the *** convinced him the *** was mentally disturbed.

    His preferred strategy already is, and will continue to be, to present a heat of passion, second degree murder/manslaughter case. Although the *** still clings to the ninjas (absolving herself of all responsibility for T’s murder), Nurmi immediately begins pursuing evidence to support his own strategy.

    October 2009. Nurmi begins entering motions to have the State turn over forensic exams of all electronic media, including T’s phone. He will continue filing motions demanding discovery of all things electronic throughout 2009-2012.

    JM writes that upon seeing Nurmi’s slew of phone/computer evidence motions he assumed the DT was going to drop the ninjas story to pursue a self-defense case.

    November 3, 2009. Duncan sets a new trial date: August 15, 2010.
     
  14. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TIMELINE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ***’S TRIAL DEFENSE, 2010



    Early 2010. Samuels interviews the *** and tests her for PTSD. She tells him the ninja story. Nurmi writes it hurt the defense/Samuels’ credibility at trial that the *** was still claiming ninjas, but he had to schedule experts, no matter what problems that would cause at trial if she changed stories, because trial was (supposedly, he thought) imminent (August of 2010).


    Early 2010. Cheryl Karp, the DT’s first choice of DV expert, interviews the ***, who tells her of numerous of physical abuse by TA incidents (30-40, according to Sky Hughes). The frequency of physical abuse the *** alleged to Karp contradicted, as Nurmi knew, what the *** had told a national audience on 48 Hours shortly after her arrest:

    “Travis lost his temper with me several times, but I was never afraid for my life. He left bruises-on my arms, legs, and torso, but I think I covered them up pretty well.”

    What she told Karp also contradicted what she had written to T’s family shortly before the 48 Hours interview: that Travis had been physically abusive twice. The *** mentioned the letter to T’s family during the 48 Hours interview, an interview Nurmi said he watched soon after he was assigned the ***’s case.

    Karp never testified. Best guess, the *** didn’t tell her a pedo story during this first interview, but did so in a subsequent interview (Karp was retained as the DT’s trial witness on DV through September 2011).

    Given her exit date, Karp also had to have been aware that the *** changed her story about the frequency of abuse within a few months of being interviewed by Karp (and would again).

    April 6, 2010. DT’s enters a specifically targeted electronics motion: to compel the State to turn over texts & emails from TA’s phone. Nurmi is still in search of evidence proving a second degree worthy “chaotic” relationship.

    ----------------------------------------
    April 11, 2010. Ten forged letters are emailed to Nurmi. The letters are clearly intended as “evidence” to support the pedo lie AND the ***’s lies about being physically abused. But the ***’s intention to harm with the letters didn’t end there.

    At least one of the letters targeted Deanna (it contained a lot of disparaging & hurtful comments about her, again, supposedly written by Travis). The ugliest letter, about pedo, was aimed squarely at Chris & Sky Hughes (suggested that Travis was thinking he might sexually abuse the Hughes’ 4 year old child)

    June 2010. The DT discloses forged pedo letters to JM. Motions and hearings and wrangling about the admissibility of the letters starts immediately, and continues for over a year, finally ending in August 2011, when they are ruled inadmissible.

    One of the key impediments to having the letters introduced is that the *** (for obvious reasons) couldn’t produce originals of the letters. Nurmi writes that he demanded she tell him who had the originals, and says she told him, but he couldn’t reveal her reply because of attorney-client privilege (lol). (More on this in the 2011 timeline).


    June 22, 2010. The *** officially changes her defense. No more ninjas. She now admits she did kill Travis, but will present a defense that killing him was justifiable, as she had been a victim of domestic violence (alleges 4-5 incidents) and reasonably believed that Travis intended to kill her that day.

    The pedo lie was already entwined in this defense, though the lie would evolve. The forged letters star in this first version because the pedo lie and the letters were intended to be mutually reinforcing.

    In this first, pre-trial version, the *** goes over to T’s house to clean his attic. While in the attic, she discovers a bunch of videos of little boys being molested and little boys’ toys. Travis writes her (one of the forged letters), dated January 21, 2007, expressing his horror that she has uncovered his dark secret.

    He confesses that he has sexually molested little boys, that he knows he is evil, that he’s afraid he won’t be able to stop himself from molesting Sky & Chris Hughes’ son, that having sex with women lessens his need to molest boys, and that his pedophilia explains why he likes anal sex and seeing her in little boy undies. He asks her not to judge him and tells her to call him as soon as she reads the letter.

    There is nothing in this forged letter about the *** witnessing Travis masturbating to images of little boys on the computer, nor to a photo that falls magically at her feet.

    June 2010. Nurmi writes that the *** gives him explicit permission to show Sky and Chris the forged letter(s) in which Travis “confesses” his desire to molest their son.

    Nurmi does just that. Sky recalls that he contacts her right around the time Nurmi files ***’s change in defense (June 22, 2010). He tells the Hughes that his experts had the highest confidence (according to Nurmi) or were 100% sure (according to Sky) the letters were authentic. Sky initially believes what is in the letter (which no doubt made ***’s day).

    What Nurmi doesn't dwell upon in his book is that the *** had to have given him the same permission to show Deanna at least one of the forged letters, which he does, in an interview at her house. JM describes this interview as essentially an ambush, conducted in less than good faith, almost certainly intended to have Deanna “confess” that she sex with Travis, and likely, in the hope of encouraging Deanna to turn on Travis.

    None of that works, and Deanna told JM several weeks later that she didn’t believe Travis wrote the letter. Deanna also gives JM original love letters from Travis to be used by JM’s handwriting experts. (Did the *** see copies of those letters when she first went pro per?)



    June 30, 2010. Dworkin begins examining the Helio phone containing both the tree porn text (that she sent to herself) and the “sex tape” for “expert” analysis.

    Nurmi writes that he was shocked by what he heard on the tape. Specifically, says Nurmi in this book written AFTER the trial, several comments by Travis relating to 12 year olds strongly indicated to him -and still do-that Travis did indeed have pedophilic interests. He also writes that what he heard on the tape gave credence to the forged letters’ authenticity.

    In other words and in his own words, AT THE VERY LEAST, from the time Nurmi filed her defense to self defense on through August 2011, he did not think there was any reason to disbelieve ***’s accusation that Travis was a pedophile

    ((Nurmi wrote that “sometime in 2010” he was contacted by someone in ***’s family, who told him that the Helio had been found in a relative’s car. He said he was anxious to know what was on the phone, but knew he couldn’t access what was there himself (evidence tampering), so he instructed the family member to turn it over to the DT’s investigator, who then gave it to Dworkin to examine.

    Since he said he listened to the tape AFTER he’d received and read the forged letters, Auntie Sue must have called him to report that she’d magically found the “stolen” Helio sometime between April 12 and late July, 2010.

    Since nothing on the Helio was relevant to her accusations about being physically abused, and since the *** would have known the tape contradicted her tale of herself being victimized by a sexually aggressive Travis, maybe the *** wanted the Helio found just then because she thought it would help support the pedo lie. Just as it did, apparently, at least for Nurmi).
     
  15. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TIMELINE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ***’S TRIAL DEFENSE: 2010 (continued). PLEA BARGAINING



    July 1, 2010. The State turned over all of T’s text messages.

    October 26, 2010. The *** submits her first of 3 plea bargain “offers” to the State (2nd: December 2010; 3rd: June 2011).

    (Nurmi ‘s book discusses only one undated plea bargain attempt by the ***. It is therefore impossible to know which of the 3 plea bargain “offers” Nurmi tries to present as his righteous effort to “warn” the State, TA’s family, and others how “out of control” and ugly a trial would be.


    From the October 2010 plea (paraphrased unless in quotes):

    “While felony murder is a legal and factual possibility, the probability is the State will have a difficult time convincing the jury to find Jodi guilty of capital murder. It will require quite the feat of mental gymnastics to get a conviction under this theory.”

    “Understanding this dynamic, if the State focuses on the “easier” sell of premeditation. This too is a difficult sell and here’s why:”

    Experts will testify that Travis’s behavior (towards the ***) was extremely demeaning, abusive, and degrading, and what affect that had on Jodi’s psyche.

    Travis’s own words will (destroy his reputation as a devout Mormon) and will paint him as a “playboy expert manipulator and sexual deviant.”

    Even if the (forged) letters aren’t admitted, TA’s own words, through texts and voice recordings will “show the dynamic,” and if they are admitted, they will “add a layer of authenticity “ to the texts and (sex tape) “such that a jury will come to the conclusion this was not first degree murder.”

    “Given the timeline of the incident, the premeditation angle becomes more difficult for the State to prove.”

    The evidence (the ***? Nurmi? believes) which supports a lesser charge such as manslaughter:


    ** Text messages will prove that Travis was upset with her and called her names, he also wanted to continue using her for sex.

    ** Flores in his 48 Hours interview “makes admissions that there is anger involved with this.”

    **We have an email from Travis to Jodi telling her she was only good for oral sex and calling her a 3 hole wonder.


    The plea also cites two Arizona cases in which defendants stabbed their victims to death, yet were “only” charged with second degree murder.
    --------------------------------

    The State does not reply, at all, to this plea offer. That suggests, IMO, that the *** wrote the plea, not Nurmi, and that it wasn’t related to any formal & scheduled settlement conference.


    December 2010. *** tries again to strike a plea bargain with the State.

    This time she is even less subtle. She states that “it strikes her” the amount of “collateral damage” a trial will inflict, since exposing Travis’s “numerous” (sexual) relationships with other Mormons would “affect marriages, standings in the Mormon community, friendships, and “most of all, the very cherished and poignant memories of Travis would be tarnished.”


    The State did respond to this second attempt to “settle” for a second degree murder conviction: NO, ***. THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
     
  16. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    APPEALS UPDATE. June 18, 2018.


    On June 14, the State filed a reply to the ***’s second motion to file their opening brief under seal. They are (again) asked the COA to deny her request (I received a copy of their full reply).

    The ***’s attorneys have until June 20 to respond to the State’s arguments laid out in this second reply.

    ---

    Of note: The COA DENIED the ***’s first motion to file briefs under seal, and to have the entire appellate record sealed until the COA finally rules on her appeal.


    What the COA instructed her attorneys to do was to make their case as to why individual PORTIONS of their brief needed to be sealed.


    Her attorneys ignored that instruction. What they seem to have done is to have filed a Motion to Reconsider (the COA’s original denial); again demanding that their entire opening brief “OB”, and all subsequent briefs, be filed under seal. Given the State’s reply, they seem to have repeated the same arguments the COA has already rejected.

    -----------------------------

    A paraphrased summary (and direct quotes) of the State’s reply (the use of the defendant’s name is a legal convention –the *** is not, of course, making these arguments herself).



    1. Arias has failed (again) to explain how OB contents would pose a specific and immediate threat to anyone. It is difficult to respond any more specifically to “likely” arguments they may make in their brief, since they have not provided a brief to the Court.


    “Arias apparently intends to argue that pervasive media coverage denied her a fair trial.”


    But…”they haven’t explained how this argument, based on media coverage of 5 years ago, would lead specific people to engage in acts of violence or harassment today.”


    Arias states that she intends to describe threats made against trial counsel in some detail. Even if those threats are somehow legally relevant, “Arias apparently presumes that the mere mention of past, incompleted threats would inevitably lead to future, completed threats.” That argument is speculative at best & insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.


    2. Arias also apparently intends to argue prosecutorial misconduct., “and she expects this to upset people who hold him (JM) in high regard.” To assume those individuals will necessarily respond with violence towards specific people is speculative at best & insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.


    3. Media attention as reason for sealing…there will be media attention whether or not the briefs are sealed. Even if there was a link between media coverage and danger ton the public, she fails to show that a public brief would garner more attention (and supposed danger) than a secret one.

    “Ultimately Aris betrays the speculative nature of her claim by urging “it is appropriate to err on the side of caution.” No. Precaution doesn’t meet the standard of “clear and present danger,” and doesn’t suffice to overcome the presumption of public access.


    4. Arias fails to demonstrate the absence of practical alternatives to sealing (redactions, etc.).


    Even if the contents of brief could endanger TRAIL EXPERT WITNESSES AND COUNSEL,

    she can anonymize the names of persons she thinks are susceptible to harassment, and paraphrase the threats (allegedly) made against them.


    “Especially in the absence of a proposed opening brief to review, this Court should not accept her speculative, self-serving assurance that such drafting measures would be ineffective. “


    4. “Arias’ proposed remedy undermines her claim that a public brief would cause irreparable harm.”


    If the contents of their brief truly represented an immediate danger, that risk will be just as great after the COA renders a decision on her appeal, when media attention will likely peak.


    5. The Court shouldn’t seal briefs and the record just because portions of the original trial record were sealed. The COA’s administrative order (I’ve referenced it before) expressly contemplates that parties may file public briefs that refer to sealed portions of the record. That the trial court sealed records years ago does not compel this court to automatically seal all records, including opening briefs.


    6. “ Arias’ position primarily relies on the extensive media coverage surrounding the trial, the strong opinion of observers, and threats and harassment by a few members of the public. “

    All of these things happen in most high-profile cases.


    Sealing based on these circumstances that are typical, not unique, would set a bad precedent. It “would also create a moral hazard—allowing a small number of citizens to exercise a heckler’s veto on the public’s right to open court proceedings.


    “ This is too high a price to pay for speculative precaution.”
     
  17. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DOCKET UPDATE- JUNE 19.

    ***'s attorneys are supposed to file their reply tomorrow to the State's second objection to their Motion that all briefs & the entire trial record be kept under seal until the COA rules on ***'s appeal.

    I summarized the State's reply of June 14 in the post above.

    One day after the State's reply, on June 15, the ***'s attorneys filed another motion:

    "Expedited Motion to Strike State's (June 14 Response) or to Seal Response"

    English translation:

    1. Hurry up, this must be handled immediately.

    2. The State's reply must be taken off the record altogether, because it wasn't filed under seal.

    3. And, if the Court allows the State's reply to remain on the record, we demand that it be sealed.

    (Memo to ***'s attorneys: TOO LATE.

    And....... the State wasn't obligated to file their reply under seal; the COA itself made the State's reply public; and, somehow I'm willing to bet that patience is wearing thin at the COA about the continual pressing of this claim of danger! to! the! public! that you have twice now demonstrated is without legal or common sense merit).
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
  18. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    APPEALS UPDATE, JUNE 20.

    ***'s attorneys filed (ONE DAY AHEAD OF SCHEDULE!) their response yesterday to the State's response on the matter of keeping opening briefs and the entire trial record under seal until the COA rules on ***'s appeal.

    Their response, of course, was filed under seal.

    Now the wait is for the COA to decide whether or not to seal, and realistically, just how long they are going to extend the due date for ***'s attorneys to file their opening brief.

    As of right now, not taking into account any further delays, the COA will not rule on her appeal until early next year, at the earliest.
     
  19. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LIST OF LINKS FOR DYI’ERS TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF ***-RELATED APPEALS & COURT CASES & CURRENT BAR COMPLAINTS ;)

    -------------------------------------------
    ***’s DIRECT APPEAL TO THE COA

    AZ Court of Appeals, Division One

    http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/1ca/1capartyindex.htm

    ***’S case number: CR-15-0302

    -----------------------------
    BAR’S APPEAL OF THE BAR’S DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST JUAN MARTINEZ BROUGHT BY KAREN CLARK/***:

    AZ Supreme Court; Active Bar Cases

    Arizona Supreme Court

    JM’s case number: SB-17-0081-AP

    -------------------------------------------------
    ADAMS/CLARK/***’S CIVIL CASE AGAINST NURMI

    Maricopa Superior Court; Civil Case Docket

    Links to Case History & Minute Entries:

    Docket: Public Access to Civil Court Case Information

    Nurmi’s case number: CV207-014091
    ----------------------------------
     
    pocketaccent, Pasasana, Niner and 5 others like this.
  20. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    Likes Received:
    9,753
    Trophy Points:
    113
    2 additional docket entries for June 19 (I have both the docs) :

    1. The State replied to her attorneys asking that the State's 2nd response to their sealing request be stricken or sealed.

    The State is running out of patience. The assistant DA writing & filing these responses pointed out that the reason the COA allowed her attorneys to file their second motion to seal under seal was because the Court has denied their original request to seal, and had instructed them to submit rationales for sealing specific PORTIONS of their opening brief.

    I'm not sure her attorneys DID have the good sense to file a motion for the COA to reconsider their first denial. It looks like they ignored the Court's instructions and ruling and simply presented the same arguments again for why briefs should be sealed, with some additional details about "threats" and "harassment" that happened 5 years ago.

    The State pointed out this disregard of the Court's ruling & instructions. And stated, quite plainly, that "under no circumstance" should her attorneys be given additional time to make more arguments on the point of sealed briefs & trial record .

    One word translation of state's reply: ENOUGH!!
    ---
    The second docket item has a title that most appropriate for this theater of the absurd, and I'll spare you. It was filed by her attorneys, and it says that they thought it over, and had decided not to reply to the State's reply to their second reply which was a reply to their first reply.

    Good
    choice.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2018

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice