Some assumptions I think have been caused by "trial by twitter" and sealed court records:
1. The assumption that Cheryl Karp asked to testify under a pseudonym, and that the request was granted. I have seen nothing to substantiate this assumption.
2. The assumption that JM didn't object to the closed courtroom. Since the whole discussion happened at the bench, I don't think we know what his position was.
3. The assumption that the witness insisted on a closed courtroom due to fear. I don't think we know this either, although obviously that's been a defense theme at other times.
4. The assumption that Nurmi asked for JA's family to leave. I think this was a misinterpretation of a tweet saying that the family had to leave and "ironically, the motion came from Nurmi." I think the "irony" was that Nurmi asked for the public to leave without really thinking through that the "public" would include JA's family, which has no special right to be there.
On other topics...
My head is spinning. I wonder if JSS is Mormon and she did this for Bishop Parker out of respect. If so, bad decision since it shows partiality. AZlawyer seems to think a lot of JSS but I have to wonder.
ETA: anyone think this may be a possibility?
No. And I think a lot of her ethics, intelligence, and usually her evidentiary rulings, but as you know I've had other criticisms.
Was Vernon Parker JA's Bishop? I just cannot wrap my brain around a Bishop testifying about a confidential discussion between himself and a church member - the LDS church has many members who are Atty's who could advise him he has an exemption (unless child abuse/neglect issues might harm a child or someone is actively homicidal or suicidal) IMO. As AZL mentioned, if JA waived priviledge then he could be allowed to testify on her behalf.
If he was TA's Bishop - there would be no way he would testify for JA.
Either way, unless this person is a child witness (that needs protection from the public) or unless it is someone who is out of the country (where JSS would have no control)- there are ways to compel witnesses to testify - (ie: subpeona, court order) if the court has jurisdiction or control over their testimony.
I am going back to my original 2 theories - it's a child or it is a witness who is out of the country. AZL confirmed these are the only 2 ways JSS might consider these type of restrictions in the best interest of justice. JSS would feel that her hands are tied in these 2 scenarios - no other options that would be suitable.
Or an undercover cop as the 12 news reporter mentioned, but that seems highly improbable.
Okay. I'm in tears. Exactly how many people that you know and love would have a web site dedicated to them after their death by so many friends and acquaintances? Such words of love!
i didn't see these friends testify during the trial. I am wondering why most of them can't give a victim impact statement? That would be so awesome!!
Only certain people are defined as "victims" in the statute.
BBM: Exactly ... and there were a lot of shenanigans that should have NEVER been allowed in that trial either !
:gaah: What is wrong with these Judges ? They are so worried about "appeals" but no matter what the outcome is for CMJA, she will appeal !
:moo:
I don't think anyone thinks they can avoid appeal--the hope is to avoid a
successful appeal.
Did the secret witness testify yesterday or was the jury dismissed after lunch?
If it was not dismissed, will they wait on the press appeals before they continue in secret?
Only if the media's stay motion is granted. I understand JSS will hear the motion at 3 pm today. If she denies it, the media attorneys will run over to the AZ Court of Appeals and ask for the same thing.
