Uh huh. I can't imagine the Gilbert scenario would be appealable unless decided she should have had that juror and he would have voted a lesser charge (I believe he said he would have voted for conviction as charged). Just as a note, I'm impressed that JSS involved that many individuals in deciding whether to remove that juror. Man, she had her bases covered. I suppose could try to argue that his DUI was somehow prejudicial, he fanned the flames of publicity, etc. But in fact, he kept quiet until the trial was over. He was definitely no idiot.
MDLR only worked that many hours in the guilt phase? How is that possible? That would be enough to cause most anyone with a smidgen of an unethical streak to resort to bribes.
What case at Superior Court was the AG note in reference to? doesn't have an open case in Superior Court, surely? If it pertained to her case, would that item be in the transcripts for the Appeal? Maybe it just reflects an ongoing investigation and AG just put it in there so it would be a matter of record in the appeal? A legal way of sticking it to ?
Maybe I should change my user name to RickSis? We don't seem to have migrated very far.....
Dear RickSis--.
As you know, it's her attorneys' job to scour the record looking for anything at all they can argue is a basis for prejudice, abuse of discretion, etc. Perhaps they intend to use the Gilbert-juror episode to support a jury related argument. Dunno.
MDLR and a hundred hours. That number seemed low to me too. She was in court most days. It never occurred to me to think of the trial's length in hours, not days, but I would have guessed it lasted far longer than 100 hours, and we know MDLR put in extra hours outside of court, playing with SM and the 's fan club, though maybe she did the latter gratis.
The AG has been conducting a secret investigation into something or person(s) related to the 's trial, but not anything or anyone that has anything to do with the 's appeal.
This we know because the AG went to the COA and requested and was granted (unspecified) trial records (almost a year ago, in October, 2015). The request was made and granted ex parte, a fact the 's attorneys objected to, strenuously.
Her attorneys wanted the COA to keep all trial records sealed and out of the AG's hands. The COA denied these motions. Then her attorneys demanded to know which records the AG had requested.
The COA denied that motion too, writing that the nature of the investigation warranted secrecy and that her attorneys had no right to know what records were being requested, given that the investigation had no bearing on the 's appeals.
I was happy to see the AG's note in her Superior Court docket, because it seems to suggest the investigation went on for months, at least, and may still be ongoing. The note appears only in her Superior Court docket, not on the COA's, because it isn't related to her appeals.
Last, nope, haven't migrated very far and may well not anytime soon, if at all. My neurological thing has been worsening over the past few months, and has definitely further compromised my ability to concentrate/focus. Old grooves are more forgiving than trying to forge new paths.