Clue # 1 that this is an incredibly sloppy and uninformed piece of "journalism": It's entirely about the killer's upcoming COA oral argument, but the writer isn't even aware that they have in fact been scheduled. For October 17. Clue #2. Karen Clark's self-serving statements are taken at face value and parroted. Clark claims the questions the COA sent out in advance to attorneys indicate the panel is particularly interested in JM's prosecutorial misconduct. Reality is, the killer's attorneys requested oral arguments. The only permissable subjects of argument relate to issues her attorneys raised in their opening brief. There are only 2 arguments in their brief the (COA) panel could possibly find enough meat on the bone to bite into: * excessive publicity, yada, yada. * prosecutorial misconduct. Guess what. The panel's questions relate to those arguments. What a surprise. Further, anyone with even rudimentary knowledge about what happens during appellate court (or Supreme Court) arguments knows that the judges ask questions to solicit and challenge each side's legal reasoning (including case law/precedent) that supports their position. The panel's questions provide equal opportunity for the State and the killer's attorneys to argue their strongest points and to defend the weakest. Karen Clark the ethics attorney knows this. She's simply shameless, is all.