Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion* #2

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Oh for heaven's sake. It sure looks like it's a motion to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing the case. I have no idea what grounds they could cite; I mean, there are 5 or 6 three-judge panels there, so it's hard to imagine ALL of them should be disqualified.

To give you an example of when something like that would happen, a couple of months ago the entire AZ Supreme Court (only 5 judges, though, not like the Court of Appeals) recused themselves from a case that would affect their personal pension plans. Five Court of Appeals judges who had started after the pension rules changed were assigned to deal with the case instead.

Thank you AZL! Don't know if you still check in, but the article the motion refers to seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and only referencing the penalty phase of the trial
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/
Are they arguing that she can't be considered guilty by a judge after she's been found guilty by a jury? That the penatly phase should be thrown out here? Or are they just trying to cause confusion, and hope it sticks?
The whole argument in the motion makes no sense, IMO - Or did I miss something?
Whether you answer or not, thanks AZL, love that you're here!

 

[samspace070]

Thank you AZL! Don't know if you still check in, but the article the motion refers to seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and only referencing the penalty phase of the trial
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/
Are they arguing that she can't be considered guilty by a judge after she's been found guilty by a jury? That the penatly phase should be thrown out here? Or are they just trying to cause confusion, and hope it sticks?
The whole argument in the motion makes no sense, IMO - Or did I miss something?
Whether you answer or not, thanks AZL, love that you're here!

What does it mean when the Court of Appeals says the Appeals case is closed. Filed May 7 2015 and closed Oct 5, 2015. I don't understand that. I can't find the appeal to read it. Where is it? Thanks ahead of time for the help

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

What does it mean when the Court of Appeals says the Appeals case is closed. Filed May 7 2015 and closed Oct 5, 2015. I don't understand that. I can't find the appeal to read it. Where is it? Thanks ahead of time for the help

Samspace070 - I responded in the sentencing thread as well, and not sure if your question was directed to me, but I'll try to answer -
On the COA site, this case isn't listed as closed, but as an active case, not sure where you saw that, but it doesn't seem to be there now - If you can post a link, maybe we can figure it out?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi everyone! Sorry it took me so long to think to click back here--it's beach's fault for getting me involved in another case lol.

Holy Toledo!! The batcall still works! . Thank you, AZL.

Is it possible CMJA is still dictating legal strategy? I thought her appellate attys would be largely moving forward on their own, on auto pilot.

I can't imagine why any competent appellate lawyer would care what she had to say about appellate strategy.

OK, so going by that example, the Chief Judge could recuse all the COA judges with SC judges taking their place. It's still considered a COA appeal though, correct? So let's say they ruled against the motion. It would normally go to the SC for review - but wouldn't the SC judges then have to be recused because they ruled on the COA appeal?

It would still count as a COA appeal, but it would never ever work that way. If the whole Ct App was kicked off the case, trial court judges (probably from outlying counties to avoid more silly arguments of bias by association) would be brought in to handle the appeal. She will not get to skip the Ct App step.

What does it mean when the Court of Appeals says the Appeals case is closed. Filed May 7 2015 and closed Oct 5, 2015. I don't understand that. I can't find the appeal to read it. Where is it? Thanks ahead of time for the help

You must be looking at the wrong one. It's still open. The case # is 





1 CA-CR 15-0302.

Thank you AZL! Don't know if you still check in, but the article the motion refers to seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and only referencing the penalty phase of the trial
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/
Are they arguing that she can't be considered guilty by a judge after she's been found guilty by a jury? That the penatly phase should be thrown out here? Or are they just trying to cause confusion, and hope it sticks?
The whole argument in the motion makes no sense, IMO - Or did I miss something?
Whether you answer or not, thanks AZL, love that you're here!

I haven't seen the motion and couldn't find it in any other threads. But from what I'm gathering, the argument would have been that Judge Cattani wrote this article that starts off by saying her guilt was never in question, so he's biased and should be off the case. That part makes sense. If her appeal is arguing that the guilty verdict was erroneous, it sounds like he's prejudged that issue. The part that makes a lot less sense (to put it in the nicest way possible) is the argument that all the OTHER judges should be off the case too.

 

[Hope4More]

Hi everyone! Sorry it took me so long to think to click back here--it's beach's fault for getting me involved in another case lol.



I can't imagine why any competent appellate lawyer would care what she had to say about appellate strategy.



It would still count as a COA appeal, but it would never ever work that way. If the whole Ct App was kicked off the case, trial court judges (probably from outlying counties to avoid more silly arguments of bias by association) would be brought in to handle the appeal. She will not get to skip the Ct App step.



You must be looking at the wrong one. It's still open. The case # is 1 CA-CR 15-0302.



I haven't seen the motion and couldn't find it in any other threads. But from what I'm gathering, the argument would have been that Judge Cattani wrote this article that starts off by saying her guilt was never in question, so he's biased and should be off the case. That part makes sense. If her appeal is arguing that the guilty verdict was erroneous, it sounds like he's prejudged that issue. The part that makes a lot less sense (to put it in the nicest way possible) is the argument that all the OTHER judges should be off the case too.

AZL...thanks for replying.


The question for me remains WHY her attys would file a motion to disqualify the COA, since there is zero chance of winning that motion.

The motion was already denied, actually, and a day later her attys filed a Motion to Reconsider. WTH? I know it doesn't make sense that her attys would allow her to dictate strategy, but it makes even less sense IMO that they came up with this bizarre idea without her input.

Even in the realm of the completely theoretical, what could her attys possibly be trying to achieve with these motions??


BTW, I can't post a link to the motion, but yes, the "argument" was that Canelli was biased and because he published his article about the killer in a journal other judges read, all the COA judges should be disqualified just in case.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL...thanks for replying.


The question for me remains WHY her attys would file a motion to disqualify the COA, since there is zero chance of winning that motion.

The motion was already denied, actually, and a day later her attys filed a Motion to Reconsider. WTH? I know it doesn't make sense that her attys would allow her to dictate strategy, but it makes even less sense IMO that they came up with this bizarre idea without her input.

Even in the realm of the completely theoretical, what could her attys possibly be trying to achieve with these motions??


BTW, I can't post a link to the motion, but yes, the "argument" was that Canelli was biased and because he published his article about the killer in a journal other judges read, all the COA judges should be disqualified just in case.

So because Cattani said in passing that her guilt was never in question (and then immediately moved on to another issue), the other Ct App judges are such sheep that they would just say, "Oh, OK. Kent says her guilt was never in question, so we can just skip the first 15 pages of this brief"? :floorlaugh:

I can't tell you why they filed the motion. I can definitely see filing a motion to remove Cattani if he had been selected for the panel, but this is just silliness IMO. And by the way, since it won't work, aren't they worried about creating ACTUAL bias in the minds of these judges? I mean, what if the judges read JA's brief and keep thinking in the backs of their minds, "This was written by the same people who filed that silly motion"?

Hold on, let me just check and make sure these aren't friends of mine before I click "submit" on this...

OK. We're good lol.

 

[Hope4More]

So because Cattani said in passing that her guilt was never in question (and then immediately moved on to another issue), the other Ct App judges are such sheep that they would just say, "Oh, OK. Kent says her guilt was never in question, so we can just skip the first 15 pages of this brief"? :floorlaugh:

I can't tell you why they filed the motion. I can definitely see filing a motion to remove Cattani if he had been selected for the panel, but this is just silliness IMO. And by the way, since it won't work, aren't they worried about creating ACTUAL bias in the minds of these judges? I mean, what if the judges read JA's brief and keep thinking in the backs of their minds, "This was written by the same people who filed that silly motion"?

Hold on, let me just check and make sure these aren't friends of mine before I click "submit" on this...

OK. We're good lol.

LOL. Yah, the potential for blowback with COA judges is why I've reluctantly concluded the killer is once again setting her attorneys up for failure.

She wouldn't have any real input into the actual appeals brief filed by her attys, but I can believe she insisted that they file those ridiculous motions impugning the COA. She never learns.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL......do public interviews by the killer telling what she knows to be lies to attack Nurmi's defense of her absolve him of honoring AC privilege? And even if so, is he not still bound by AZ's code of conduct for attys regarding the ethical imperative of maintaining client confidentiality?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL......do public interviews by the killer telling what she knows to be lies to attack Nurmi's defense of her absolve him of honoring AC privilege? And even if so, is he not still bound by AZ's code of conduct for attys regarding the ethical imperative of maintaining client confidentiality?

Based on the ethics rules, my opinion is that he could defend himself against any specific allegations she made, but the State Bar would probably want him to limit his defense to the same forum in which she made the allegations (e.g., local news) rather than writing a book and publishing it on Amazon. And maybe it would be a little disingenuous to suggest you were defending yourself if the allegations were made a really really long time ago.

Once again adding for the record that I can only assume he got an informed waiver from her, hopefully after she consulted with independent counsel. Otherwise this was a risky move.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL. Hypothetically and in general, is there any form of attorney misconduct that would warrant Asst. AG Paul Ahler's (Criminal Division) involvement/investigation?

Or is any and all alleged misconduct by an attorney (in capacity as an atty) no matter how egregious, investigated as a bar complaint?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL. Hypothetically and in general, is there any form of attorney misconduct that would warrant Asst. AG Paul Ahler's (Criminal Division) involvement/investigation?

Or is any and all alleged misconduct by an attorney (in capacity as an atty) no matter how egregious, investigated as a bar complaint?

The AG investigates crimes, so some attorney misconduct would fall within that category. E.g., killing your client, siphoning client funds, tampering with witnesses. Other attorney misconduct is not criminal and therefore is handled by the Bar. E.g., breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest.

 

[Hope4More]

The AG investigates crimes, so some attorney misconduct would fall within that category. E.g., killing your client, siphoning client funds, tampering with witnesses. Other attorney misconduct is not criminal and therefore is handled by the Bar. E.g., breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest.

Thank you yet again, especially for coming out of your hard earned, well deserved retirement from all things Arias to answer yet more Arias questions.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL........posted question for you just now in book discussion thread about Victoria Washington turning over 400 odd pages of DT work product, including DT interviews with potential witnesses.....

 

[Caylee Advocate]

AZL........posted question for you just now in book discussion thread about Victoria Washington turning over 400 odd pages of DT work product, including DT interviews with potential witnesses.....

I am interested in the answer too Hope. For me, I want to remain neutral in thinking it was all okay and that V.W. was well within her rights to turn over whatever she wanted. I just can't see it as ineffective counsel. JMO. Hopefully AZL's batphone is still active, LOL.

 

[Hope4More]

I am interested in the answer too Hope. For me, I want to remain neutral in thinking it was all okay and that V.W. was well within her rights to turn over whatever she wanted. I just can't see it as ineffective counsel. JMO. Hopefully AZL's batphone is still active, LOL.

The bar for demonstrating ineffective counsel is so high I can't imagine a single mistake like this one by an attorney who removed herself before trial would suffice.

But...both Nurmi and JM have stated that Washington turning over that work product was of huge, maybe even decisive significance, hence the question.....

 

[Caylee Advocate]

The bar for demonstrating ineffective counsel is so high I can't imagine a single mistake like this one by an attorney who removed herself before trial would suffice.

But...both Nurmi and JM have stated that Washington turning over that work product was of huge, maybe even decisive significance, hence the question.....

Oh I agree and I hope it was all within the legal sense of what was the right thing to do when she withdrew from the case. Fingers, eyes, and hooters crossed that our suspicions are correct. Hey AZL, our retainer is in the mail, so we need an answer sooner than later, LMAO. Seriously, we adore you for helping us out with these questions. :loveyou:

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry guys! The bat phone was on the fritz. I don't think the IAC argument would fly, based on the little bit of information I've gathered from reading your posts above, because what's the claimed harm? That the prosecutor learned true information? I'm not sure you can claim IAC on the theory that if the information hadn't been disclosed the witnesses might have been able to lie more effectively.

 

[Hope4More]

Sorry guys! The bat phone was on the fritz. I don't think the IAC argument would fly, based on the little bit of information I've gathered from reading your posts above, because what's the claimed harm? That the prosecutor learned true information? I'm not sure you can claim IAC on the theory that if the information hadn't been disclosed the witnesses might have been able to lie more effectively.

LOL squared, nay, cubed. Thank you so much, AZL! You really are the best.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Sorry guys! The bat phone was on the fritz. I don't think the IAC argument would fly, based on the little bit of information I've gathered from reading your posts above, because what's the claimed harm? That the prosecutor learned true information? I'm not sure you can claim IAC on the theory that if the information hadn't been disclosed the witnesses might have been able to lie more effectively.

What a doll, best attorney I have ever had the pleasure to "know" and your rates are so reasonable. LOL. I know there has been a lot of barking about both of these books, but do you see a problem with their release? I don't, but who am I? I appreciate your being here for us, and miss you. Keep the bat phone charged as I'm sure we will be ringing it again. Huggggggggs!

 

[Caylee Advocate]

LOL squared, nay, cubed. Thank you so much, AZL! You really are the best.

Sliced and diced.