stillwatersc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,626
- Reaction score
- 875
Who is on the legal team now?
Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
- Status
Who is on the legal team now?
Normal time to file a brief is 40 days, so with a 30 day extension, 70 days is allowed "without cause". The 30 day extension only requires a letter requesting it, not a motion. That's why I'm saying they must be asking for more than 70 days to file.
Agree on the supplements - they were getting too many of those spaced out over time, basically using them as a mechanism to gain more time to file the brief. They seem pretty serious about reasons for needing them.
From COA Policies (BBM):
Administrative Order 2014-05 @ http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/89/PDFs/AO%202014-05%20Criminal%20Briefing%20Guidelines.pdf
(Didn't see anything new added to the COA docket this AM).
You were correct about motions and extension of time, etc. LinTx.
I read back through AZ's administrative rules for criminal appeals.
That first 30 day extension for opening briefs does not to be requested by motion. If the wanted just 30 days they would/could make their request via email to the court, not by motion.
The Motion they did file is listed on 2 lines. I'm thinking you're correct again that it is single motion, but that the requests in it may be considered and decided upon separately.
So, the request to supplement the record can be denied (an automatic denial of part 2, a request for a delay because of the time it will take to supplement record),
OR,
Request to supplement can be granted, but the request for a delay to find brief denied.
Maybe?
What an intricate dance this appeal process seems to be....
ETA.. lol. Just saw we posted at the same time...reading yours now.
They can't get the pedo letters in. Not how it works. The letters were not admitted into evidence at trial; new evidence can't be admitted during the appellate process.
The only time post-trial when new evidence can be considered will be during the post-conviction relief process, if the requests that proceeding. If she does, she can submit that "new" evidence into her petition for relief, but it will be up to JSS to decide whether or not any "new" evidence is so compelling that the jury could have reached a different verdict had it been admitted at trial.
The pedo letters were already the subject of pre-trial skirmishing, so wouldn't be considered "new" evidence in any case.
She has 2 public appellate attorneys- Margaret Green and Cory Engle. This dynamic duo is the same team that months ago requested the entire Court of Appeals be disqualified from hearing the 's appeal.
That ill-advised request was based on the (insulting) assumption that every single COA judge had to be presumed tainted because one COA judge published an article in a law journal that used the 's case to discuss the cost of DP trials.
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,963
- Reaction score
- 42,333
With some people I believe a trigger can be in their own mind only. IOW, something that the person thinks is going down may not actually be happening in the way it is perceived, if at all.
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 10,699
- Reaction score
- 52,150
I would guess they're might also be a correlation between taking illegal mind-altering drugs as a 7th grader and the onset of long-term distorted thinking, though sometimes with Jodi one gets the impression that distorted thinking set in in kindergarten.
I get ya. But sometimes I think there is just evil. As important psychology and its research is, I think in this case all the labels put on this takes a back seat to the fact that she's just plain evil. This chick wants to torment, torture, rip the heart out of people. She's never satisfied. It wasn't enough to stalk and torment travis. It wasn't enough to kill Travis. She tortured him. The trial showed us how far she will take her hate and nastiness. She made sure that every decision she and Nurmi made was designed to not just paint Travis as the worst person in the world but she wanted to hurt his family. She wanted to humiliate Deanna. She had been working on Chris and Sky Hughes for years. Made dang sure they were her witness's so they couldn't attend court. If there was a vindictive way of handling something, by golly that's the way she'll go. Every time!
tsitra01
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 3
I found it so hurtful that Deanna had to answer the questions from Nurmi that were very disrespectful to such a wonderful person. She was honest and answered his questions with such dignity. Knowing that she lost Travis who she loved and cared about for so long. Heartwarming that she cared for his beloved dog, Napleon, and the evil killer could nowhere claim as the caregiver.
Why should all the other labels take a back seat to the label 'plain evil'? I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but it's a label as well. Additionally, does it invalidate any of the other labels? There is no set hierarchy of labels, as long as they are all accurate. Labels are simply descriptors. If they are all accurate, they are additive, need not be seen as conflicting with one another, and in fact combine harmoniously to create a more accurate total picture. By allowing the label 'plain evil' to overlay all the other labels you actually have less information to work with, not more, and are therefore farther away from a solution as to how to deal with this evil than if you had allowed all the labels to remain equally visible, so that each can be dealt with as needed.
Caylee Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,746
- Reaction score
- 15,325
Okay, I will send her this one. I doubt she will share though. I have a few more in mind too. :shame:
EEeeeewwww...Ghaaaaa!!!...Whaaaa???
Or,
"How To Toss Your Own Salad In 15 1/2 Easy Steps"
Iirc wasn't there something about her being held back in kindergarten for some reason? Whatever you want to call it, I see it as having started well before her pot smoking days, ie. taking a baseball bat to her little brother's head, though it has been reported that using even just pot during the formative years can cause changes in the way the brain works. I'd like to see the studies for all the other types of sanctioned drugs(tylenol, ibuprofen, aspirin, all the stuff in cough medicines, etc.) that have been fed to kids over the years. We're just now really starting to see the toll that taking antibiotics is having.
COA update.
Court has ruled on the 's attorneys' motion to supplement the trial record and to delay the filing of opening briefs.
The deadline for 's opening brief, before motion requesting supplement and delay: June 27, 2016.
On May 24 the COA:
- "designated ( appeal) as complex case."
- Gave 's attys until November 30 to FILE motions to supplement the trial record.
- vacated brief due date (of June 27).
- indicated "the schedule (for due dates) to be set after a conference with counsel in due course."
_-----_---_-------------
*** Motions to supplement can be FILED! through the end of November, which means potential delays of additional months beyond that before the supplemental material is actually produced, if the COA agrees to allow it in.
***That conference sounds mighty like the management conference Motion the COA denied just days ago.
***Conclusion -- this appeal likely isn't gonna be happening until well into next year. First at least one conference then supplement motions then production then time to write brief, then 40 days for the State to respond to 's brief.....
I have a feeling the State is going to challenge whatever supplemental material her attorneys want in.
Why, I wonder, did the COA decide this was a "complex" case?
Court has ruled on the 's attorneys' motion to supplement the trial record and to delay the filing of opening briefs.
The deadline for 's opening brief, before motion requesting supplement and delay: June 27, 2016.
On May 24 the COA:
- "designated ( appeal) as complex case."
- Gave 's attys until November 30 to FILE motions to supplement the trial record.
- vacated brief due date (of June 27).
- indicated "the schedule (for due dates) to be set after a conference with counsel in due course."
_-----_---_-------------
*** Motions to supplement can be FILED! through the end of November, which means potential delays of additional months beyond that before the supplemental material is actually produced, if the COA agrees to allow it in.
***That conference sounds mighty like the management conference Motion the COA denied just days ago.
***Conclusion -- this appeal likely isn't gonna be happening until well into next year. First at least one conference then supplement motions then production then time to write brief, then 40 days for the State to respond to 's brief.....
I have a feeling the State is going to challenge whatever supplemental material her attorneys want in.
Why, I wonder, did the COA decide this was a "complex" case?
Wonder if the earlier "request" for Management Conference was improper per COA Rules/Policies? Maybe attys were told to submit this motion specifying need for supplements and filing time for brief, so that the COA could rule on it and order a conference? That's all I can figure out...
That makes sense, anyway. Unlike denying the motion and having a change of heart a few days later.
One upside to this extended delay is the accompanying further erosion of interest in anything -related. A year or so from now, when her appeal is denied, I wonder how many of her fans will still be around to care. Their ranks are already thinning quickly enough that she's resorted to trying to peddle her tracings again to raise funds to keep her in beano and butt creams...
Well, it was atypical to say the least:
1) It took over seven years to come to trial
2) 2 hung penalty-phase juries, with an 18 month gap before retrial.
3) Extensive media coverage, including a movie about the case, and allegations made in court that the media coverage affected the process, and possibly the outcome.
So, an argument can be made that the process was atypically complex. This is not the same as saying the basic facts of the case were complex or in dispute, but appeals are all about the process so I can understand the COA decision.
However, this is where JSS's indulgences towards the defense, which many found annoying and frustrating at the time, comes back around to bite them in the *advertiser censored*...
It surely did take an overly long time to wrangle that into a cage for life.
I haven't and won't change my mind about JSS, though I never agreed with those who thought she was pro-defense, though she did for a fact continually allow them exceptional latitude. And more.
Remember when everyone was guessing who the "secret" witness could be? And AZLawyer saying she was sure it couldn't be the , because no competent judge would trash the Constitution and AZ state law just to give the a private stage for her drama & lies? I even remember AZL saying that if JSS had indeed allowed the to testify in secret, AZL would be dismayed enough to, iirc, run for JSS's position next election, to get her off the bench.
. (Hope AZL meant that. )JSS was in over her head, IMO. Overwhelmed by all the media, receptive to the DT's manipulation about media and more because she wanted a clean verdict and sentence but was overly cautious, overly concerned with being "liked" by both counsel, and uncertain of herself. The DT bullied her backwards, step by step, until she was lost in the weeds. jmo.
But, I doubt the appeal being considered "complex" has much to do with the process being complex. Don't think the legal issues her attorneys are likely to raise will be complex either.
My guess is the COA's designation of complex is an acknowledgement of a voluminous trial record created by an absurdly long trial, and stuffed with Nurmi's innumerable objections for the record.
- Status