anyway was responding to Reagan who wrote:
Don't forget, he also blamed the state and then the media. It is a lot to expect, that a defense attorney arguing for who knows what can't cite a case. I don't even know exactly what he was arguing for or against. The CT granted the stay of JS's secrecy order. Now this, to a normal atty, would signal they have a losing argument.
So, that would mean he would come to court the next day understanding that the trial must go on and he can't have a secret witness. To me, a "normal attorney" would then try for the lesser restrictions mentioned by the CT to try and get something. But this pre-supposes good faith. And this is really my issue with the DT. I sense a certain lack of good faith. It seemed pretty clear that KN couldn't cite any AZ precedent for what he was requesting and the CT of Appeals granted the stay, indicating a likelihood of success for the media position. So, what type of good faith basis could he have for refusing to go forward with the mitigation proceeding? I'm not really seeing any. Course, how can we possibly know since, as you noted, they then went into a secret discussion, again.
I went and listened to todays proceedings again to try and figure out KN's actual argument and I am even more incredulous. Juan gets up and makes perfect sense so no need to discuss.
KN gets up and starts with his statement, that he doesn't remember the case but the holding is that the state is presumed to know the law. And that means state should know defendants rights are superior to victims. Notes this is not about sabotage. He goes on about how he does want to go forward and would be happy to do so just as JS agreed to last week. (OK, that is a total bad faith argument as JS's secret witness order was stayed-she can't allow it) He continues about how Rule 19 isn't important here. Rights of JA are and JS herself found going ahead not in secret would be "problematic"-uses her word "problematic" numerous times. From that he states as fact that what JS found as "problematic" is of constitutional significance, that JA has the right to litigate issues and he's happy to go forward as JS said he could in secrecy. Then he gets into the media causing this and Juan not arguing against media so it's his fault too and so the media can cause a mistrial. He ends with acting all confused about why the judge is changing her position, why she would try to make them go forward without the promised secrecy, since she said it was problematic, like he completely forgot JS's order got slapped down by the appeals ct.
His "argument" is, well, lame and disengenuous, unless he has actual amnesia and forgot he went to the court of appeals. Whatever JS thought was "problematic", she simply can't let DT go forward in secrecy because the higher ct said she can't. Yet he is still arguing for that. He's got to know it isn't even possible. Of course he's using JS's words against her but even that is fairly lame, so she agreed it was "problematic" to go forward without the secrecy, when she agreed to the secrecy, of course she did, she needed to state some plausible reason to cave in to a ridiculous request. Just because something is problematic doesn't mean it affects JA's constitutional rights. "Problematic" is just about the lamest excuse for defying the constitution I've come across lately. That pesky 1st Amendment is just so "problematic" we should just do away with it for JA.
But then, JS speaks and actually starts to put her foot down and lay it on the table (mixed methaphors but I took some NYQUIL too). There she is, strong and decisive: the court stayed my order. You have to decide about proceeding out of order and not in preferred manner. you have other witnesses.....then it goes downhill-she starts caving...well, I know you have to file papers by Friday so I will limit the time you have to spend here. Juan says all DT has is 2 experts and one other witness from CA and the rest are affidavits. Then, you guessed it, she calls for secrecy because they're discussing witnesses and of course they need to be secret even though the court pretty much said they couldn't be and so it ends as always with wishy washy caving in and cancelling court and preserving the secrecy of the witnesses for another day.
