Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #6

[Hope4More]

Dang, I need new speakers, I had my sound up to max and just couldn't hear most of it.

I had same problem. The player gives option to open up in a new window- doing that made the difference.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think she would be categorized as a capital case anymore. No, sadly Preshus won't be home for Christmas this year either, nor any to come.

I really don't know about capital vs. not for her appeal. Not for lack of trying. Must be one of those things that is so obvious it doesn't get explained to those of us who don't find it obvious at all.

 

[geevee]

He left them in the bedroom to put on after his shower when his feet were dry?

And walk to the shower barefoot on tile? I thought that was their purpose but I don't wear shower sandals as I don't like/have tile floors. With them lying like that it makes me think he didn't go to the shower willingly, but if the fibers came from the sandals (which seems most likely to me), how did they get back into the bedroom in what looks like a clean state?.

 

[geevee]

Timeline for the ’s COA appeal. Disclaimer: I'm not a licensed attorney, but I do practice law vicariously.




1. The trial record is complete, and must be delivered to appellate attorneys by May 2.

2. Appellate briefs must be filed with the COA within 40 days for non-capital cases, 90 days for capital cases. Not sure which category hers fits into, given the LWOP rather than DP sentence, but since DP convictions automatically go to the AZC, I’m assuming hers is reviewed as a capital case. If that’s accurate, the ’s brief isn’t due until August 2.

3. The COA doesn’t like giving extensions (continuances). The Court permits one 30-day automatic continuance (as in, a no questions “yes” if requested), but is highly unlikely to grant a second request. Given her voluminous trial record, it’s probably a safe assumption her attys will go for the continuance; brief then due to the COA by September 2.


Upon receipt of briefs, the COA Clerk will set ’s case on the next available calendar of one of the COA’s 5 panels of judges. Case calendars are posted on the COA’s website “at least one month ahead.”


((Process: panels meet weekly. Before meeting, each of the 3 judges on the panel reads briefs, does research, and reviews any relevant parts of the trial record. If appellant attorneys have asked for and been granted oral argument (not routine) the panel will hear that argument on the same day as case conference. Panels typically decide the appeal on the same day as well, although the process of writing their decision takes a great deal longer, and can be delayed still further if a panel judge dissents or if the appeals issues are complex, or for a number of other reasons.))



COA isn’t obligated by law to dispose of appeals within any set time but has set “best practice” goals:

1. 375 days. Filing to Disposition (initial post-sentencing filing of appeal through COA’s written decision). In 2015 that goal was met 58% of the time. Delays are mostly due to what we’ve seen in ’s case---a backlog of obtaining trial record transcriptions.

2. 150 days. At-Issue through Disposition (time from trial record completion through written decision). In 2015, the COA met their At-Issue goal 84% of the time.

3. 90 days. Under Advisement to Disposition (time from a panel’s calendared conference through written decision). In 2015 that goal was met 78% of the time.


Based on the above…the earliest we’ll hear that her appeal has been denied is 90 days after conference, December 3, plus whatever amount of time elapses between the COA’s receipt of briefs through the date of the 3-judge panel’s conference to discuss her appeal (no less than one month, given the dates for conference are posted on COA’s website “at least one month prior”).

Sadly for ’s fans, then, she won’t be coming home for Christmas this year either. Perhaps she’ll treat herself to extra packages of sardines as she rings in her new year at Perryville, still waiting for the COA to get back to her on that appeals thing.

Thanks Hope, I really appreciate this, hopefully it's no longer considered a capital case since she didn't get the DP and maybe round about Christmas Maria can deliver the denial wrapped in a shiny bow with a pinwheel on top, a gift from the taxpayers of AZ. I wish on rainbows a lot though.

 

[RickshawFan]

Timeline for the ’s COA appeal. Disclaimer: I'm not a licensed attorney, but I do practice law vicariously.




1. The trial record is complete, and must be delivered to appellate attorneys by May 2.

2. Appellate briefs must be filed with the COA within 40 days for non-capital cases, 90 days for capital cases. Not sure which category hers fits into, given the LWOP rather than DP sentence, but since DP convictions automatically go to the AZC, I’m assuming hers is reviewed as a capital case. If that’s accurate, the ’s brief isn’t due until August 2.

3. The COA doesn’t like giving extensions (continuances). The Court permits one 30-day automatic continuance (as in, a no questions “yes” if requested), but is highly unlikely to grant a second request. Given her voluminous trial record, it’s probably a safe assumption her attys will go for the continuance; brief then due to the COA by September 2.


Upon receipt of briefs, the COA Clerk will set ’s case on the next available calendar of one of the COA’s 5 panels of judges. Case calendars are posted on the COA’s website “at least one month ahead.”


((Process: panels meet weekly. Before meeting, each of the 3 judges on the panel reads briefs, does research, and reviews any relevant parts of the trial record. If appellant attorneys have asked for and been granted oral argument (not routine) the panel will hear that argument on the same day as case conference. Panels typically decide the appeal on the same day as well, although the process of writing their decision takes a great deal longer, and can be delayed still further if a panel judge dissents or if the appeals issues are complex, or for a number of other reasons.))



COA isn’t obligated by law to dispose of appeals within any set time but has set “best practice” goals:

1. 375 days. Filing to Disposition (initial post-sentencing filing of appeal through COA’s written decision). In 2015 that goal was met 58% of the time. Delays are mostly due to what we’ve seen in ’s case---a backlog of obtaining trial record transcriptions.

2. 150 days. At-Issue through Disposition (time from trial record completion through written decision). In 2015, the COA met their At-Issue goal 84% of the time.

3. 90 days. Under Advisement to Disposition (time from a panel’s calendared conference through written decision). In 2015 that goal was met 78% of the time.


Based on the above…the earliest we’ll hear that her appeal has been denied is 90 days after conference, December 3, plus whatever amount of time elapses between the COA’s receipt of briefs through the date of the 3-judge panel’s conference to discuss her appeal (no less than one month, given the dates for conference are posted on COA’s website “at least one month prior”).

Sadly for ’s fans, then, she won’t be coming home for Christmas this year either. Perhaps she’ll treat herself to extra packages of sardines as she rings in her new year at Perryville, still waiting for the COA to get back to her on that appeals thing.

Are those business days or calendar days?

 

[RickshawFan]

Something has always bothered me about a TA/JA photo. There's one of them at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, correct? Does JA maintain they stopped off there on the way back from OKC in spring 2008? And it was on the "CD of photos that TA wanted"? The ABQ fiesta occurs in early October every year.

Something is really off.....

 

[geevee]

Something has always bothered me about a TA/JA photo. There's one of them at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, correct? Does JA maintain they stopped off there on the way back from OKC in spring 2008? And it was on the "CD of photos that TA wanted"? The ABQ fiesta occurs in early October every year.

Something is really off.....

One of the balloon festival pics is on the Flickr page, it says the pic was taken on Oct. 14, 2007.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/27308599@N07/2547017779/

 

[Wing Ding]

Something has always bothered me about a TA/JA photo. There's one of them at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, correct? Does JA maintain they stopped off there on the way back from OKC in spring 2008? And it was on the "CD of photos that TA wanted"? The ABQ fiesta occurs in early October every year.

Something is really off.....

One of the balloon festival pics is on the Flickr page, it says the pic was taken on Oct. 14, 2007.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/27308599@N07/2547017779/

So would Roswell or Carlsbad Caverns in N.M. have been their impromptu stop on the way back from the OKC spring convention? Hey, wait a minnit... didn't TA and JA fly into OKC for the convention? Because if so, changing pre-purchased return flight tickets from OKC to AR to OKC to N.M and then AR at the last minute sounds like a lot of trouble (to me) when you factor in accommodations, et cetera. But then again, if anyone could persuade Travis to do what she wanted, it was the # Goddess herself. #2DESCEND

 

[TexMex]

And walk to the shower barefoot on tile? I thought that was their purpose but I don't wear shower sandals as I don't like/have tile floors. With them lying like that it makes me think he didn't go to the shower willingly, but if the fibers came from the sandals (which seems most likely to me), how did they get back into the bedroom in what looks like a clean state?.

IMO they were flip flops, worn around the house. Why would he not want to walk barefoot on the bathroom tile in his own house?

 

[TexMex]

Something has always bothered me about a TA/JA photo. There's one of them at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, correct? Does JA maintain they stopped off there on the way back from OKC in spring 2008? And it was on the "CD of photos that TA wanted"? The ABQ fiesta occurs in early October every year.

Something is really off.....

They went to the balloon festival in Oct 2007 and she records in her journal they drove from Mesa to Alburquerque to see it

http://alibi.com/feature/20634/The-2007-Albuquerque-International-Balloon-Fiesta.html

 

[Hope4More]

APPEALS, Soup to Nuts.


I. What is the appeals process?

“Once the appellate court receives both petitioner and respondent briefs, it will analyze the arguments and make a determination of whether: a) there were errors of law made by the trial court, and b) whether the errors rise to the level of "reversible error.” Harmless errors will be overlooked by the appellate court.

The court will either: 1) affirm the decision; 2) order a new trial; 3) modify the ruling in some way; 4) in extremely rare cases, may throw out the case entirely. “Westlaw.

(Reversible error: is a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant that without the error the outcome may have been different and the judgment must be reversed by the appellate court. A reversible error is distinguished from an error which is insignificant and did not affect the judgment at the trial. Reversible error may be made by a judge or jury. Although attorney misconduct is not technically reversible error, the failure of the judge to remedy it during the trial is reversible error. Reversible error affects the reliability of the outcome of a court case). http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reversible-error/

II. What are the odds of a successful appeal?

“The number of successful appeals is low. Appellate courts give the trial court great leeway in conducting trials. The law does not guarantee perfect trials, therefore appeals courts will only overturn verdicts which contain clear, serious errors of law.

Because of the leeway appeals courts give trial verdicts, petitioners carry an even greater burden in proving that errors of law were serious and not harmless. If an appellate court can find any reasonable argument that the error wouldn't have changed the verdict (and is therefore "harmless"), it will refuse to overturn the verdict.” (Westlaw)



III. Arizona’s Rules for Appellate Briefs

Except by permission of the court, (i) a principal brief in a non-capital case prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface may not exceed 14,000 words

(1) Appellant. The appellant's brief shall include:
(i) A table of contents with page references.
(ii) A table of citations, which shall alphabetically arrange and index the cases, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief on which they are cited.
(iii) A statement of the case, indicating briefly the basis of the appellate court's jurisdiction, the nature of the case, the course of the proceedings and the disposition in the court below.
(iv) A statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record. The statement shall not contain evidentiary matter unless material to a proper consideration of the issues presented, in which instance a reference shall be made to the record or page of the transcript where such evidence appears. The statement of facts may be combined with the statement of the case.
(v) A statement of the issues presented for review. The statement of an issue presented for review will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue fairly comprised therein.
(vi) An argument which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. The argument may include a summary. With respect to each contention raised on appeal, the proper standard of review on appeal shall be identified, with citations to relevant authority, at the outset of the discussion of that contention. Citation of authorities shall be to the volume and page number of the official reports and also when possible to the unofficial reports.
(vii) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(ii) In addition, the appendix to an appellate brief may include extended quotations from cases and authorities where such quotations are required for proper presentation of the issues.

f. Capital Cases.

(1) Time for Filing. In capital cases, the appellant's opening brief shall be filed within 70 days after the mailing of the notice as provided for by Rule 31.10. Except by permission of the court, (i) a principal brief in a capital case prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface may not exceed 28,000 words……



IV. Advice by a judge on appellate brief writing:


1. Writing a laundry list of points( is a bad idea). Select 3 or 4 of what you think are your strongest points and develop those.

2. Do not beat us over the head with statutory language and precedent. Your case, unless it is a federal criminal case, probably would not have reached the court of appeals if it had been clearly governed by a statute or a case.

3. Do not exaggerate the cogency of reasoning by analogy by trying to persuade us to base our decision on a previous case, especially a case from another field of law.

4. Be brief. Judges do a lot of reading. (Holmes once said that he was paid to read—that was his job.) We get tired or bored, and some of us tend to start skimming when we encounter a tedious, repetitious brief.

5. Do not omit from your brief, especially if you are the appellant, mention of the strongest points that you know your opponent will make in his or her brief. Often I read the appellant’s brief and think, how could the judge have made such a mistake, committed such an injustice! And then I read the appellee’s brief and realized that the appellant’s brief had omitted the points that showed that the lower-court opinion, whether ultimately persuasive or not, was at least reasonable. And when that happens, one loses confidence in the appellant’s position.




V. Some possibilities of what ’s attys will argue, taken from Nurmi’s many motions, and how JSS ruled.

1. Inconsistent testimony by Flores about sequence of injuries (shot first) 2009 probable cause hearing versus trial testimony.

((Note: The shot-first aspect was litigated before trial. The DT hopped all over this not just to impeach Flores, but because, they argued, shot-first mattered as to whether or not the State could demonstrate “especially cruel,” the State’s sole basis for seeking the DP.

DT asked for a new probable cause (Chronis) hearing January 2013. JSS denied, saying in part---shot first or last, doesn’t matter, an abundance of evidence demonstrates Travis suffered tremendously. DT filed for a Special Action by the COA, the COA declined jurisdiction)).

JSS: DT had the opportunity in both guilt phase and PP2 trials to cross-examine Flores and ME on the stand about Flores’ 2009 statements. Credibility of witnesses is the jury’s to determine.

2. Text messages were not disclosed to DT in a timely manner.

JSS: Texts were provided to DT in October 2010, way before trial, way time enough; technology to capture texts didn’t exist before that.

3. Media shouldn’t have been allowed-the circus deprived of a fair trial, the jury should have been sequestered, blah blah blah.

JSS: I bent over backwards to accommodate every last little whine of yours about this. Believe it or not, this wasn’t the trial of the century or even of the decade. All that matters is if the jury was influenced by media coverage. Each and every juror during both trials said daily they were not, end of story. (Note: because, Mr. Nurmi, unlike you, appellate courts NEVER as in NEVER presume jurors lie).

3. JM harassed, intimidated, was a meanie to DT witnesses.

JSS: It’s called zealous cross examination. Get over it.

4. was deprived of due process during the guilt phase because Detective Melendez testified he didn’t find *advertiser censored* or viruses, which made the look like a liar when she was actually telling the truth. And Melendez testified to the same thing during PP2.

JSS: The DT had the opportunity to cross Melendez at both trials. It’s up to the jury to determine witness credibility, evaluate evidence, and to resolve factual disputes.

JSS: And by the way. During the guilt phase, Melendez’s testimony about TA’s computer related to June 4. The computer evidence existed then to establish those facts.

5. Prior attorneys were ineffective for allowing destruction of evidence when computer was turned on.

JSS: Nope, harmless, whatever was lost, because the DT had access to a mirror image of the HD. No demonstration of prejudice to your client.


6. Flores woke up TA’s computer, destruction of possibly exculpatory evidence, Flores violated LE protocol.

JSS: No reason to believe any relevant evidence was destroyed, much less exculpatory evidence, much less intentionally destroyed. And no, Flores didn’t violate protocol; waking up sleeping computers was standard practice, and Flores had no idea it was a bad idea


7. The was denied her 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 34th right to fully mitigation-tify.

Why? Mitigation witnesses were too afraid to testify. They were afraid of being picked on by SM bullies, and terrified JM would be a shouting meanie.

JSS: Zealous is good, the court can’t control what SM does, the court offered to accommodate the quivering alleged witnesses with creative solutions including: pseudonyms, testimony brought in through other witnesses, names sealed, testimony videotaped, and by the way, you could have used subpoenas.

Considered your Affidavits--under seal--of Sept 26, 2014, your supplements-under seal- filed Jan 5 and 7, 2015, and your Nov 26, 2014 Motion to Reconsider given COA’s ruling, but the latter applied only to the , not to other mitigation witnesses.
.
The Defendant has failed to demonstrate any misconduct by the State that deprived the of her ability to present full mitigation, and it is patently absurd to claim the was too afraid to testify in PP2 after spending 18 days on the stand in guilt phase burying us all with her rancid lies.

------------------------------------



Handy definition: Prosecutorial Misconduct. Intentional, knowingly improper and prejudicial. Must be demonstrated that there was a reasonable likelihood the conduct deprived defendant right to a fair trial. Must be “pronounced and pervasive enough to have permeated the atmosphere” of the entire trial. Errors, mistakes, and insignificant impropriety don’t rise to this level.

Handy to remember: JSS denied every single one of Nurmi’s motions for this or that based on prosecutorial misconduct. Can’t be “pervasive” if not one motion was persuasive.

 

[Hope4More]

Are those business days or calendar days?

Good question. Dunno. Come to think of it, though, probably business days. Still trying to find an answer to capital vs. not, a difference of 50 (business?) days.

 

[RickshawFan]

So would Roswell or Carlsbad Caverns in N.M. have been their impromptu stop on the way back from the OKC spring convention? Hey, wait a minnit... didn't TA and JA fly into OKC for the convention? Because if so, changing pre-purchased return flight tickets from OKC to AR to OKC to N.M and then AR at the last minute sounds like a lot of trouble (to me) when you factor in accommodations, et cetera. But then again, if anyone could persuade Travis to do what she wanted, it was the # Goddess herself. #2DESCEND

Carlsbad Caverns is not anywhere close to the interstate between PHX and OKC. If I were driving, I believe it would take most of a day.

One of the reasons I'm bothered by some of these locations is that JA claims that she and TA went to see some of 1000 places (I mean, really, did she only ever go to 5 in her life?). Is there any evidence that they didn't come right back to Mesa from OKC? Did they really take side trips? I just find this unbelievable.

And they didn't stop at the more obvious places, like Santa Fe? Chaco Canyon? Where were they sleeping for goodness sake! TA was broke (and that's why he had to take JA to OKC: so she would share gas expenses), and side trips would have meant (presumably) going to a motel?

 

[GigiG]

APPEALS, Soup to Nuts.


I. What is the appeals process?

“Once the appellate court receives both petitioner and respondent briefs, it will analyze the arguments and make a determination of whether: a) there were errors of law made by the trial court, and b) whether the errors rise to the level of "reversible error.” Harmless errors will be overlooked by the appellate court.

The court will either: 1) affirm the decision; 2) order a new trial; 3) modify the ruling in some way; 4) in extremely rare cases, may throw out the case entirely. “Westlaw.

(Reversible error: is a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant that without the error the outcome may have been different and the judgment must be reversed by the appellate court. A reversible error is distinguished from an error which is insignificant and did not affect the judgment at the trial. Reversible error may be made by a judge or jury. Although attorney misconduct is not technically reversible error, the failure of the judge to remedy it during the trial is reversible error. Reversible error affects the reliability of the outcome of a court case). http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reversible-error/

II. What are the odds of a successful appeal?

“The number of successful appeals is low. Appellate courts give the trial court great leeway in conducting trials. The law does not guarantee perfect trials, therefore appeals courts will only overturn verdicts which contain clear, serious errors of law.

Because of the leeway appeals courts give trial verdicts, petitioners carry an even greater burden in proving that errors of law were serious and not harmless. If an appellate court can find any reasonable argument that the error wouldn't have changed the verdict (and is therefore "harmless"), it will refuse to overturn the verdict.” (Westlaw)



III. Arizona’s Rules for Appellate Briefs

Except by permission of the court, (i) a principal brief in a non-capital case prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface may not exceed 14,000 words

(1) Appellant. The appellant's brief shall include:
(i) A table of contents with page references.
(ii) A table of citations, which shall alphabetically arrange and index the cases, statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief on which they are cited.
(iii) A statement of the case, indicating briefly the basis of the appellate court's jurisdiction, the nature of the case, the course of the proceedings and the disposition in the court below.
(iv) A statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record. The statement shall not contain evidentiary matter unless material to a proper consideration of the issues presented, in which instance a reference shall be made to the record or page of the transcript where such evidence appears. The statement of facts may be combined with the statement of the case.
(v) A statement of the issues presented for review. The statement of an issue presented for review will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue fairly comprised therein.
(vi) An argument which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. The argument may include a summary. With respect to each contention raised on appeal, the proper standard of review on appeal shall be identified, with citations to relevant authority, at the outset of the discussion of that contention. Citation of authorities shall be to the volume and page number of the official reports and also when possible to the unofficial reports.
(vii) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(ii) In addition, the appendix to an appellate brief may include extended quotations from cases and authorities where such quotations are required for proper presentation of the issues.

f. Capital Cases.

(1) Time for Filing. In capital cases, the appellant's opening brief shall be filed within 70 days after the mailing of the notice as provided for by Rule 31.10. Except by permission of the court, (i) a principal brief in a capital case prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface may not exceed 28,000 words……



IV. Advice by a judge on appellate brief writing:


1. Writing a laundry list of points( is a bad idea). Select 3 or 4 of what you think are your strongest points and develop those.

2. Do not beat us over the head with statutory language and precedent. Your case, unless it is a federal criminal case, probably would not have reached the court of appeals if it had been clearly governed by a statute or a case.

3. Do not exaggerate the cogency of reasoning by analogy by trying to persuade us to base our decision on a previous case, especially a case from another field of law.

4. Be brief. Judges do a lot of reading. (Holmes once said that he was paid to read—that was his job.) We get tired or bored, and some of us tend to start skimming when we encounter a tedious, repetitious brief.

5. Do not omit from your brief, especially if you are the appellant, mention of the strongest points that you know your opponent will make in his or her brief. Often I read the appellant’s brief and think, how could the judge have made such a mistake, committed such an injustice! And then I read the appellee’s brief and realized that the appellant’s brief had omitted the points that showed that the lower-court opinion, whether ultimately persuasive or not, was at least reasonable. And when that happens, one loses confidence in the appellant’s position.




V. Some possibilities of what ’s attys will argue, taken from Nurmi’s many motions, and how JSS ruled.

1. Inconsistent testimony by Flores about sequence of injuries (shot first) 2009 probable cause hearing versus trial testimony.

((Note: The shot-first aspect was litigated before trial. The DT hopped all over this not just to impeach Flores, but because, they argued, shot-first mattered as to whether or not the State could demonstrate “especially cruel,” the State’s sole basis for seeking the DP.

DT asked for a new probable cause (Chronis) hearing January 2013. JSS denied, saying in part---shot first or last, doesn’t matter, an abundance of evidence demonstrates Travis suffered tremendously. DT filed for a Special Action by the COA, the COA declined jurisdiction)).

JSS: DT had the opportunity in both guilt phase and PP2 trials to cross-examine Flores and ME on the stand about Flores’ 2009 statements. Credibility of witnesses is the jury’s to determine.

2. Text messages were not disclosed to DT in a timely manner.

JSS: Texts were provided to DT in October 2010, way before trial, way time enough; technology to capture texts didn’t exist before that.

3. Media shouldn’t have been allowed-the circus deprived of a fair trial, the jury should have been sequestered, blah blah blah.

JSS: I bent over backwards to accommodate every last little whine of yours about this. Believe it or not, this wasn’t the trial of the century or even of the decade. All that matters is if the jury was influenced by media coverage. Each and every juror during both trials said daily they were not, end of story. (Note: because, Mr. Nurmi, unlike you, appellate courts NEVER as in NEVER presume jurors lie).

3. JM harassed, intimidated, was a meanie to DT witnesses.

JSS: It’s called zealous cross examination. Get over it.

4. was deprived of due process during the guilt phase because Detective Melendez testified he didn’t find *advertiser censored* or viruses, which made the look like a liar when she was actually telling the truth. And Melendez testified to the same thing during PP2.

JSS: The DT had the opportunity to cross Melendez at both trials. It’s up to the jury to determine witness credibility, evaluate evidence, and to resolve factual disputes.

JSS: And by the way. During the guilt phase, Melendez’s testimony about TA’s computer related to June 4. The computer evidence existed then to establish those facts.

5. Prior attorneys were ineffective for allowing destruction of evidence when computer was turned on.

JSS: Nope, harmless, whatever was lost, because the DT had access to a mirror image of the HD. No demonstration of prejudice to your client.


6. Flores woke up TA’s computer, destruction of possibly exculpatory evidence, Flores violated LE protocol.

JSS: No reason to believe any relevant evidence was destroyed, much less exculpatory evidence, much less intentionally destroyed. And no, Flores didn’t violate protocol; waking up sleeping computers was standard practice, and Flores had no idea it was a bad idea


7. The was denied her 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 34th right to fully mitigation-tify.

Why? Mitigation witnesses were too afraid to testify. They were afraid of being picked on by SM bullies, and terrified JM would be a shouting meanie.

JSS: Zealous is good, the court can’t control what SM does, the court offered to accommodate the quivering alleged witnesses with creative solutions including: pseudonyms, testimony brought in through other witnesses, names sealed, testimony videotaped, and by the way, you could have used subpoenas.

Considered your Affidavits--under seal--of Sept 26, 2014, your supplements-under seal- filed Jan 5 and 7, 2015, and your Nov 26, 2014 Motion to Reconsider given COA’s ruling, but the latter applied only to the , not to other mitigation witnesses.
.
The Defendant has failed to demonstrate any misconduct by the State that deprived the of her ability to present full mitigation, and it is patently absurd to claim the was too afraid to testify in PP2 after spending 18 days on the stand in guilt phase burying us all with her rancid lies.

------------------------------------



Handy definition: Prosecutorial Misconduct. Intentional, knowingly improper and prejudicial. Must be demonstrated that there was a reasonable likelihood the conduct deprived defendant right to a fair trial. Must be “pronounced and pervasive enough to have permeated the atmosphere” of the entire trial. Errors, mistakes, and insignificant impropriety don’t rise to this level.

Handy to remember: JSS denied every single one of Nurmi’s motions for this or that based on prosecutorial misconduct. Can’t be “pervasive” if not one motion was persuasive.

Thanks for laying all this out for us, Hope. I do wonder, however, about the incident recounted in JM's book where he found/was delivered/somehow became privy to her former defense attorney's notes, which contained all sorts of incriminating stuff.

I think she might have an "in" there?

If anyone can allay my fears, please chime in!

 

[Hope4More]

Carlsbad Caverns is not anywhere close to the interstate between PHX and OKC. If I were driving, I believe it would take most of a day.

One of the reasons I'm bothered by some of these locations is that JA claims that she and TA went to see some of 1000 places (I mean, really, did she only ever go to 5 in her life?). Is there any evidence that they didn't come right back to Mesa from OKC? Did they really take side trips? I just find this unbelievable.

And they didn't stop at the more obvious places, like Santa Fe? Chaco Canyon? Where were they sleeping for goodness sake! TA was broke (and that's why he had to take JA to OKC: so she would share gas expenses), and side trips would have meant (presumably) going to a motel?

FWIW, there were TWO trips to OKC for convention--one in June or July 2007 and the second, mid-March 2008. They flew the first time, and did Mormon-related sightseeing. They also did some sightseeing on the 2008 trip--Travis texted about it to others, so it did happen. Wasn't a big deal, just some side trips on the way back and forth. Only in the 's mind was it some grand adventure.

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks for laying all this out for us, Hope. I do wonder, however, about the incident recounted in JM's book where he found/was delivered/somehow became privy to her former defense attorney's notes, which contained all sorts of incriminating stuff.

I think she might have an "in" there?

If anyone can allay my fears, please chime in!

I wondered about that too, so picked up the bat phone to ask AZAttorney. Her humorous lovely reply is over in the legal thread, but the short answer is: NOT a PROBLEM.


ETA: cut and pasted from legal: posted by AZlawyer Verified Attorney


Sorry guys! The bat phone was on the fritz. I don't think the IAC (ineffective counsel) 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.

 

[GigiG]

I wondered about that too, so picked up the bat phone to ask AZAttorney. Her humorous lovely reply is over in the legal thread, but the short answer is: NOT a PROBLEM.


ETA: cut and pasted from legal: posted by AZlawyer Verified Attorney


Sorry guys! The bat phone was on the fritz. I don't think the IAC (ineffective counsel) 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.

Thanks! I figured as much, but good to know! I also appreciate AZL's sense of humor!

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks! I figured as much, but good to know! I also appreciate AZL's sense of humor!

I actually worried a lot about that one, until AZL, she of great knowledge and humor, replied. I would love to know who on the DT was responsible for turning over those 400 pages of DT work product, with all those very lovely interviews by the DT of potential DT witnesses--it had be accidental, or a serious lapse in judgement. Nurmi definitely knew it was a big deal. Said in his book, iirc, that he wondered how different the trial's outcome might have been had those 400 pages not fallen into JM's hands.

 

[GigiG]

I actually worried a lot about that one, until AZL, she of great knowledge and humor, replied. I would love to know who on the DT was responsible for turning over those 400 pages of DT work product, with all those very lovely interviews by the DT of potential DT witnesses--it had be accidental, or a serious lapse in judgement. Nurmi definitely knew it was a big deal. Said in his book, iirc, that he wondered how different the trial's outcome might have been had those 400 pages not fallen into JM's hands.

Tru dat! But thank goodness JM got that info and ran with it. Scary what would have happened if things had worked out otherwise...

I have re-read JM's book a couple times now, and each time something new strikes me as ... I guess the best word is "kismet?"

IOW, given that she was such a gifted liar, I wonder if a prosecutor less experienced and detail-oriented than JM would have been able to show her for what she was, enabling a jury to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank goodness we'll never have to find out. But in my schadenfreude mindset, I am extremely happy that JA thought she was smart enough to get one over on everyone, and failed so utterly and supremely.

I do think that without JM being so on his game, she might have gotten off with M2, and I think she was banking on that right up until the verdict was read...

 

[Hope4More]

Kismet is the perfect word, though JM has used the word "providence." Either word applies to being handed those 400 pages and finding the purple folder, among other things.


I have to say one of my absolute favorite moments of both trials was when the verdict was read. She was shocked. I found that very gratifying. Still do.