Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

[TexMex]

BBM

I've never had chicken fried steak either, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around that concept. Why would you want to fry a perfectly good steak? I'm guessing it's the kind of steak they use for steak and cheese subs?

Anyway, it reminded me of the (caesarean) birth of my first child. My husband, who had worked in restaurants all his life, very sweetly decided to make me a steak dinner. Hooray, right?

NOT!! What he served me was a very nice, very expensive steak that he cooked in the MICROWAVE!!! Obviously, it was totally gross.

That was contemporaneous (hahaha) with my mother coming to visit and help us out. By way of "helping," she rearranging my kitchen drawers and cabinets! Because who wouldn't want to painfully and gingerly walk down a flight of stairs only to not be able to find where anything is in their own kitchen?

By the time my second child was due, I realized I had to lay down some rules. Needless to say, they included limited visits from grandma (she's a lovely person, but was never very maternal or good in the kitchen, so I tend to think she was more than okay by being relieved from the duty), and no food that wasn't prepared by someone who knows what they're doing.

CFS is typically a round steak which has been tenderized, battered, fried in oil in an iron skillet. Then you take out the steaks and use the grease and some milk to make white gravy.

I don't know how to explain why....all I know is we ate it once a week growing up. If I'm out of state too long, when I get back I must have ASAP: some good Texmex food, a decent brisket sandwich or a huge CFS (extra gravy).

Today it was bbq at Corkscrew BBQ while seeing a buddy out in Spring





Steak in a microwave? Oh hell no

 

[TexMex]

Guessing chicken fried steak and biscuits with gravy?

Had never even heard of chicken fried steak until my recent road trip, had never eaten biscuits with gravy, and didn't know Huddle Houses existed.

That all changed at the last breakfast DS and I had on the road, later in the morning of our final 900 mile, 18 odd hour drive, when we were just over the bridge from St. Louis, Missouri, so now technically or at least by tradition no longer in the west, lured to a breakfast at Huddle House (I couldn't pass up the opportunity, and dove for an exit when I saw a sign for Huddling), where on the menu I saw chicken and fried and steak all on one line naming a food I didn't know existed (passed on trying it, though, too early in the morning), as well as biscuits with gravy which I had heard of before but never tried, which was precisely the reason why with a bit of trepidation I ordered some, the hesitation resulting from my bewilderment why anyone would want to subvert the very meaning of biscuit ,which is to be light and flaky and to part readily for liberal applications of butter that melts into the steam of a biscuit just opened, but that retains it's flakiness even when so butter-drenched.

The biscuits arrived, 2 remarkably large and baked just right brown-topped specimens, served with an equally generous pitcher of gravy placed next to them on the plate. My DS and I eyed the biscuits for a time, as we ate our more familiar eggs and toast and bacon and discussed the road ahead and how to handle terrorist cats upon our return, but while there was still some room left for a culinary adventure we at long last decided to salute the southern route we hadn't travelled by needlessly flooding those perfectly fine biscuits in gravy and giving them a proper go, and so I picked up the pitcher and poured the gravy on until only the tops of the biscuits weren't submerged, and then we both picked up our forks at the same time, though we wondered if spoons were perhaps the more proper utensil, and we dug in.

And...they were good. They were very good indeed. They were good enough indeed that the only reason we didn't finish them off is that we had made the mistake of eating all our northern breakfast first, and hadn't left room for biscuits drowned in gravy, what now seems an entirely delightful alternative to fluffy light biscuits perfectly buttered.

That's awesome!

I must admit, Miss Hope...gravy is my favorite food group 🍽

 

[Hope4More]

BBM

I've never had chicken fried steak either, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around that concept. Why would you want to fry a perfectly good steak? I'm guessing it's the kind of steak they use for steak and cheese subs?

Anyway, it reminded me of the (caesarean) birth of my first child. My husband, who had worked in restaurants all his life, very sweetly decided to make me a steak dinner. Hooray, right?

NOT!! What he served me was a very nice, very expensive steak that he cooked in the MICROWAVE!!! Obviously, it was totally gross.

That was contemporaneous (hahaha) with my mother coming to visit and help us out. By way of "helping," she rearranging my kitchen drawers and cabinets! Because who wouldn't want to painfully and gingerly walk down a flight of stairs only to not be able to find where anything is in their own kitchen?

By the time my second child was due, I realized I had to lay down some rules. Needless to say, they included limited visits from grandma (she's a lovely person, but was never very maternal or good in the kitchen, so I tend to think she was more than okay by being relieved from the duty), and no food that wasn't prepared by someone who knows what they're doing.

LOL (and EEK!!!!) about that succulent steak your DH so lovingly nuked, ditto for your MIL coming over to help by rearranging your kitchen cabinets. Wonder if that's a MIL tradition, because mine did the very same thing, both the flying in from 5 states away to "help," and the rearranging of kitchen cabinets, this for her 42 year old DIL, lol, who just had a natural child birth and who was in no way incapacitated, just tired.

 

[geevee]

I read the SC decision. Not the same issue, though I suppose it's not impossible her attorneys might argue it is, somehow.

The key difference in Neuman's case is that the State subpoenaed notes from two DT experts who were NOT going to be called to testify at trial. They were consultants only, hired to provide the DT information about (alleged) Neuman's mental illness. Both recommended to the DT that they hire an expert to do a forensic psychological evaluation.

Their notes were not subject to discovery because neither was to testify, and no other DT expert was to use/refer to their notes in preparing their own reports or testimony.

The SC ruled the trial court erred in allowing the notes to be subpoenaed by the State at all. Further harm was done to the defendant because the State used the notes and made it seem like the DT was hiding evidence, and more harm still was done to the DT by being forced to call them to testify at trial.

Not the same at all. The closest equivalent, which notice did not happen, would perhaps have been if JM had tried to introduce Karp's report, which he wasn't allowed to do if he ever even made that request, and different still because the DT clearly stated pre-trial that they intended for Karp to testify, and that she was in fact crucial to their case.

But wasn't LaV supposed to be in the mitigation phase only before JM got her notes and the DT had to call her during the penalty phase? In this case the State also used the notes to imply that the DT was hiding evidence (of JA saying the images were on a computer screen then testifying they were in paper form and LaV's notes proved that)? Didn't JM also bring in through LaV JA telling Karp about many more DV incidents there were compared to what she told LaV, or am I misremembering that?

 

[Hope4More]

1. No, the DT always intended Alyce to testify during the guilt phase of the trial as a DV expert. Nurmi's first choice was Karp for that job, but he signed up Alyce when Karp couldn't. He actually requested and received a lengthy continuance (at least 6 months, iirc) to find a replacement for Karp and for Alyce to work her special magic of finding just the psych results the DT wanted for trial.

2. The legal distinction between Alyce's notes and Neuman's experts' notes is the fact the DT always intended Alyce to testify, thus making her notes subject to discovery. I'm pretty sure that would be the case even if originally (theoretically, not in reality) she was only to testify during the penalty phase.


3. JM used the discrepancies to impeach Alyce's testimony, to undermine her credibility. Fair game, legally. N's experts were never supposed to testify and were used by the DT for background info. That happens all of the time in both civil and criminal cases, but to a jury it might have looked like the DT was trying to hide evidence because what the experts said was incriminating (don't know if what the experts told the DT was that in fact). There really is quite a difference, and absolutely so in the law.

4. Alyce was given the chance to explain the discrepancies in her own notes. After that it was up to the jury to determine the credibility of anything and everything she said on the stand.

5. N's DT had a far more difficult task, one they shouldn't have had to face, of having to put experts on the stand they never intended to testify, and somehow through their direct, to elicit and handle testimony they never intended to introduce , and perhaps to try to justify their own strategic decisions.

6. Several points of Karp's report were brought into testimony, but JSS severely limited what was introduced, the report itself was excluded, and Karp wasn't mentioned by name. That was out of an abundance of caution by JSS, I suspect, as Karp WAS originally to testify and both DT and the State had access to her report (both are crucial legal distinctions).

 

[pocketaccent]

I checked the user's manual for TA's Sony camera. She had to have known about the accidental photos and to have seen them, however briefly or incompletely.

Melendez testified it took 5 steps to delete an image on TA's camera. The manual's instructions for deleting more than one photo at a time list the same number of steps:


1. Camera must be on and have a still image displayed
2. User must go to menu and select "Index"
3. User must look at index of individual photos
4. User must select each image individually to delete
5. All selected images can be deleted at the same time

-------

The accidental photos were upside down, but presumably the menu settings for light etc. weren't changed from the last photo she took, as that would have required her to do so deliberately.

Not sure what she would have seen before the camera was bleached and washed, but no matter what she could or couldn't see, she had to have known the photos were taken after she began her attack, and that they were accidental. And given that they were accidental and represented the (timed) beginning and end of her slaughter of Travis, I can easily imagine they actually caught her attention more than the shower photos she likely did intend to delete as quickly as possible.

I think Flores surprised her with the news the camera and images had survived, but I don't think she was surprised about the accidental photos, nor especially worried about them, at least, not concerned enough to deviate from her standard first impulse, which is to lie, lie, lie, inconsistency of the lies no matter because more lies will do later on if need be.

I used to have a camera with similar instruction as Travis' Sony for deleting photos.

1. I could select one image from index then hit delete, or
2. Select multiple images from index by using arrow keys to place check marks then hit delete to delete only the selected images, or
3. I could select 'delete all' from menu and my camera would automatically put check marks on all photos for me. Then I hit delete to delete all photos.
I checked Travis' Sony to see if his camera had the same 'delete all' function. It does. On Page 45.

https://docs.sony.com/release/dsch7_handbook.pdf

You once wrote (out of fraustration at the time, I think) that nothing is ever straightforward or simple or unequivocal when it comes to the . I couldn't agree more back then and now. So sometimes, I've got to go with my gut feeling.
I think the just used the 'delete all' function without looking or analyzing any images as she was in a hurry to get out of there.

Another possibility is she did look at the images but when DF told her he has photos of actual killing, she may have thought there were additional photos she missed seeing....like some images of her actual stabbing in action. DF scared the xxxx out of her with that statement. Therefore the "Really?" and "I did not know".

Been busy watching the Olympics. Rooting for 3 different countries..Swimming, Judo, Soccer, Tennis, Gymnastics....I love the Olympic games.

 

[salberg7]

Yes and the killer thought bleach and a washer cycle would take care of the rest. I think she was truly caught by Flores in the interrogation about pictures that were mistakenly taken during the murder. I often wonder why she didn't take his camera with her and risked leaving it there in the first place. A mistake to leave it behind.

 

[Hope4More]

Hi Pocket.

Thanks for correcting me about what was possible with TA's camera.


You know we agree on things far more often than we disagree, but on this I'm unconvinced she was freaked about the accidentals during interrogation, and unconvinced she didn't take the time to look at all the photos before deleting them
(though I can {almost } agree on the possibility she THOUGHT she had reviewed all the photos before deleting them but worried for a moment during interrogation she might have missed a genuinely incriminating photo that showed her undeniably in the act).


That's a completely subjective opinion on my part, based on my own admittedly very limited understanding of her psychopathic mind and decisions. IMO she was likely thrilled and excited afterwards, and though aware she had to make a quick exit, wouldn't have been able to resist taking an extra very few minutes to glance at each photo of Travis in the shower, to gloat at and revel in the fact he didn't see what was coming until it was too late. There weren't very many photos to look at, and it wouldn't have taken very much time to glance at each of them before she marked them for deletion, if that's what she did.

In terms of time. What had she to do? She was dragging him back to the shower by 5:32. Enrique originally told Flores he returned around 6 pm that day. She washed off TA and herself, flooded the bathroom floor with water, partially wiped off hallway walls, gathered up TA's clothes (and hers, must have) in a bundle, probably in a bathroom towel, carried the bundle downstairs and threw it and bleach into the washing machine, dressed either upstairs or downstairs, put her bloody clothes in something and carried them and whatever else to her car, and I think somewhere in there washed her hands in the downstairs bathroom and likely wiped down bannisters.

It's even possible she was still in the house when Enrique returned, and that she exited via the window of TA's study after she heard Enrique go upstairs.

(I'm thinking, unless I've forgotten something key about what was found in the dryer, that either TA or the washed and put his bedding in the dryer earlier in the afternoon).

Anyway, the Olympics- on that we agree, especially about gymnastics. Simone Biles. Wow!!

 

[salberg7]

Wonder when/how that screen to Travis' office became dislodged? Another item we will never know.
I do believe she watched him from outside that office for awhile when she first arrived. Especially with Napoleon so quiet. I know my dog would hear rustling outside and bark. So creepy! I do not believe Travis was expecting her that fateful day.

 

[LinasK]

BBM

I've never had chicken fried steak either, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around that concept. Why would you want to fry a perfectly good steak? I'm guessing it's the kind of steak they use for steak and cheese subs?

Anyway, it reminded me of the (caesarean) birth of my first child. My husband, who had worked in restaurants all his life, very sweetly decided to make me a steak dinner. Hooray, right?

NOT!! What he served me was a very nice, very expensive steak that he cooked in the MICROWAVE!!! Obviously, it was totally gross.

That was contemporaneous (hahaha) with my mother coming to visit and help us out. By way of "helping," she rearranging my kitchen drawers and cabinets! Because who wouldn't want to painfully and gingerly walk down a flight of stairs only to not be able to find where anything is in their own kitchen?

By the time my second child was due, I realized I had to lay down some rules. Needless to say, they included limited visits from grandma (she's a lovely person, but was never very maternal or good in the kitchen, so I tend to think she was more than okay by being relieved from the duty), and no food that wasn't prepared by someone who knows what they're doing.

I'm a native Californian, and I've had Chicken Fried Steak here before. It's yummy! Kinda tastes like Chicken Parmesan.

 

[LinasK]

Oh, Bob's Big Boy, not In-N-Out Burger. Whoops!

Bob's is another burger institution which originally began in Southern California. I remember eating there back in the 70's and thinking the food was just ok.

Today they are probably famous just for being famous -- like the Kardashians! More Bob's info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob's_Big_Boy

http://www.placesearth.com/usa/california/los_angeles/bobs_big_boy/bobs_big_boy_tl0.shtml

Nah, Bob's is where I discovered Cherry Cokes before Coke began producing them. My mother introduced me to the concept. They also had great burgers, fries, and shakes. Great place to go after a date, particularly a bad one! I think there might still be one in the area I grew up in.
I'll take Bob's Big Boy over In& Out Burgers any day- In & Out tastes like cardboard to me!

 

[LinasK]

Burgers, burgers, anywhere. A field in Wyoming, just east of Yellowstone.

Yup, that's Bob of Bob's Big Boy. Classic statue. Love Bob's Big Boy!

 

[krkrjx]

Are we to believe this source? I thought she didn't share a cell until she was taken out of maximum custody and went down to medium custody?

But...I hope it's true. The is absolutely incapable of getting along with anyone, much less a woman, for any length of time, much less someone she's trapped in a cage with and can't escape for months on end. Imagine her paranoia about a stranger invading her privacy, her possessiveness about her butt and zit creams, what will be her compulsive need to control and manipulate her cellie, who, whoever she is or will be, won't be in Perryville for having too many parking tickets.

Nope, I imagine having to share a cell will be the beginning of her genuine trials and tribulations in prison.

I hope she has many roommates over the years and has to watch as each is released--some after doing their time and others early for good behavior--and with each release is reminded of the fact that she is never getting out. Roommates will come and go; Killer Arias will have constant reminders that she will never be free to celebrate holidays and birthdays anywhere but in a cage.

 

[Hope4More]

Hey Hope, have you read through the appellate court decision overturning the Hemy Neuman conviction? I haven't seen the document but in the linked article below this is stated:

"In a 6-1 ruling, the majority of the justices agreed with Neuman's attorneys that DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams should have never admitted into evidence notes from two medical experts who examined Neuman.

“Because the trial court erred in admitting evidence, which was protected by the attorney-client privilege, we now reverse,” Justice Carol Hunstein wrote for the majority."

http://www.cbs46.com/story/29322811/ga-supreme-court-overturns-hemy-neuman-murder-conviction

Do you think the LaV appeals stuff may not be over the trial publicity but over her notes being allowed into evidence?

It occurred to me why her attorneys might be interested in LaV's notes: might be related to an argument about *advertiser censored* on the computer.

Nurmi argued during PP2 that the State's failure to turn over the original mirror HD made in June 2008 was not only a Brady violation, but a deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence, that alleged "evidence" being the fact *advertiser censored* was found on the June 2008 mirror image of TA's computer.

Nurmi said JM's claim during his guilt phase closing that no *advertiser censored* was found on the computer was not only false, but an improper impeachment of the that might have influenced the jury's verdict.

Checking Nurmi's motion and JSS's ruling, because I've forgotten how in the world Nurmi said that with a straight face, as her trial testimony was *advertiser censored* on paper, not witnessing TA viewing *advertiser censored* on his computer.

 

[GigiG]

It occurred to me why her attorneys might be interested in LaV's notes: might be related to an argument about *advertiser censored* on the computer.

Nurmi argued during PP2 that the State's failure to turn over the original mirror HD made in June 2008 was not only a Brady violation, but a deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence, that alleged "evidence" being the fact *advertiser censored* was found on the June 2008 mirror image of TA's computer.

Nurmi said JM's claim during his guilt phase closing that no *advertiser censored* was found on the computer was not only false, but an improper impeachment of the that might have influenced the jury's verdict.

Checking Nurmi's motion and JSS's ruling, because I've forgotten how in the world Nurmi said that with a straight face, as her trial testimony was *advertiser censored* on paper, not witnessing TA viewing *advertiser censored* on his computer.

Haven't heard from Nurmi in a while, but it seems he's pretty frequent twitterer. It looks like maybe he's more into social activism than lawyering these days...

 

[Hope4More]

It occurred to me why her attorneys might be interested in LaV's notes: might be related to an argument about *advertiser censored* on the computer.

Nurmi argued during PP2 that the State's failure to turn over the original mirror HD made in June 2008 was not only a Brady violation, but a deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence, that alleged "evidence" being the fact *advertiser censored* was found on the June 2008 mirror image of TA's computer.

Nurmi said JM's claim during his guilt phase closing that no *advertiser censored* was found on the computer was not only false, but an improper impeachment of the that might have influenced the jury's verdict.

Checking Nurmi's motion and JSS's ruling, because I've forgotten how in the world Nurmi said that with a straight face, as her trial testimony was *advertiser censored* on paper, not witnessing TA viewing *advertiser censored* on his computer.

Continuing here, since I can't edit original post.


From JSS ruling: the State did not withold HD evidence. The DT should have known of the June 2008 mirror image within weeks of it being made by the Mesa PD. In any case, the "*advertiser censored*" (file fragments, etc, no actual videos or images) found on subsequent mirror images was identical to that found on the original mirror image.

In other words, the DT had every opportunity for years pretrial to go spelunking for *advertiser censored* on TA's HD if they had chosen to do so.

JSS reply to Nurmi's allegation the jury might have reached a different verdict had they been aware of the *advertiser censored*'s existence was to point out: the DT had the opportunity during the guilt phase to challenge Melendez on this issue but did not, or to have their own expert (Dworkin) investigate and present such alleged evidence. The DT didn't. That was their own strategic decision, not grounds for appeal.

JSS passed on Nurmi's contention that the *advertiser censored* issue might have affected the jury's verdict of guilt, saying the issue was not properly before her court. Translation- argue that with the COA, not with me.

From her ruling, anyway, (Nurmi's motion isn't readily available and don't want to take the time to search for it) it seems Nurmi was trying to conflate Melendez 's testimony about not finding viruses with his testimony that he didn't find *advertiser censored*. Apples and oranges, except, as JSS wrote, it was the DT's job to impeach Melendez on both or either, and the jury's job as fact finders to decide for themselves whether or not Melendez was credible.

But...all that is just pesky reality. Nurmi badgered the State and judges about HD stuff for years before the beginning of trial, making multiple accusations about discovery violations. Central to many of his latter motions was his assertion the DT made key strategic decisions based on incomplete HD evidence, decisions resting on "false" assertions by the State that all evidence had or was in the process of being turned over.

Sorry for not accomplishing succinct on that background. Reading between the lines, I wonder if where her attorneys might try to take this is to somehow spin that the was telling the truth to Karp when she said she saw TA viewing *advertiser censored* on the computer, and the "discrepancy" in Alyce's notes that undermined Alyce's credibility wasn't her fault or the 's , but due to the State withholding that exculpatory evidence?

Or...maybe not. (ps- Geevee - you probably thought you were asking a simple yes or no question, eh? If you remember asking it at all, lol. :

 

[geevee]

Continuing here, since I can't edit original post.


From JSS ruling: the State did not withold HD evidence. The DT should have known of the June 2008 mirror image within weeks of it being made by the Mesa PD. In any case, the "*advertiser censored*" (file fragments, etc, no actual videos or images) found on subsequent mirror images was identical to that found on the original mirror image.

In other words, the DT had every opportunity for years pretrial to go spelunking for *advertiser censored* on TA's HD if they had chosen to do so.

JSS reply to Nurmi's allegation the jury might have reached a different verdict had they been aware of the *advertiser censored*'s existence was to point out: the DT had the opportunity during the guilt phase to challenge Melendez on this issue but did not, or to have their own expert (Dworkin) investigate and present such alleged evidence. The DT didn't. That was their own strategic decision, not grounds for appeal.

JSS passed on Nurmi's contention that the *advertiser censored* issue might have affected the jury's verdict of guilt, saying the issue was not properly before her court. Translation- argue that with the COA, not with me.

From her ruling, anyway, (Nurmi's motion isn't readily available and don't want to take the time to search for it) it seems Nurmi was trying to conflate Melendez 's testimony about not finding viruses with his testimony that he didn't find *advertiser censored*. Apples and oranges, except, as JSS wrote, it was the DT's job to impeach Melendez on both or either, and the jury's job as fact finders to decide for themselves whether or not Melendez was credible.

But...all that is just pesky reality. Nurmi badgered the State and judges about HD stuff for years before the beginning of trial, making multiple accusations about discovery violations. Central to many of his latter motions was his assertion the DT made key strategic decisions based on incomplete HD evidence, decisions resting on "false" assertions by the State that all evidence had or was in the process of being turned over.

Sorry for not accomplishing succinct on that background. Reading between the lines, I wonder if where her attorneys might try to take this is to somehow spin that the was telling the truth to Karp when she said she saw TA viewing *advertiser censored* on the computer, and the "discrepancy" in Alyce's notes that undermined Alyce's credibility wasn't her fault or the 's , but due to the State withholding that exculpatory evidence?

Or...maybe not. (ps- Geevee - you probably thought you were asking a simple yes or no question, eh? If you remember asking it at all, lol. :

LOL! Luckily I was also busy watching the Olympics (and the Neuman trial) and forgot to come back after my last post, so you were able to fully flesh out your thoughts. lol Do you think much of this will fall under the main heading of ineffectual assistance of counsel due to all of those key strategic decisions and Nurmi begging to get off the case at every opportunity (and some of the things he's said since)?

I do recall specifically hearing that LaV wasn't supposed to testify in the guilt phase, maybe on HLN/CNN, In Session, not sure where but it was mentioned often prior to and during her time on the stand - what I don't recall is the reasoning for the change in DT's plan (simply because Karp begged off?), I'll have to google around and see if I can find something.

I'll be surprised if the appellate court gives any time at all to the hard drive stuff, what a red herring and nothing to do with her killing him.

 

[Hope4More]

LOL! Luckily I was also busy watching the Olympics (and the Neuman trial) and forgot to come back after my last post, so you were able to fully flesh out your thoughts. lol Do you think much of this will fall under the main heading of ineffectual assistance of counsel due to all of those key strategic decisions and Nurmi begging to get off the case at every opportunity (and some of the things he's said since)?

I do recall specifically hearing that LaV wasn't supposed to testify in the guilt phase, maybe on HLN/CNN, In Session, not sure where but it was mentioned often prior to and during her time on the stand - what I don't recall is the reasoning for the change in DT's plan (simply because Karp begged off?), I'll have to google around and see if I can find something.

I'll be surprised if the appellate court gives any time at all to the hard drive stuff, what a red herring and nothing to do with her killing him.

I'll double-check, but iirc, Nurmi specifically told JSS otherwise before trial- was in Superior Court minute entries. I'm still on my phone and haven't charged my laptop since getting back, but will link it later if you're interested.

Her attorneys can't argue ineffective counsel to the COA. That'll come later in PCR.

IMO the 2 broad categories they'll argue are:

1. prosecutorial misconduct (including a pattern of Brady violations)

2. that pervasive publicity prevented her from receiving a fair trial, including being able to "fully mitigate," and that it was judicial error to not sequester the jury, etc.

 

[geevee]

Just for the stupidity of it:

Jodi Arias’ Letter From Prison Reveals Plans to Marry Another Woman’s Man (EXCLUSIVE)

 

[geevee]

I'll double-check, but iirc, Nurmi specifically told JSS otherwise before trial- was in Superior Court minute entries. I'm still on my phone and haven't charged my laptop since getting back, but will link it later if you're interested.

Her attorneys can't argue ineffective counsel to the COA. That'll come later in PCR.

IMO the 2 broad categories they'll argue are:

1. prosecutorial misconduct (including a pattern of Brady violations)

2. that pervasive publicity prevented her from receiving a fair trial, including being able to "fully mitigate," and that it was judicial error to not sequester the jury, etc.

Oh, I didn't know the ineffectual had to wait for the post conviction relief (like JSS is gonna grant that one lol). Don't worry about searching out the link on your phone, I'm in no rush.