Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[pocketaccent]

COA denies the sealing appeal.
Jodi Arias can't file murder appeal in secrecy, Arizona Court of Appeals rules

What a great news!

 

[pocketaccent]

Toolbar? I got senioritis and can't remember what it's called. It's the row of icons at the top of this box. How can we put those yummy emoticons so we can see them when we push the smiley button?

I don't think we can do that ourselves. WS software engineer could maybe?

 

[Steft50]

I don't know if this has posted yet but I was setting up my dvr recordings and found a new show series on Oxygen called -name of defendant- In Defense Of and on July 9th they feature Kirk Nurmi where he's interviewed concerning his defense of her.

Did they ever release what ever it was that Alyce LaViolette got the court to seal?

 

[geevee]

COA denies the sealing appeal.
Jodi Arias can't file murder appeal in secrecy, Arizona Court of Appeals rules

Thank you Collie!

 

[geevee]

"A three-judge panel of the court also ordered that the briefs be filed by Friday, July 6."

I guess someone will be working on Independence Day. Hopefully Hope will have access to the COA order and can let us know if they're allowed to redact very much from their brief. Since it will likely be many pages long, I'll set aside this weekend to devour every word.

 

[salberg7]

What a great news!

And the OB must be filed by Friday! Yay is right! (This Friday July 6!)

At this point wouldn’t you think her attorneys got the memo that there will be no further delays, motions to extend, that future temper tantrums by the murderer won’t be tolerated and that the is indeed NOT special. She is just another low life criminal who decided to kill her BF because if couldn’t have him then no one would.
Best news! Now let’s see if her appeals attorneys keep this deadline.

 

[Hope4More]

"A three-judge panel of the court also ordered that the briefs be filed by Friday, July 6."

I guess someone will be working on Independence Day. Hopefully Hope will have access to the COA order and can let us know if they're allowed to redact very much from their brief. Since it will likely be many pages long, I'll set aside this weekend to devour every word.

Oh, that Michael Kieffer. He knew the Court had ruled on the briefs not only before the ruling appeared on the docket, but before the court clerks knew. Hmm. Nothing new about Kieffer knowing what he shouldn't know, though.

Court is obviously closed today, but yes, I should have a copy of the rulings tomorrow and will post what is most relevant.

(BTW on that long weekend read-- her attys were allowed to double the permissable word count, so their brief can run to just over 44,000 words).

It isn't surprising that the COA won't allow opening briefs to be sealed. They had already ruled against her attorneys on that.

This last go-round of motions resulted from her attorneys rather egregiously disregarding the Court's denial of their motion to seal.

The Court in effect instructed them to file a draft of their opening brief, under seal, with notations indicating whatever portions they were requesting to have redacted/kept sealed when they filed their official brief.

Her attorneys instead rehashed arguments the Court had already rejected, and did not provide the Court any indication of what specifically they would request be kept sealed.

Notice that the Court's extension of deadline was actually for an entire month: as dated from the previous deadline the Court had given her attorneys for providing a rationale as to why briefs should be sealed.

Her attorneys also once upon a time had weeks to work on/provide the Court with their proposed redactions.

It sure looks like the Court may have told them:

1. Produce your opening brief, with or without redactions, forthwith.

2. You've forfeited the opportunity for us to review any proposed redactions and to "discuss" those redactions with you. We'll decide unilaterally if any portions you indicate should be sealed, and if none are indicated, no part of the brief itself will be sealed.

3. Your motion for us to ignore/keep off the record the State's (second) reply to your (second) request to seal briefs --or if we won't do that, to have their reply sealed too, is DENIED.

Enough with these legally baseless attempts to deprive the public of what they are entitled to under AZ, federal, and Constitutional law: access to judicial proceedings, including to the appellate process.

---------
Geevee, I'm hoping (but very much not anticipating) that the Court took one huge extra step and ruled that EVERYTHING ordered sealed by JSS be unsealed, if nothing else, at the conclusion of this direct appeal.

After all, since the Court has rejected 's attorney's argument that "death threats and witness intimidation" justify sealing briefs, what possible reason can there be for keeping trial records secret that were sealed based on the same (bogus) justification?

 

[geevee]

Oh, that Michael Kieffer. He knew the Court had ruled on the briefs not only before the ruling appeared on the docket, but before the court clerks knew. Hmm. Nothing new about Kieffer knowing what he shouldn't know, though.

Court is obviously closed today, but yes, I should have a copy of the rulings tomorrow and will post what is most relevant.

(BTW on that long weekend read-- her attys were allowed to double the permissable word count, so their brief can run to just over 44,000 words).

It isn't surprising that the COA won't allow opening briefs to be sealed. They had already ruled against her attorneys on that.

This last go-round of motions resulted from her attorneys rather egregiously disregarding the Court's denial of their motion to seal.

The Court in effect instructed them to file a draft of their opening brief, under seal, with notations indicating whatever portions they were requesting to have redacted/kept sealed when they filed their official brief.

Her attorneys instead rehashed arguments the Court had already rejected, and did not provide the Court any indication of what specifically they would request be kept sealed.

Notice that the Court's extension of deadline was actually for an entire month: as dated from the previous deadline the Court had given her attorneys for providing a rationale as to why briefs should be sealed.

Her attorneys also once upon a time had weeks to work on/provide the Court with their proposed redactions.

It sure looks like the Court may have told them:

1. Produce your opening brief, with or without redactions, forthwith.

2. You've forfeited the opportunity for us to review any proposed redactions and to "discuss" those redactions with you. We'll decide unilaterally if any portions you indicate should be sealed, and if none are indicated, no part of the brief itself will be sealed.

3. Your motion for us to ignore/keep off the record the State's (second) reply to your (second) request to seal briefs --or if we won't do that, to have their reply sealed too, is DENIED.

Enough with these legally baseless attempts to deprive the public of what they are entitled to under AZ, federal, and Constitutional law: access to judicial proceedings, including to the appellate process.

---------
Geevee, I'm hoping (but very much not anticipating) that the Court took one huge extra step and ruled that EVERYTHING ordered sealed by JSS be unsealed, if nothing else, at the conclusion of this direct appeal.

After all, since the Court has rejected 's attorney's argument that "death threats and witness intimidation" justify sealing briefs, what possible reason can there be for keeping trial records secret that were sealed based on the same (bogus) justification?

He does seem to have his inside contacts, eh?

I was thinking they may have shot themselves in the foot by demanding again the sealing of briefs instead of doing what was asked and outlining what they wanted redacted since they needed quite a bit of stuff unsealed/resealed in order to formulate their appeal. So they'll be using sealed info in their appeal, and if not able to have the whole appeal record sealed, some previously sealed stuff will become public, correct? Did that make the least bit of sense? lol

I too hope this is a leap forward in having everything unsealed. I wasn't here for the CA trial but I recall reading here that not long after that verdict there was a huge document dump of all previously sealed items, if that's the usual after a trial is complete, maybe that'll be the case here after her PCR appeal is shot down? Or is that a state by state thing?

Anyway, looking forward to doing some serious reading this weekend, thank you COA (and Hope, procurer deluxe) !

 

[Hope4More]

He does seem to have his inside contacts, eh?

I was thinking they may have shot themselves in the foot by demanding again the sealing of briefs instead of doing what was asked and outlining what they wanted redacted since they needed quite a bit of stuff unsealed/resealed in order to formulate their appeal. So they'll be using sealed info in their appeal, and if not able to have the whole appeal record sealed, some previously sealed stuff will become public, correct? Did that make the least bit of sense? lol

I too hope this is a leap forward in having everything unsealed. I wasn't here for the CA trial but I recall reading here that not long after that verdict there was a huge document dump of all previously sealed items, if that's the usual after a trial is complete, maybe that'll be the case here after her PCR appeal is shot down? Or is that a state by state thing?

Anyway, looking forward to doing some serious reading this weekend, thank you COA (and Hope, procurer deluxe) !

No, sorry, incorrect on both counts. What was sealed at trial will remain sealed during this appeal, unless the COA directs the Superior Court to unseal some or all of what was sealed back then.

The arguments so far have been about whether or not her attorneys would be allowed to have BRIEFS sealed; no direct motions /requests have been filed at either Court to have trial records unsealed.

In AZ, there is a legal distinction made between sealing trial records (in part or in whole) and sealing any or all parts of the appellate record.

Both the COA and the State have already referred to a COA administrative order which holds that during the appellate process, what was sealed in Superior Court will be (absent intervention) sealed during appeals, but that absent some very compelling reason, all the appellate record will be made available to the public.

The apparent fact that the trial record will NEVER be unsealed, absent an extremely rare intervention, is what I was despairing about awhile back.

Adding, for clarification: anything that wasn't sealed at trial will (theoretically) be made public. That includes the full May 26 chat exhibit, for example.

What was sealed at trial that we won't see includes a huge portion of the non-testimony portion of PP2 , including all the meetings in chambers about the 's pro per stunts, and about those annonymous witnesses.

The sealed portion of the guilt phase I most want to see are each and every chambers discussions about the pedo letters, and especially, the 's lies about why she couldn't produce "originals" of the forgeries.

Why, oh why, should she be allowed to keep those lies secret forever?

 

[geevee]

But - how do they keep sealed things that were sealed during trial if they need to mention them in the brief or during the appeal (to make their points for overturning conviction, a new trial, etc.)? Do they just avoid talking about anything previously sealed if all of the appeal records will be public?

 

[Hope4More]

But - how do they keep sealed things that were sealed during trial if they need to mention them in the brief or during the appeal (to make their points for overturning conviction, a new trial, etc.)? Do they just avoid talking about anything previously sealed if all of the appeal records will be public?

No, they won't avoid talking about what was sealed. From what the State revealed in their last reply, 's chief basis for appeal will be that excessive publicity denied the a fair trial because expert & mitigation witnesses were intimidated (including by JM), and some were too skeered even to show their faces at trial. ALL discussion of that was sealed, including for LaViolette during guilt phase.

What's most likely to happen is that 's attorneys will make their arguments related to that in the main body of their brief, but will footnote/reference sealed material to back up their arguments.

In other words, we'll see the argument they're making, but not the footnotes or appendices that are based upon/lay out sealed materials (unless the COA miraculously orders everything unsealed after their opening brief is filed).

For example:

Their brief (will likely) claim that the defense initially intended that LaViolette testify during the mitigation phase, but that she refused to do so after receiving numerous death threats, hostile calls to her various places of employment, etc.

The alleged "fact" that she refused to testify because she felt threatened would be included in the brief. The supposed death threats, etc, and all the related discussions that were sealed would be referenced in the body of the brief as a footnote or an appendix (as in, " see appendices A, B and C for discussion by counsel of these due process-robbing threats, and the related rulings by the trial judge that we believe were an abuse of discretion/improper decisions.")

 

[geevee]

No, they won't avoid talking about what was sealed. From what the State revealed in their last reply, 's chief basis for appeal will be that excessive publicity denied the a fair trial because expert & mitigation witnesses were intimidated (including by JM), and some were too skeered even to show their faces at trial. ALL discussion of that was sealed, including for LaViolette during guilt phase.

What's most likely to happen is that 's attorneys will make their arguments related to that in the main body of their brief, but will footnote/reference sealed material to back up their arguments.

In other words, we'll see the argument they're making, but not the footnotes or appendices that are based upon/lay out sealed materials (unless the COA miraculously orders everything unsealed after their opening brief is filed).

For example:

Their brief (will likely) claim that the defense initially intended that LaViolette testify during the mitigation phase, but that she refused to do so after receiving numerous death threats, hostile calls to her various places of employment, etc.

The alleged "fact" that she refused to testify because she felt threatened would be included in the brief. The supposed death threats, etc, and all the related discussions that were sealed would be referenced in the body of the brief as a footnote or an appendix (as in, " see appendices A, B and C for discussion by counsel of these due process-robbing threats, and the related rulings by the trial judge that we believe were an abuse of discretion/improper decisions.")

I see (and darn, was hoping there was little way they could avoid divulging some shielded info). Still so glad we'll get to read the briefs!

 

[Ktblair]

It's doesn't let me know when people have posted! That's kind of important ya know

Check your settings. I'm clearly not getting enough trophies even though I'm getting as many as H4M, which makes it all exponentially ludicrous.

 

[Ktblair]

I still ( kinda sorta) intend to take the time to type up the remainder of the email exchange. What's left is a digging out of Sky's responses to each paragraph of TA's original email (her reply email, with those original TA sections is a very dense 9 page reply). (Then Chris H's far shorter reply, then Travis explaining at great length his pain about Deanna, then TA's no worries all is forgiven, think nothing of it, go comfort the reply).

She sent this second email to Travis TWO DAYS after her 15 minute "prompt" reply, and in all kinds of crucial ways, again chose to validate & support the 's feelings over those of her best friend Travis, who she loved unconditionally (yes, that is sarcasm).

Chris wrote Travis as well. He had the decency to apologize to Travis far more quickly than did his wife, but not for the right reasons, imo.

I'm still trying to put into words what I believe this email exchange illuminates about Travis's vulnerabilities.

Until then. What Travis needed and DESERVED were friends who were loyal to HIM. Travis said in a subsequent email about those 3 days that he wasn't upset by Chris & Sky's lack of loyalty. He should have been. It is revealing that he was not.

Travis was grieving Deanna at the time, the loss of their close relationship, and he was feeling a huge amount of pain, guilt, and remorse at not being able to commit to this woman he loved deeply and enjoyed being with.

Sky told Travis she knew he was in pain over Deanna, and that he wasn't ready for another relationship. Then, in the next breath, she berated him for not being ready to get married, and for not committing to the .

AFTER Travis sent his "crossed the line" email, Sky directly, explicitly, and unapologetically told Travis -repeatedly- that HE was responsible for the 's "pain." Etc.

And yet......as you'll see, Travis forgave and forgave and forgave.

It seemed like that with ALL of TA's friends.none of them had his back,even when they realized was phsyco and obsessed! How alone and vulnerable he must've been knowing his friends weren't loyal to him.no wonder he kept it all hidden.

 

[salberg7]

“It seemed like that with ALL of TA's friends.none of them had his back,even when they realized was phsyco and obsessed! How alone and vulnerable he must've been knowing his friends weren't loyal to him.no wonder he kept it all hidden.”

How very sad for Travis but how true. But again that’s what occurs when a borderline personality takes over his life - tried to isolate Travis from everyone.

 

[RickshawFan]

It's doesn't let me know when people have posted! That's kind of important ya know

Wait a sec... I believe you can fix the notifications in Settings.

Also, the rest of my post and a few subsequent posts were banter reflecting goofiness in data that got transferred from the old forum. Hope you figured that out and weren’t offended.

 

[RickshawFan]

It seemed like that with ALL of TA's friends.none of them had his back,even when they realized was phsyco and obsessed! How alone and vulnerable he must've been knowing his friends weren't loyal to him.no wonder he kept it all hidden.

I believe he thought they were loyal to him. But there was not a lot they could do, evidently, to convince him she was a psycho. Too bad they couldn’t gang up on him to file a police report or a stalking order. There were crimes in that mess, like tire slashing, theft, hacking, etc.

They could also have persuaded him to go to a psychologist, not only for current trauma, but to address past trauma in his current life. The bishops may be at fault, too, for not insisting he get professional help.

 

[Ktblair]

I believe he thought they were loyal to him. But there was not a lot they could do, evidently, to convince him she was a psycho. Too bad they couldn’t gang up on him to file a police report or a stalking order. There were crimes in that mess, like tire slashing, theft, hacking, etc.

They could also have persuaded him to go to a psychologist, not only for current trauma, but to address past trauma in his current life. The bishops may be at fault, too, for not insisting he get professional help.

I wonder how many times physically abused TA? I have no doubt in my mind she'd done that.

 

[Ktblair]

Wait a sec... I believe you can fix the notifications in Settings.

Also, the rest of my post and a few subsequent posts were banter reflecting goofiness in data that got transferred from the old forum. Hope you figured that out and weren’t offended.

Lol not offended at all I love lurking here.thank you for your advice,I'll tinker with the settings when I get a minute.i just barely got used to it when it all changed.

 

[Ktblair]

“It seemed like that with ALL of TA's friends.none of them had his back,even when they realized was phsyco and obsessed! How alone and vulnerable he must've been knowing his friends weren't loyal to him.no wonder he kept it all hidden.”

How very sad for Travis but how true. But again that’s what occurs when a borderline personality takes over his life - tried to isolate Travis from everyone.

Didn't he call his sister Samantha about what to do when his tires got slashed? I guess he didn't tell her specifically about the .