I agree, JSS caused much of this problem with so much sealing but at this point, I really don't get why the appeal attny wants even more secrecy, given what JM says, most of what's sealed isn't that big of a deal, so why is it to them?
If (let your mind wander here), in the extremely small outside chance that her conviction was overturned on the basis of excessive publicity denying her a fair trial, what would be the remedy? Another trial would only incur more publicity, start the circus up all over again, but she's proven herself to be a danger to the community (knife, gun used in murder, another gun, more knives found in planned escape vehicle), what do you think would happen? A totally secret trial? Knock it down to 2nd degree and time served? What's your legal-beagle best guess?
I tried, really, but my mind can't wander far enough to escape the pull of reality's gravity.
I think there is only an infinitismally small chance her conviction will be overturned at all, and absolutely zero chance it will be overturned on the basis she was denied due process (didn't receive a fair trial) because of excessive publicity.
The two bottom lines on publicity:
In terms of a direct appeal, it wouldn't matter even if the publicity had been so intense that 99% of people on planet Earth stopped what they were doing every day to watch the trial, and then tweeted, posted, and blogged and posted about it.
The only relevant question is whether or not the sitting jury and their deliberations were affected by the publicity. And, the burden of proof to factually document such a tainting of the jury belongs to the 's attorneys. They can't.
The second point relates to what IMO is the reason her attorneys are babbling about the "safety" of unnamed "members of the public" should opening briefs be filed unsealed.
Their claims about ongoing intense public interest and endangerment of unidentified members of the public is theater, meant to bolster the claim made in their appeal that mitigation witnesses were so intimidated by death threats and other SM pressure that they refused to testify at all, and perhaps, that the effectiveness of those willing to testify was circumscribed by the "fact" they were only willing to testify via affadavits and after being given pseudonyms.
The denial of full mitigation in a DP case is demonstrably the surest ticket to a successful DP appeal.
Sadly for the 's chances, she wasn't denied squat during either of her sentencing phases, much less her right to "fully actualize her mitigation," to use that Nurmi phrase he repeated ad nauseum.
JSS's epic ruling during PP2 laid out her reasoning, in great detail, point by point by point (including on the matter of mitigation witnesses)for denying Nurmi's bazillionth motion for mistrial. She didn't abuse her discretion, and those annonymous witnesses DID testify.
But, OK, if reality is turned inside out and her conviction is completely overturned and her case remanded back to Superior Court...
No, she would not be allowed a secret trial, and no, I don't believe there's a chance in hell, even in an Alice in Wonderland scenario, that the State would agree to reduce the charges to second degree murder.
I do remember AZLawyer pondering the "what if" of a sentencing phase retrial (conviction intact, "just " a sentencing redo).
She didn't know how that could play out, iirc, because the State has already used up their quota of times the DP can be on the table as a sentencing option.
