Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

[deedee21]

Does anyone know when the decisión is suppose to come down?

 

[Niner]

Does anyone know when the decisión is suppose to come down?

@Hope4More - might know - ?? Hope?

 

[nyvictoria]

4

I wonder what J. Arias will come up with for plan B?
Perhaps she will go back to blaming Nancy Grace for her life sentence.

I am not a lawyer nor am I anywhere near as knowledgeable as @Hope4More on the subject of appeals but I assume she still has her delusional fan base contributing to her defense fund. I didn’t want to go to that page to check. If she has enough money and/or an atty who wants to work for her, she can petition the Arizona Supreme Court. They can choose to review her case or not. I’m not sure what options she has after that. Hopefully none.

 

[nyvictoria]

I couldn’t edit my post but wanted to add that if the COA denies her appeal, I think she can request a review of the denial before having to move up to the Az Supreme Court.

If I have this, or anything related to her appeals wrong, everyone please feel free to correct me.

 

[salberg7]

I’ve wondered too why “Miss “Arias” didn’t manage to get herself pregnant and came to the conclusion that JA lied about how many times they had sex. I think it was way less than the killer alluded. Travis had plenty of girls around- at the end he had Chitlana Lay (Not sure if I have the spelling correct) and they appeared to be hooking up as well.
If I remember correctly Travis and his killer had vaginal sex 3 times or so. I also believe they used birth control - probably condoms.

Someone on Twitter copied & pasted a H4M post on the #jodiarias hashtag. Just wanted to inform the group. I read it this morning I think.

 

[Hope4More]

I couldn’t edit my post but wanted to add that if the COA denies her appeal, I think she can request a review of the denial before having to move up to the Az Supreme Court.

If I have this, or anything related to her appeals wrong, everyone please feel free to correct me.

Does anyone know when the decisión is suppose to come down?

@Hope4More - might know - ?? Hope?

4

I am not a lawyer nor am I anywhere near as knowledgeable as @Hope4More on the subject of appeals but I assume she still has her delusional fan base contributing to her defense fund. I didn’t want to go to that page to check. If she has enough money and/or an atty who wants to work for her, she can petition the Arizona Supreme Court. They can choose to review her case or not. I’m not sure what options she has after that. Hopefully none.

(Hi! )

1. About additional review after her COA appeal is denied, which I'm 100% certain it will be:

NY Victoria is right. And wrong. There is no review step/opportunity between a COA's ruling and moving on to the AZ Supreme Court, if the convicted chooses to do so if & after the COA upholds a guilty verdict.

The killer has the legal right to ask the AZ Supreme Court to review her case. But. That court has zero obligation to do so & very very rarely accepts such requests.

That is, UNLESS there is some larger legal issue in the case/trial they believe needs clarification (typically a result of conflicting rulings by lower courts), or, the Court believes the case presents them an opportunity to weigh in on what they think is a very significant and novel legal issue.

The only issue I can imagine the AZSC could possibly consider significant enough to weigh in on- even theoretically, and the odds are extremely slim to barely none, would relate to the largely rhetorical question the COA asked during oral arguments on the killer's appeal.

The question asked by panel J's lead COA judge: what if anything can courts do if evidence of guilt presented at trial is so overwhelming as to negate the possibility (case law, precedent) of overturning a verdict based on prosecutorial misconduct, and the prosecutor, knowing this, takes advantage of this to go over the line?

Best guess is the AZSC won't weigh in, and will turn down the killer's request to be heard, and forthwith .

After killer goes to the AZSC, if she does, she has one last chance, and I'm pretty sure she's believed for years it's her best and only chance for a win: to file for post conviction relief (PCR).

I've written about this here many times, so a very short summary: PCR is the first and only opportunity to argue ineffective counsel and/or new exonerating evidence that wasn't & couldn't have been known at trial.

But. Fewer than 5% of PCR requests are granted, in part because these requests go to the very same trial judge who oversaw the trial in which the requesting defendant was convicted.

2. When will the COA rule? There's no way of knowing, sorry. There isn't even much point in looking at the average time the COA appeals review panels take to issue a ruling.

The only potential guideposts: the reviewing judges typically decide on a ruling on the same day of oral arguments (if there are any); if orals, they are held on the same day as their scheduled day of deliberations.

So....the COA almost certainly has already made their decision. What always takes a long time, and in this case, a definitely longer then usual amount of time, is the lead judge's work of drafting the decision, giving it to the other 2 judges for edits & review, then the lead judge incorporating those edits/reasoning/dissents, if any, and writing up a final decision.

I know it feels like a very long time since orals, but even in routine Court time it hasn't been that long, and the killer's case, for all the wrong reasons and having nothing at all to do with her guilt and clean conviction, is anything but.

 

[Augustgurl]

(Hi! )

1. About additional review after her COA appeal is denied, which I'm 100% certain it will be:

NY Victoria is right. And wrong. There is no review step/opportunity between a COA's ruling and moving on to the AZ Supreme Court, if the convicted chooses to do so if & after the COA upholds a guilty verdict.

The killer has the legal right to ask the AZ Supreme Court to review her case. But. That court has zero obligation to do so & very very rarely accepts such requests.

That is, UNLESS there is some larger legal issue in the case/trial they believe needs clarification (typically a result of conflicting rulings by lower courts), or, the Court believes the case presents them an opportunity to weigh in on what they think is a very significant and novel legal issue.

The only issue I can imagine the AZSC could possibly consider significant enough to weigh in on- even theoretically, and the odds are extremely slim to barely none, would relate to the largely rhetorical question the COA asked during oral arguments on the killer's appeal.

The question asked by panel J's lead COA judge: what if anything can courts do if evidence of guilt presented at trial is so overwhelming as to negate the possibility (case law, precedent) of overturning a verdict based on prosecutorial misconduct, and the prosecutor, knowing this, takes advantage of this to go over the line?

Best guess is the AZSC won't weigh in, and will turn down the killer's request to be heard, and forthwith .

After killer goes to the AZSC, if she does, she has one last chance, and I'm pretty sure she's believed for years it's her best and only chance for a win: to file for post conviction relief (PCR).

I've written about this here many times, so a very short summary: PCR is the first and only opportunity to argue ineffective counsel and/or new exonerating evidence that wasn't & couldn't have been known at trial.

But. Fewer than 5% of PCR requests are granted, in part because these requests go to the very same trial judge who oversaw the trial in which the requesting defendant was convicted.

2. When will the COA rule? There's no way of knowing, sorry. There isn't even much point in looking at the average time the COA appeals review panels take to issue a ruling.

The only potential guideposts: the reviewing judges typically decide on a ruling on the same day of oral arguments (if there are any); if orals, they are held on the same day as their scheduled day of deliberations.

So....the COA almost certainly has already made their decision. What always takes a long time, and in this case, a definitely longer then usual amount of time, is the lead judge's work of drafting the decision, giving it to the other 2 judges for edits & review, then the lead judge incorporating those edits/reasoning/dissents, if any, and writing up a final decision.

I know it feels like a very long time since orals, but even in routine Court time it hasn't been that long, and the killer's case, for all the wrong reasons and having nothing at all to do with her guilt and clean conviction, is anything but.

Thank you for your knowledgeable posts. I love reading them on here. Please continue!!!

 

[salberg7]

Who would pay for the killer’s attorneys if she took it to the ASC & they agreed to review it? It would be on the killer’s dime, correct? No more state paid appeals, or will the state pay for PCR? Gosh I hope not. Let the killer use more of her fund money provided by whomever is *crazy* enough to send the killer money.

 

[Niner]

If I'm remembering correctly - and I am old! - Hope4More had that she only gets one appeal that is paid by the State. So, I'm going to yes - she'll have to rely on her "crazy killer money fund".

 

[neesaki]

You're kidding when you say it's been 7 years since her conviction?

Wow, can not believe it’s been seven years! Seems like maybe two.

 

[geevee]

Arias prosecutor Juan Martinez put on administrative leave

 

[Niner]

Arias prosecutor Juan Martinez put on administrative leave

Mitchell in September reassigned Martinez from the high-profile capital litigation bureau to the auto theft division. She said she moved him to give him time to focus on his disciplinary hearings. They are scheduled for April.

 

[grammieto5]

Arias prosecutor Juan Martinez put on administrative leave

Sooo I am wondering, whatever the outcome of this is, will it have anything to do with the killer's case?

 

[Midnight Rambler]

Any truth to the story that surfaced in a Facebook group yesterday that Juan was escorted out of the MCAO offices yesterday.

 

[Spellbound]

Tonight in 20/20 new episode, supposed to have
Watch the full story on "20/20" Friday, Feb. 14, at 9 p.m. ET on ABC.

ABC News’ ‘20/20’ Airs Friday, Feb. 14

The program uncovers rarely seen excerpts from Arias’ personal journal and Alexander’s blog; and takes a rare look at evidence in the case, including a camera that caught the last moments of Alexander’s life and secret recordings of conversations between the former couple. The two-hour “20/20” features new interviews with Steven Alexander, Alexander’s brother; and Sky Lovingier Hughes and Chris Hughes,

 

[Spellbound]

Arias prosecutor Juan Martinez put on administrative leave

Mitchell in September reassigned Martinez from the high-profile capital litigation bureau to the auto theft division. She said she moved him to give him time to focus on his disciplinary hearings. They are scheduled for April.

"Given the Arizona Bar proceedings involving Mr. Martinez, I felt it was important to assign him a caseload that would be more flexible and allow him to take time when needed to focus on resolving these complaints," Mitchell stated in September.

 

[Hope4More]

Sooo I am wondering, whatever the outcome of this is, will it have anything to do with the killer's case?

If by the outcome of "this" you mean the current pile-on, see if anything sticks bar complaint against JM and the subsequent and not entirely related fallout at MCAO, the answer is:

Absolutely not. Zero percent chance. A guaranteed- NOPE.

Whatever the end result for JM of all this (and I suspect his career at MCAO is over, no matter the official outcome of the bar complaint), the consequences will be personal to JM and his ability to practice law. Nothing further, and nothing to do with any of the cases he's prosecuted, including of TA's butcher.
----
I keep saying it, but what's most egregious about this endless and increasingly byzantine, nasty, and farcical quest to use the Bar to destroy JM is that:

1. NONE of the charges originally brought
against him by the wildly unethical "ethics" atty Karen Clark, on TA's killer's behalf, had ANYTHING to do with his ethical/professional conduct at trial, TA's or any other.

2. The Bar has rejected, again and again and again, and just recently: again, the same thoroughly investigated prosecutorial misconduct charges against JM brought by the same group of bitter defense attys.

3. The complaints against JM as they now stand are reduced to whether or not he was truthful in a bar deposition when he was asked questions he never should have been about his personal life (no bearing on any trial); whether or not he harassed a court employee (no bearing on any trial); and whether or not he told blogger Jennifer Wood confidential/sealed information about PP2's holdout juror.

I do not now, nor have I ever believed that JM leaked 17's name to Wood. Hypothetically, though, even if the Bar rules that JM did so (not happening, imo), that finding would have no bearing on her original conviction, sentencing, or on her appeals.

Bottom line on that : juror 17 wasn't removed from the jury, her lone holdout vote was preserved, the jury hung, the killer didn't get the DP. There was NO prejudice to the killer. No prejudice = not grounds for appeal.

 

[grammieto5]

Thank you Hope, Most of me believed that it wouldn't BUT I just needed to know for sure

 

[Brittbrat]

Hi everyone! I just found this site a month or so ago and have been hooked ever since. I wish I would have known about this while the trial was going on so I could have commented and discussed things. I’ve always been a “Dateline”/“48 Hours” murder mystery trial junkie, but this case has never left me for a few reasons. One huge reason being I live in Phoenix so this has been playing out in my backyard, also I think this case has always intrigued me because it was the first I’d ever seen where there were actual pictures leading up to and after the crime, another reason would be because as a woman who hasn’t had their heart broken by a “player” or has been used by someone? That doesn’t give you a license to kill, but the fact that this woman did made me curious to know what transpired. Lastly and most frightening, while the trial was taking place I was watching faithfully everyday, one night after dinner I was pulled over and arrested for driving on a suspended license (I had no knowledge my license was suspended, was never notified by the MVD. It was over a ticket from a year prior that was dismissed as soon as I saw the judge) anyway on my way to see the judge we had to get on a bus that would take us to court, because of my last name starts with an A I was lined up and shackled next to Jodi Arias. I couldn’t believe I was watching her on tv one day then shackled to her the next. I couldn’t take my eyes off of her. The way she talked, acted. How skinny she was, tall but thin. She had very long skinny fingers. She was almost creature-like. Anyway I sat behind her on the bus to the court that day and had to ride back on the same bus with her after court was done that day. I was released the next day thank God and went back to watching the trial. However, as the trial went on I couldn’t get seeing her out of my mind. All those things have kept me coming back trying to figure some things out. I have some questions about June 4th, but besides that I think I have a pretty good idea of some of the other stuff. I would like to post some of my thoughts and theories on the relationship and things that I have not heard mentioned, but I’m not sure if I can post that here or under which thread?

 

[Hope4More]

Mitchell in September reassigned Martinez from the high-profile capital litigation bureau to the auto theft division. She said she moved him to give him time to focus on his disciplinary hearings. They are scheduled for April.

Arias prosecutor Juan Martinez put on administrative leave

LONG. LONG. LONG.

To recap. Part 1.

In September 2019, Rachel Mitchell, acting
as temporary Maricopa County Attorney (after MCA Bill Montgomery was promoted to the AZ Court), banished JM to the wastelands of Auto Theft.

Now, a few months later, JM has been kicked a few steps further to the curb, having been put on "paid administrative leave" by Allister Adell, another temporary Maricopa County Atty.

Unlike Mitchell (see below), this temp, though, enjoys a (thin) patina of legitimacy, given that she was actually appointed by a Board of Supervisors to serve out (elected) Montgomery's term (expires early 2021).

The gutter-level political infighting & backstabbing & corruption in AZ's legal community never ceases to amaze. Truly.

So what's going on? Recap, part 2. No one in AZ's legal community (other than perhaps the ethically challenged Karen Clark) wants anything to do with the killer's case. (Have heard this directly, from multiple perches within that community).

Other than the strength of her conviction (rock solid, praise be), nothing and nobody connected to her case has escaped being tainted, controversial, endlessly litigated, perceived as reflecting poorly upon the legal community, politicized, and/or used as tools/targets to advance specific agendas and interests.

And all that was BEFORE the most recent Supreme curve ball of AZ Governor Ducy essentially gifting an AZ Supreme Court seat to JM's old boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.

And BEFORE a coalition of groups and peeps in AZ, including the nose- in- all things JM, Karen Clark, decided to try to prevent Ducy from choosing Montgomery for the Court. Clark's contribution to the cause was to add to her Bar complaint collection by filing one against MONTGOMERY. On matters that ALL related to JM. That Montgomery hadn't adequately supervised JM. That he'd broken ethical rules by allowing JM to publish his book. That he'd protected, praised and promoted JM, rather than rebuking, reprimanding & remonishing him.

Bad, bad, bad Bill. Supreme Court Justice Montgomery now. Clark & company lost that battle. Oops. But the war there never ends.

Part 3 recap. Bill Montgomery DID investigate the MCAO harassment allegations against JM before he left & acquired his robes, and he DID discipline JM. IIRC, JM's salary was affected, AND he received a formal reprimand, AND he was "sentenced" to sexual harassment ed classes/instruction.

And that's where things stood until September 2019.

Around which time there was apparently a battle royale being waged within MCAO, about who was going to temporarily fill Montgomery's chair. Logically that peep would have been Montgomery's chief deputy, but it sure appears that conniver (s) used his occasional medical leave absences to do an end run around him, and there the kerfuffle really began in earnest, finally ending after an anonymous letter arrived accusing the next in line for the throne of an improper sexual relationship with a subordinate.

Rachel Mitchell magically rose up from that dirt ball battle, and was named temporary queen of the MCAO hill.

Note that one of the few actions she took was to take a swipe at JM, who of course had just been disciplined within MCAO for...sexual misconduct. Coincidence not. Rather, high level, cut throat office politics.

But....Mitchell's turn on top was hinky in origin, and never had a chance of sticking. And it didn't. Enter....Allister Adell.

Continued....