So, if I understand correctly, she may claim:
- new evidence
- Nurmi was ineffective
- prosecutorial misconduct
Good luck with any of those reasons. Nurmi was like a rabid dog with his defense. Juan has already been raked over the coals and the COA denied her appeal. That leaves new evidence. Unless she’s convinced someone to confess that they were there and committed the murder but convinced poor Jodi to take the rap, she’s out of luck and hopefully out of appeals. Aside from all that, Jodi has no chance convincing Stephens that there’s any reason to give her a new trial. She needs to shut up and enjoy her life sentence.
1. I initially replied with a question about new evidence because I understood that to be what she was asserting.
2. I'm certain too there is zero possibility she has "new evidence" that relates directly to the matter of guilt, much less that if a jury would have reached a different verdict had they heard it (both prongs must
be satisfied for a PCR to succeed).
3. I also agree she has no chance of prevailing on an argument of ineffective counsel. UNLESS- one caveat here. In a laundry list of whines & complaints & sometimes wild accusations included in her civil case against Nurmi (which she apparently wants dismissed in its entirety), one accusation stood out & would be relevant, if it could be proven: that Nurmi had a conflict of interest.
What the killer alleged was that Nurmi took the case, stayed on it, and designed the trial strategy he did because he intended from the very beginning to write a book about the trial. IIRC, she claimed in the civil complaint that Nurmi approached both MDLR & Wilmott about either writing the book with him, or at least, having their perspectives included in his book.
That kind of conflict of interest is obviously a big 'ole no no no no. Though she wouldn't get very far with proving Nurmi's trial strategies were about generating the maximum amount spectacle for self-profit rather than best defending her. So, did she drop the civil case because she had zip nada proof about this conflict of interest, perhaps including the fact neither MDLR & Wilmott were willing to testify Nurmi had approached them? Or, did she drop the civil case to instead preserve that (and possibly other) included accusations in her PCR?
4. On prosecutorial misconduct. Yep. The lion's share of her COA appeal was about this and the COA did slap JM around on the subject. BUT. The Court didn't find the misconduct egregious enough to overturn her guilty verdict, and specifically said just that.
5. IMO the bottom line is now and always has been that even if JM (and Nurmi) are actually guilty of every single accusation thrown at them in bar complaints relating to her trial, not any or all of that alleged misconduct (loosely and literally defined) had anything to do whatsoever with the guilt phase trial itself.