Jodi Arias' murder conviction could be overturned because of prosecutor misconduct claims
Oct. 4, 2019
"The Arizona Court of Appeals has agreed to consider how numerous allegations of misconduct against Maricopa County prosecutor Juan Martinez could overturn Arias' conviction. ...
The Court of Appeals order in the Arias case stated that it will look at a series of issues concerning prosecutorial misconduct, including:
-Is Arias is entitled to a new trial if there was intentional prosecutorial misconduct, and would double jeopardy play a role?
-What factors are relevant in determining whether Arias was denied a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct? Does publicity around the trial affect the decision?
-Was she deprived of the ability to present her defense to the jury?
-If there was prosecutorial misconduct, did it contribute to her guilty verdict?
-Should the publicity outside the courtroom be considered when deciding if the atmosphere of the trial was "circus-like?" Can publicity outside the courtroom grant a reversal?
*******The court has not yet scheduled a date for the oral arguments.'***********
Jodi Arias' murder conviction could be overturned because of prosecutor misconduct claims
Clue # 1 that this is an incredibly sloppy and uninformed piece of "journalism":
It's entirely about the killer's upcoming COA oral argument, but the writer isn't even aware that they have in fact been scheduled. For October 17.
Clue #2. Karen Clark's self-serving statements are taken at face value and parroted. Clark claims the questions the COA sent out in advance to attorneys indicate the panel is particularly interested in JM's prosecutorial misconduct.
Reality is, the killer's attorneys requested oral arguments. The only permissable subjects of argument relate to issues her attorneys raised in their opening brief.
There are only 2 arguments in their brief the (COA) panel could possibly find enough meat on the bone to bite into:
* excessive publicity, yada, yada.
* prosecutorial misconduct.
Guess what. The panel's questions relate to those arguments. What a surprise. Further, anyone with even rudimentary knowledge about what happens during appellate court (or Supreme Court) arguments
knows that the judges ask questions to solicit and challenge each side's legal reasoning (including case law/precedent) that supports their position.
The panel's questions provide equal opportunity for the State and the killer's attorneys to argue their strongest points and to defend the weakest.
Karen Clark the ethics attorney knows this. She's simply shameless, is all.