SIDEBAR #20- Arias/Alexander forum
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
- Status
Ricki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,422
- Reaction score
- 1,198
gcharlie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,143
- Reaction score
- 284
Because CNN is the one arguing the motion.
Extradordinary precedent set by Stephens removing the press from this hearing. I suspect repercussions.
janx
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,178
- Reaction score
- 2,384
Oh hellz yeah! :floorlaugh:
ETA: Some of these reporters (like MaryEllen and Kiefer) are local ones.
BUt I thought it was supposed to be a closed hearing to begin with?
gcharlie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,143
- Reaction score
- 284
CNN submitted a request for an open hearing; I believe they are the ones arguing the objection to the motion to limit media coverage.
Agreed! No way in he$$ should any appeal judge overturn her conviction, first of all jury is not supposed to read outside things which I'm sure they all followed, secondly Jodi herself uses the media to get her message out and also gain attention, which by the way she loves.
MyTinkieGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,675
- Reaction score
- 1,303
What's really pushin me over the edge is that, apparently, the ONLY person with any First Amendment rights is a convicted murderer!!!
So, the public, as well as the victims family, get to have the "pleasure" of her tweets and blog AND "art" site, which was still open until very recently, but everyone else gets shut down!!!
Ahhhh....I see. I get their point. Defense doesn't want a tainted jury and I'm sure Juan doesn't either, in case a potential juror hears something and becomes sympathetic to her for some reason. We don't want another Foreman-type on this jury, that's for sure.
Cherry
Pie
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,933
- Reaction score
- 1,619
So now Stephens is worried about how she looks as a judge? It's WAY TOO LATE FOR THAT; she was part of the problem as to why this case took so freaking long. She IS the problem; REMOVE HER FROM THE CASE. We need a male judge in this case.
gcharlie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,143
- Reaction score
- 284
Throughout the trial, Judge Stephens has been very, very conservative re: public access/information. Think of all the conferences in chambers during the trial. Lots of sealed documents. Many, many ex parte hearings. Now this.
I'm starting to get uncomfortable with it. She has to balance public access to information with the rights of the defendant and IMO, she has lost the ability to find the balance.
I'm starting to get uncomfortable with it. She has to balance public access to information with the rights of the defendant and IMO, she has lost the ability to find the balance.
There are other "young" people with death penalty trials too....look at Michael Bargo, he was a lot younger than CMJA, and I didn't see his trial getting delayed for so long. He had just as many rights as CMJA does to get a fair trial and put in motions, etc.. Just because it's "high-profile," what does that have to do with the length of time it takes for this process to be over with?? The media has nothing to do with what goes on inside the courtroom, as far as legal motions, etc..
This is getting really ridiculous.
This is getting really ridiculous.
gcharlie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,143
- Reaction score
- 284
Interesting comments just a few minutes ago on HLN by a legal analyst.
He was being asked his opinion on whether or not motions would be granted. Addressing the motion to motion media coverage and sequester the jury, he said that they would be denied. Part of his reasoning was that these motions had been made prior to the original trial and denied. To grant them now would imply that there was a need for limited media coverage and a sequestered jury in the guilt and aggravation phases, thus creating an appellate issue.
Interesting. I don't know enough about law, but logically this makes sense.
He was being asked his opinion on whether or not motions would be granted. Addressing the motion to motion media coverage and sequester the jury, he said that they would be denied. Part of his reasoning was that these motions had been made prior to the original trial and denied. To grant them now would imply that there was a need for limited media coverage and a sequestered jury in the guilt and aggravation phases, thus creating an appellate issue.
Interesting. I don't know enough about law, but logically this makes sense.
Nore
New Member
---------
aa9511, I agree but shouldn't this include jodis' tweets also? the way she has said the wrong thing at times she should keep her mouth shut too. :banghead:
Oh, this is so true. That's a very good point!
- Status