I've come up with a theory as to why JSS went so overboard with worrying about future appeals. Ive thought long and hard about it and came to a conclusion and wanted to run it by people to see what everyone thinks.
The theory ties into how judges are graded by their superiors and other judges. I have to guess that one of the criteria is whether their cases ever get overturned on appeal.
Because if they begin to show a pattern that their cases constantly get overturned on appeal, it shows that they are not running a tight ship, and are improperly overseeing their cases.
Also, if a judge has any aspirations to someday become a Supreme Court judge, then I am pretty sure their "case record" becomes part of their criteria for consideration.
So with that in mind, and then enter JA's case.
It has become a highly publicised case with a lot of national news about it. The Nancy Graces of the world came out in force during the 1st trial. So its important to realize this was not any old case for JSS. It has become "the trial" of her career at this point.
So, the theory in a nutshell is I think JSS began to do everything in her power and even going way too far overboard to prevent this particular case from ever having a successful future appeal from the defendent.
A judge is supposed to be fair to both sides during a trial. Unfortunately by going overboard in trying to ensure this case would be "Appeal-Proof", one of the adverse results of that was not being as fair to the Prosecution side as she was to the defendent's side. It seems the defendent side got practically everything they asked for and the kitchen sink, where the State was limited more. At least it seemed that way.
Now for some actual proof of the theory.
When her "allow secret testimony" decision was overturned by the COA, the COA court specifically wrote in their opinion about how JSS was worried about future appeals. Listing that part below. Paragraph 13 on page 6 of the COA.
"Although expressing concern that Arias was being manipulative, the court
stated it had considered the potential legal ramifications if an appellate
court later determined that Arias did not voluntarily waive her right to
present evidence in mitigation. As a result, the court closed the
proceeding for Arias’ testimony."
Link to COA below:
http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-court-of-appeals-opinion.html
The bottom line is I think all judges try to run all their cases legally and keep them Appeal-Proof. It is fine to have a healthy concern for that.
But where things go into the fog is when the fear of future Appeals begins to adversely affect decision making to a point where it becomes unfair to one side. Or other adverse things begin to happen in a trial case. Things like.
-not being fair to both sides
-too many needless delays happen because of granting the defense too many unreasonable requests they ask for.
-too many sidebars are granted, thus causing more delays
-outright lies are allowed to be stated in front of the jury
-false accusations are allowed to be stated in front of the jury
-no admonishments are given when they should have been
-the jury may be swayed by what they are witnessing. Like they begin to wonder things are actually true if they are allowed to be accused like that
-needless taxpayer money is wasted on all the delays
In Summary:
The bottom line is there is a real adverse affect when it starts to affect the trial by worrying too much about future appeals.
A trial can and should be run Appeal-Proof without having to sacrifice all the above.
(I had posted this on the last thread, but I don't think anyone paid attention to it):
