
Some questions for AZLawyer about that "60 page" Motion:
- Does the State file a written opposition to that Motion and if so, when is it due with the court ?

If so, hopefully the reporters will be on it and get us a copy before the Hearing.
- The Hearing is scheduled for 10/14/14. So will the Hearing be held in open court for everyone to see -- or -- in chambers ?
- Will the Judge rule from the bench on the Motion -- or take it under advisement?
- And finally, do you think the Motion has any "merit" ?
:tyou: Thank You very much for your responses !
Yes, JM will get to file a response. I don't think I've seen a date set for that--ordinarily, it wouldn't be due until after the Oct. 14 hearing date, so I assume JM will want to get it filed early.
Who knows whether the hearing will be sealed. The judge seems to be a bit seal-happy in this case.
She will probably take it under advisement, if for no other reason than to look like she is not making a snap decision on what is supposed to be a very serious motion.
As for the motion itself, most of it seems to be rehashed arguments that were already rejected by the judge. There are a couple of newer issues raised that are just IMO pretty petty things that are never going to get the DP off the table.
As for the Mrs. Flores tweets, first, I would sure like to know if JM/Flores deny the genuineness of this Twitter account. Second, if the defense was so upset about the "sealed info" being revealed, why did they republish it in this unsealed motion??? :facepalm: Anyway, I don't think any of the information supposedly tweeted by Mrs. Flores would be enough to get the DP off the table.
I haven't looked at the Mrs. Flores YouTube videos. I note that the defense says that her "status as the poster is not in doubt" for the YouTube account. But I don't see what they think is "prosecutorial misconduct" with respect to the videos. Maybe if JM said to Flores, hey, get your wife to post these videos I made.

But from what's in the motion, I don't see these videos leading to a removal of the DP option.
Why wasn't that motion sealed? I thought all defense motions were sealed.
Seems a bit covert to me...let's just put this out there for all to see. Eh, throw in the "f" word here; nobody will remember that he didn't say it. *snicker*.
Lots of the motions are not sealed.
Is a deal necessary? I think this is the state's call--if they decide to remove the DP then there is no need for a penalty trial because the only penalty possible is Life. Since a jury is required only to decide between Life and Death, there would be no need for a retrial. And I do not think the state needs the defense approval to remove the DP and let the judge decide sentence. They can just do it, if they choose. IMO.
ETA: Just thought of another question. IF this were to happen (state removes DP so the only sentence that can be given is Life) would there then be a mitigation phase necessary to try to convince the judge to give LWP?
Yes, the State can remove the DP without the permission of the judge.
There would still be a sentencing hearing (before the judge), which would be similar to a mitigation hearing although obviously they could skip everything from the first trial--and actually she would be within her rights to say, I was there for the last mitigation phase and will decide based on the evidence already presented.