AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
My first thought was this line of evidence, argument, whatever, about the computer, was entirely improper at the sentencing phase, as that matter had been part of the guilt phase which had been finally adjudicated. I am admittedly no criminal procedure expert so not sure that is correct. But my premise was that the evidence presented at the guilt phase has to be accepted as that phase has had a final judgment. Challenging any aspect of the guilt phase is simply something to be pursued on appeal. So, I also felt that any issues about, essentially, the credibility of the computer evidence would be an issue for appeal. At the guilt phase both sides even agreed regarding the computer contents (not that it really matters for this purpose). And then the DT argued prosecutorial misconduct, which, to me, would normally still be an appeal issue as that is a common argument for overturning a conviction.
The argument about whetherwas on the computer in any form has always seemed somewhat tenuous to me, but, sure, mitigation is broad and apparently basically anything can be presented. So, I am assuming the argument is that, if somehow the state deleted, hid etc the computer evidence of, what, just
So, is the DT only arguing that if the state deleted child
To me, the only possible mitigating evidence here is child
I guess I am just trying to see what the "game" and the "end game" here are. Just what does the DT need to prove? And, just how far into the weeds does JSS have to let the DT go to try and prove both misconduct and the existence of something exculpatory? Or what if it isn't exculpatory, but just arguably "mitigating"? Is that also the same prosecutorial misconduct? I have often wondered why JM has not argued that this whole line of inquiry is improper. I assume it's because it isn't, at least on some level. But what is that exact level?
Is this like the typical Brady material case where it has to be shown that the state failed to turn over something that was relevant and exculpatory? Is "mitigating" treated the same as "exculpatory"? Does the state have an affirmative obligation to turn over "mitigating" evidence? Because this portion of the trial is only about mitigation.
Maybe I am just missng something. But I just keep thinking that this (but not ONLY this) part of the trial makes little sense in a procedural sense and that we are essentially arguing about issues properly argued on appeal.
It's late here on the east coast so not sure that even made any sense. But hopefully you perhaps caught my drift in some way. Love to hear your thoughts as I am sorely perplexed by this particular sideshow.
There are 2 "points" to the
sideshow.Point 1. Prosecutorial Misconduct: If the prosecution/police actually intentionally destroyed child
on TA's computer, which would arguably have been "exculpatory" because it would support JA's silly chaotically-drifting-paper-child- story, which tangentially at least fit in to her self-defense story, that might be a Brady violation justifying removal of the DP or even reversal of the verdict. Except for the fact that the prosecution really couldn't have known she was going to accuse TA of being a pedophile until after the alleged deletions took place. I think. Based on tweets. :gaah: Anyhooo....Point 2. Mitigation: The child
(NOT regular IMO) is just barely relevant to the mitigation phase, because JA's primary mitigation theory is that she was so super stressed out by being involved in a secret relationship with an abusive pedophile that her already screwed-up brain didn't understand that killing him was not the answer. And yes, the State has an obligation to turn over mitigating evidence.
