SIDEBAR #37 - Arias/Alexander forum

[Bernina]

Here's the Petition for Review sent to the ASC: (highlight and paste doesn't do it justice but it's the only option, grrrrr!)

https://geebee2.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/petition-for-review-5-jan2015.pdf

L. Kirk Nurmi SBN 020900LAW OFFICE OF L. KIRK NURMI
2314 East Osborn Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
(602)285-6947
[email protected]

Jennifer L. Willmott
WILLMOTT & ASSOCIATES, PLC
845 N. 6th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602)344-0034
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
KPNX-TV Channel 12, a division of ) Supreme Court Case:
Multimedia Holdings Corporation, )
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ) Court of Appeals Case:
Meredith Corporation dba ) 1 CA-SA 13-0064
KPHO-TV and KTVK-3TV and )
Scripps Media, Inc. dba KNXV-TV, )
Petitioners, ) Maricopa County Superior

) Court Case:
v. ) CR2008-031021-001
)
The Honorable Sherry Stephens, )
Judge of the Superior Court, )
of the State of Arizona, County of )
Maricopa, )
Respondent, )
) PETITION FOR REVIEW
and )
)
State of Arizona and )
Jodi Ann Arias, )
)
Real Parties in Interest. )
_____________________________ )

Jodi Ann Arias, Real Party in Interest, submits this petition for review of the
Court of Appeals decision to grant relief to Petitioner, vacating the October 30,
2014 ruling of the trial court which excluded the press and public from the
courtroom during portions of the penalty phase of Arias’ trial.

Issue Presented in Petition for Review
1. The Court of Appeals ignored specific findings by the trial court in
determining that Arias’ request to close the courtroom during the
death penalty phase of her trial did not amount to clear and present
danger.
2. The Court of Appeals failed to consider Arias’ constitutional claims
of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Because this is a death penalty case, Arias’ rights must
be balanced against the First Amendment rights of the public.

Issue Raised in Special Action
Petitioner, representing the news media, raised the following issues in its
special action petition:
1. The trial court erred by closing the proceedings of a criminal trial
to the public.
2. Even if the trial court could constitutionally close the proceedings,
it must immediately identify the witness who is testifying, release the
transcripts of its sealed findings and the proceedings and release the
FTR audio/video recording.

Facts Material to Support Petition for Review
A jury convicted Arias of first-degree murder. Having alleged the death
penalty, the state was unable to convince the original jury to impose death
unanimously, and a mistrial was declared. A new jury was selected to determine
whether the death penalty should be imposed. Between the first trial and the
second penalty phase hearings, several mitigation witnesses refused to testify on
Arias’ behalf solely due to the media releasing their identities and the public


consequences thereafter including, among other things, death threats. The court
was made aware of these issues in a sealed hearing for a change of venue on
October 4, 2013. In that sealed hearing the following issues were brought to the
attention of the court:
*In the initial trial, jurors faces were filmed and published against a court
order (RT 10/4/13, p17)
*There was a circus-like atmosphere with the prosecutor giving autographs
outside the courthouse, spectators selling their seats to the courtroom, among other
things. (RT 10/4/13, p19, 65)
*The news outlets advertised that they were going to employ a lip reader to
report on conversations between Arias and her attorney at defense table,
necessitating a court order. (RT 10/4/13, p18, 29)
*A juror in the new penalty phase hearing was excused and the news media
went to speak with her the same day. (RT 10/4/13, p28)
*Threats were made to defense counsel repeatedly from the general public.
(RT 10/4/13, p20, 62, 63 )
*Ms. Womack, a mitigation witness submitted a letter to the court through
counsel that she would not testify due to threats she received after her name and
picture was made public through the media the day before she was due to testify
(RT 10/4/13, p20, p64)
*Ms. LaViolette, a defense expert, was going to testify in mitigation but
refused, due to threats made to her after her initial testimony, which affected her
health. (RT 10/4/13, p20, 23)
*Arias’s defense team had to seek out new mitigation witnesses because of
the nonparticipation of original witnesses that were unwilling to testify unless they
could be assured that their names and or likenesses would not be broadcast. (RT
10/4/13, p 36) (RT 10/30/14, p19) See also Defendant’s motion to dismiss state’s


notice of intent to seek the death penalty due to defendant’s inability to present a
complete case for life (filed under seal September 2014) in which page after page
is dedicated to witnesses that refuse to testify because of the media.

In another sealed hearing on October 30, 2014, the court conducted a
Waller analysis (RT 10/30/14, p10) and considered Arias’ ability, due to her
documented psychological disorders, to present her own testimony in mitigation
with the pressure and constant media broadcasting of what she was saying and how
she was saying it and the additional factor, in her case, of the threats she endures as
a part of her testimony. The court found this to be intimidating, (RT 10/30/14, p7,
9-10) Further the court found that specific people were attempting to visit Arias to
threaten her. (RT 10/30/14, p15-16, 21)

Standard of Review
Denial of a public trial is a constitutional question and therefore reviewed
de novo. State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, 290 P.3d 1248 (2012)
Reasons in Support of Granting Petition
1. The Court of Appeals ignored specific findings by the trial court in
determining that Arias’ request to close the courtroom during the death
penalty phase of her trial did not amount to clear and present danger.
2. The Court of Appeals failed to consider Arias’ constitutional claims of the
Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Because this is a death penalty case, Arias’ rights must be balanced against
the First Amendment rights of the public.
The press and public do not have an unlimited right to attend court
proceedings. Where specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that


closure is essential to preserve higher values and the closure is narrowly tailored to
serve that interest, the court can preclude the public from court proceedings.
Press-Enterprises Co. v. Superior Court 478 U.S. 1 (1986) Both federal and
Arizona courts have recognized that the right to a public trial may be limited under
some circumstances. State v. Bush, 148 Ariz. 325, 714 P.2d 818 (1986) Because
the state and federal constitutional rights to a public trial appear to be coextensive,
references to the federal rights apply to the state as well. State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz.
125, 290 P.3d 1248 (2012)

To justify closing the court to the pubic, the court’s findings must show that
there is a clear and present danger to a fair trial before an impartial jury. Phoenix
Newspapers v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557 (1971), Rule 9.3b, Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure

In its decision, the Court of Appeals only considered Arias’ refusal to testify
in her mitigation hearing as the basis to determine that the clear and present danger
test was not met. “Although the court did not specifically find a clear and present
danger to a fair trial before an impartial jury, we infer the court considered Arias’
refusal to testify in a public proceeding and its potential legal implications to be a
clear and present danger.” (COA Decision, p6, paragraph 14)
However the trial court did consider other evidence supporting Arias’ claim
of clear and present danger to a fair trial and included it in her ruling:
“Defendant stated she is concerned that the media will report her
testimony in a manner that will affect her mitigation case. Defendant
stated the media, through its reporting, has generated public sentiment
that has resulted in substantial harassing and threatening mail being
sent to her at the jail. Defense counsel has also received such
mail…In addition, at the last trial, some of the defendant’s mitigation
witnesses refused to testify at the penalty phase trial because of the
intensive media coverage. That intensive media coverage has
continued. Defendant is concerned the media may present her
testimony in a manner that would affect the willingness of witnesses


to participate in this penalty phase re-trial. Additionally, Defendant
stated her ability to testify would be affected and her ability to say
what she needed to say to the jury would be impaired because of her
concerns regarding the characterization of hat testimony by the media
and the public and how it will affect her future. (ME 10/31/14, p1-2)

The Court of Appeals determined that the threats in this case did not equal
clear and present danger that would impede Arias’ right to a fair trial with an
impartial jury and that she would still be able to present mitigation. (COA
Decision, p6-7)


However, this Court has consistently recognized that threats delivered to
witnesses, trial counsel, jurors and/or court staff do have a significant impact on
the fairness of a criminal trial holding that “the spirit of a fair trial is one in which
the search for truth and justice is unhampered by any feelings of fear, intimidation
or revenge. Witnesses and other persons must feel safe, secure and unafraid as
they enter an Arizona courthouse.” Bush at 330. Bush involved direct intimidation
by the victim’s family and friends, however in the 21st century, the advancements
in technology put the public from around the world inside the courtroom, real time,
with the ability to reach out to witnesses, counsel and defendant with a mere stroke
of a keypad. At the end of the day, a witness testimony is played, replayed and
analyzed before they can finish their testimony the next day. This atmosphere
intensifies and increases public scrutiny as evidenced by defense witness
Womack’s refusal to testify in mitigation when she was threatened immediately
after her appearance in the courtroom as a potential witness was broadcast. The
courts have seen this before, and noted that there are many instances where public
passion, often ignited by the press so possessed the community that due process
required a new trial be granted. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507
(1966)

Federal and Arizona courts have found many instances where the standard of
clear and present danger is met with threats alone. Bush, mentioned above is an
example in Arizona while Bowden v. Keen, 237 F.3d 125 (2001) where the U.S.
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that a courtroom could be closed for the
testimony of an undercover officer where he can articulate even a generalized fear
that his safety could be endangered by testifying in open court, and explains in
rough terms a basis for that fear.


There are other instances where the federal courts recognize the importance
of closing the courtroom to the public in matters much less weighty than a death
penalty hearing,. The Eight Circuit affirmed the closing of the courtroom for a
minor victim’s testimony of a defendant’s sexual abuse against her to guard against
her psychological harm. United States v. Charboneau, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
122969 (2011) The concurring opinion in Arizona v. Agosto Ayson Biagon, 510
F.3d 844, Ninth Circuit (2007), the court enumerated many federal matters that
were routinely closed to the public (sealed or held in camera) such as sentencing
proceedings when a defendant cooperates with the government, to protect him
from being treated as a snitch in prison where he would be set up to be murdered or
hurt by those who find out he testified against a co-defendant (regardless of who
the co-defendant is); sexual matters in which a victim is molested can be held in
camera not just to protect the defendant, but to protect the victim from testifying in
public to embarrassing sexual information; and sentencing for financial crimes can
be held in camera where exposure would further harm the victim and his business
or charity that the defendant embezzled from)

Arias has already been convicted. The proceedings at this point are more
akin to a sentencing hearing in which Arias is presenting mitigation in effort to
spare her life.


Once clear and present danger is met, the court must then conduct the
constitutional analysis in Waller to determine whether the proceedings should be
closed. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) The trial court conducted the
Waller analysis and found that it was met. The Court of Appeals found that the
trial court, in conducting its Waller analysis, found an alternative that Arias
“balked” at, thus not satisfying the test. However, the trial court did address the
alternative of putting the media in the overflow room, and ultimately found that it
would not alleviate the issue of the broadcast and threats. The court further found
that not allowing Arias to testify in her own mitigation would not be a voluntary
waiver of mitigation. (RT 10/20/14, p29)


Without authority, the Court went on to find that because Arias testified in
open court during the guilt phase of the trial she cannot decide that she will not
testify during the penalty phase unless the public is excluded. (COA Opinion, p 7)
The Court of Appeals analysis brushes aside the constitutional arguments of Arias
that she has the right to present mitigation in the penalty phase of a death penalty
case, and cannot be forced to waive this right when her witnesses are unwilling to
testify due to the media broadcast.


This case is not just about threats to the parties. The live media broadcast
and public threats to the participants have gutted the mitigation case for Arias
where the jury is determining if she will live or die. In a motion to dismiss the
death penalty allegation, the defense submitted affidavits of witnesses unwilling to
testify due to the media streaming and commenting on their testimony leading to
threats and other humiliation. One cannot imagine a situation more compelling
than a death penalty trial for which the courts need to protect the defendant’s right
to a fair, impartial trial. See. Skipper v South Cariolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), Smith
v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, (2004), Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) and the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Death


penalty jurisprudence is clear in that a defendant must be afforded a heightened
standard of due process. See. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) and Gregg v.
Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, petitioner asks this court to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals vacating the trial court’s ruling to close the courtroom during
parts of the mitigation phase of this trial. Petitioner asks that this court reverse the
Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s ruling.

Respectfully submitted this 5
th day of January, 2015, by:
/s/: Jennifer L. Willmott
Jennifer L. Willmott

Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to Rule 23, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, undersigned
counsel certifies that this Petition for Review filed via AZTurbo Court on January
5, 2015, is double spaced, uses 14-point Times New Roman type, and contains
2,307 words.

Certificate of Mailing
Counsel certifies that on January 5, 2015, a copy of the Petition for Review of
was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court (TurboCourt)
and sent same date to:

David J. Bodney
Christopher Moeser
Ballard Spahr, LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]

Hon Sherry Stephens
South Court Tower
175 West Madison
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Juan Martinez
Deputy County Attorney
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
301 W. Washington, Fourth Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Submitted this 5
th day of January, 2015, by:
/s/: Jennifer L. Willmott
Jennifer L. Willmott

:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

....and now I realize I could have just zoomed out and "print screen" over to paint......gah! Not enough coffee!!

 

[Bernina]

"Larry Nurmi" :giggle:

 

[Love Never Fails]

Here's the Petition for Review sent to the ASC: (highlight and paste doesn't do it justice but it's the only option, grrrrr!)

https://geebee2.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/petition-for-review-5-jan2015.pdf

L. Kirk Nurmi SBN 020900LAW OFFICE OF L. KIRK NURMI
2314 East Osborn Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
(602)285-6947
[email protected]

Jennifer L. Willmott
WILLMOTT & ASSOCIATES, PLC
845 N. 6th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602)344-0034
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
KPNX-TV Channel 12, a division of ) Supreme Court Case:
Multimedia Holdings Corporation, )
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ) Court of Appeals Case:
Meredith Corporation dba ) 1 CA-SA 13-0064
KPHO-TV and KTVK-3TV and )
Scripps Media, Inc. dba KNXV-TV, )
Petitioners, ) Maricopa County Superior

) Court Case:
v. ) CR2008-031021-001
)
The Honorable Sherry Stephens, )
Judge of the Superior Court, )
of the State of Arizona, County of )
Maricopa, )
Respondent, )
) PETITION FOR REVIEW
and )
)
State of Arizona and )
Jodi Ann Arias, )
)
Real Parties in Interest. )
_____________________________ )

Jodi Ann Arias, Real Party in Interest, submits this petition for review of the
Court of Appeals decision to grant relief to Petitioner, vacating the October 30,
2014 ruling of the trial court which excluded the press and public from the
courtroom during portions of the penalty phase of Arias’ trial.

Issue Presented in Petition for Review
1. The Court of Appeals ignored specific findings by the trial court in
determining that Arias’ request to close the courtroom during the
death penalty phase of her trial did not amount to clear and present
danger.
2. The Court of Appeals failed to consider Arias’ constitutional claims
of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Because this is a death penalty case, Arias’ rights must
be balanced against the First Amendment rights of the public.

Issue Raised in Special Action
Petitioner, representing the news media, raised the following issues in its
special action petition:
1. The trial court erred by closing the proceedings of a criminal trial
to the public.
2. Even if the trial court could constitutionally close the proceedings,
it must immediately identify the witness who is testifying, release the
transcripts of its sealed findings and the proceedings and release the
FTR audio/video recording.

Facts Material to Support Petition for Review
A jury convicted Arias of first-degree murder. Having alleged the death
penalty, the state was unable to convince the original jury to impose death
unanimously, and a mistrial was declared. A new jury was selected to determine
whether the death penalty should be imposed. Between the first trial and the
second penalty phase hearings, several mitigation witnesses refused to testify on
Arias’ behalf solely due to the media releasing their identities and the public


consequences thereafter including, among other things, death threats. The court
was made aware of these issues in a sealed hearing for a change of venue on
October 4, 2013. In that sealed hearing the following issues were brought to the
attention of the court:
*In the initial trial, jurors faces were filmed and published against a court
order (RT 10/4/13, p17)
*There was a circus-like atmosphere with the prosecutor giving autographs
outside the courthouse, spectators selling their seats to the courtroom, among other
things. (RT 10/4/13, p19, 65)
*The news outlets advertised that they were going to employ a lip reader to
report on conversations between Arias and her attorney at defense table,
necessitating a court order. (RT 10/4/13, p18, 29)
*A juror in the new penalty phase hearing was excused and the news media
went to speak with her the same day. (RT 10/4/13, p28)
*Threats were made to defense counsel repeatedly from the general public.
(RT 10/4/13, p20, 62, 63 )
*Ms. Womack, a mitigation witness submitted a letter to the court through
counsel that she would not testify due to threats she received after her name and
picture was made public through the media the day before she was due to testify
(RT 10/4/13, p20, p64)
*Ms. LaViolette, a defense expert, was going to testify in mitigation but
refused, due to threats made to her after her initial testimony, which affected her
health. (RT 10/4/13, p20, 23)
*Arias’s defense team had to seek out new mitigation witnesses because of
the nonparticipation of original witnesses that were unwilling to testify unless they
could be assured that their names and or likenesses would not be broadcast. (RT
10/4/13, p 36) (RT 10/30/14, p19) See also Defendant’s motion to dismiss state’s


notice of intent to seek the death penalty due to defendant’s inability to present a
complete case for life (filed under seal September 2014) in which page after page
is dedicated to witnesses that refuse to testify because of the media.

In another sealed hearing on October 30, 2014, the court conducted a
Waller analysis (RT 10/30/14, p10) and considered Arias’ ability, due to her
documented psychological disorders, to present her own testimony in mitigation
with the pressure and constant media broadcasting of what she was saying and how
she was saying it and the additional factor, in her case, of the threats she endures as
a part of her testimony. The court found this to be intimidating, (RT 10/30/14, p7,
9-10) Further the court found that specific people were attempting to visit Arias to
threaten her. (RT 10/30/14, p15-16, 21)

Standard of Review
Denial of a public trial is a constitutional question and therefore reviewed
de novo. State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, 290 P.3d 1248 (2012)
Reasons in Support of Granting Petition
1. The Court of Appeals ignored specific findings by the trial court in
determining that Arias’ request to close the courtroom during the death
penalty phase of her trial did not amount to clear and present danger.
2. The Court of Appeals failed to consider Arias’ constitutional claims of the
Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Because this is a death penalty case, Arias’ rights must be balanced against
the First Amendment rights of the public.
The press and public do not have an unlimited right to attend court
proceedings. Where specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that


closure is essential to preserve higher values and the closure is narrowly tailored to
serve that interest, the court can preclude the public from court proceedings.
Press-Enterprises Co. v. Superior Court 478 U.S. 1 (1986) Both federal and
Arizona courts have recognized that the right to a public trial may be limited under
some circumstances. State v. Bush, 148 Ariz. 325, 714 P.2d 818 (1986) Because
the state and federal constitutional rights to a public trial appear to be coextensive,
references to the federal rights apply to the state as well. State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz.
125, 290 P.3d 1248 (2012)

To justify closing the court to the pubic, the court’s findings must show that
there is a clear and present danger to a fair trial before an impartial jury. Phoenix
Newspapers v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557 (1971), Rule 9.3b, Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure

In its decision, the Court of Appeals only considered Arias’ refusal to testify
in her mitigation hearing as the basis to determine that the clear and present danger
test was not met. “Although the court did not specifically find a clear and present
danger to a fair trial before an impartial jury, we infer the court considered Arias’
refusal to testify in a public proceeding and its potential legal implications to be a
clear and present danger.” (COA Decision, p6, paragraph 14)
However the trial court did consider other evidence supporting Arias’ claim
of clear and present danger to a fair trial and included it in her ruling:
“Defendant stated she is concerned that the media will report her
testimony in a manner that will affect her mitigation case. Defendant
stated the media, through its reporting, has generated public sentiment
that has resulted in substantial harassing and threatening mail being
sent to her at the jail. Defense counsel has also received such
mail…In addition, at the last trial, some of the defendant’s mitigation
witnesses refused to testify at the penalty phase trial because of the
intensive media coverage. That intensive media coverage has
continued. Defendant is concerned the media may present her
testimony in a manner that would affect the willingness of witnesses


to participate in this penalty phase re-trial. Additionally, Defendant
stated her ability to testify would be affected and her ability to say
what she needed to say to the jury would be impaired because of her
concerns regarding the characterization of hat testimony by the media
and the public and how it will affect her future. (ME 10/31/14, p1-2)

The Court of Appeals determined that the threats in this case did not equal
clear and present danger that would impede Arias’ right to a fair trial with an
impartial jury and that she would still be able to present mitigation. (COA
Decision, p6-7)


However, this Court has consistently recognized that threats delivered to
witnesses, trial counsel, jurors and/or court staff do have a significant impact on
the fairness of a criminal trial holding that “the spirit of a fair trial is one in which
the search for truth and justice is unhampered by any feelings of fear, intimidation
or revenge. Witnesses and other persons must feel safe, secure and unafraid as
they enter an Arizona courthouse.” Bush at 330. Bush involved direct intimidation
by the victim’s family and friends, however in the 21st century, the advancements
in technology put the public from around the world inside the courtroom, real time,
with the ability to reach out to witnesses, counsel and defendant with a mere stroke
of a keypad. At the end of the day, a witness testimony is played, replayed and
analyzed before they can finish their testimony the next day. This atmosphere
intensifies and increases public scrutiny as evidenced by defense witness
Womack’s refusal to testify in mitigation when she was threatened immediately
after her appearance in the courtroom as a potential witness was broadcast. The
courts have seen this before, and noted that there are many instances where public
passion, often ignited by the press so possessed the community that due process
required a new trial be granted. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507
(1966)

Federal and Arizona courts have found many instances where the standard of
clear and present danger is met with threats alone. Bush, mentioned above is an
example in Arizona while Bowden v. Keen, 237 F.3d 125 (2001) where the U.S.
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that a courtroom could be closed for the
testimony of an undercover officer where he can articulate even a generalized fear
that his safety could be endangered by testifying in open court, and explains in
rough terms a basis for that fear.


There are other instances where the federal courts recognize the importance
of closing the courtroom to the public in matters much less weighty than a death
penalty hearing,. The Eight Circuit affirmed the closing of the courtroom for a
minor victim’s testimony of a defendant’s sexual abuse against her to guard against
her psychological harm. United States v. Charboneau, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
122969 (2011) The concurring opinion in Arizona v. Agosto Ayson Biagon, 510
F.3d 844, Ninth Circuit (2007), the court enumerated many federal matters that
were routinely closed to the public (sealed or held in camera) such as sentencing
proceedings when a defendant cooperates with the government, to protect him
from being treated as a snitch in prison where he would be set up to be murdered or
hurt by those who find out he testified against a co-defendant (regardless of who
the co-defendant is); sexual matters in which a victim is molested can be held in
camera not just to protect the defendant, but to protect the victim from testifying in
public to embarrassing sexual information; and sentencing for financial crimes can
be held in camera where exposure would further harm the victim and his business
or charity that the defendant embezzled from)

Arias has already been convicted. The proceedings at this point are more
akin to a sentencing hearing in which Arias is presenting mitigation in effort to
spare her life.


Once clear and present danger is met, the court must then conduct the
constitutional analysis in Waller to determine whether the proceedings should be
closed. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) The trial court conducted the
Waller analysis and found that it was met. The Court of Appeals found that the
trial court, in conducting its Waller analysis, found an alternative that Arias
“balked” at, thus not satisfying the test. However, the trial court did address the
alternative of putting the media in the overflow room, and ultimately found that it
would not alleviate the issue of the broadcast and threats. The court further found
that not allowing Arias to testify in her own mitigation would not be a voluntary
waiver of mitigation. (RT 10/20/14, p29)


Without authority, the Court went on to find that because Arias testified in
open court during the guilt phase of the trial she cannot decide that she will not
testify during the penalty phase unless the public is excluded. (COA Opinion, p 7)
The Court of Appeals analysis brushes aside the constitutional arguments of Arias
that she has the right to present mitigation in the penalty phase of a death penalty
case, and cannot be forced to waive this right when her witnesses are unwilling to
testify due to the media broadcast.


This case is not just about threats to the parties. The live media broadcast
and public threats to the participants have gutted the mitigation case for Arias
where the jury is determining if she will live or die. In a motion to dismiss the
death penalty allegation, the defense submitted affidavits of witnesses unwilling to
testify due to the media streaming and commenting on their testimony leading to
threats and other humiliation. One cannot imagine a situation more compelling
than a death penalty trial for which the courts need to protect the defendant’s right
to a fair, impartial trial. See. Skipper v South Cariolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), Smith
v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, (2004), Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) and the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Death


penalty jurisprudence is clear in that a defendant must be afforded a heightened
standard of due process. See. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) and Gregg v.
Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, petitioner asks this court to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals vacating the trial court’s ruling to close the courtroom during
parts of the mitigation phase of this trial. Petitioner asks that this court reverse the
Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s ruling.

Respectfully submitted this 5
th day of January, 2015, by:
/s/: Jennifer L. Willmott
Jennifer L. Willmott

Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to Rule 23, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, undersigned
counsel certifies that this Petition for Review filed via AZTurbo Court on January
5, 2015, is double spaced, uses 14-point Times New Roman type, and contains
2,307 words.

Certificate of Mailing
Counsel certifies that on January 5, 2015, a copy of the Petition for Review of
was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court (TurboCourt)
and sent same date to:

David J. Bodney
Christopher Moeser
Ballard Spahr, LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]

Hon Sherry Stephens
South Court Tower
175 West Madison
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Juan Martinez
Deputy County Attorney
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
301 W. Washington, Fourth Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Submitted this 5
th day of January, 2015, by:
/s/: Jennifer L. Willmott
Jennifer L. Willmott

:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

....and now I realize I could have just zoomed out and "print screen" over to paint......gah! Not enough coffee!!

Thanks so much
For the copy and paste. Great job. As for Wilmott's statements, hogwash.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thanks Yes or No for all the good information. Congrats to your son! Have a good lunch and stay warm. We are expecting 15 below wind chills Thursday and I have an appointment. This old Texas girl has never felt anything below ten degrees. How do I dress? I have lived here for fifteen years and never experienced cold below zero. . Help!

 

[Nikki In Denver]

They aren't all grouped together, but the best I could do.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jod...a=X&ei=l0ejVNj4KofqggS_1IL4Ag&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

Just now found this! :seeya: Thanks so much!

 

[tweezybird]

Thanks Yes or No for all the good information. Congrats to your son! Have a good lunch and stay warm. We are expecting 15 below wind chills Thursday and I have an appointment. This old Texas girl has never felt anything below ten degrees. How do I dress? I have lived here for fifteen years and never experienced cold below zero. . Help!

Hi Curious,
I'm in Indiana too, an hour north of Indy. Getting ready to go out and shovel some. Dress in layers, long undies if you have them under jeans. I wear a t shirt under a sweatshirt the whole winter. I'm surprised that you didn't experience the sub zero's last winter.

 

[Spellbound]

And Curious, cover your ears, wear a scarf to cover your chin and neck if it is really REALLY cold, and warm gloves! Long underwear is best if you will be outside long --- or two pair of sweatpants. Sunglasses to avoid sun blindness if it is a bright day.

 

[Kensie]

Please don't throw rocks at me, what is happening? I am home sick and just woke up. I read a few posts but all the legal mumble jumble was too much for my subnormal brain. Appreciate it.

 

[Kensie]

And Curious, cover your ears, wear a scarf to cover your chin and neck if it is really REALLY cold, and warm gloves! Long underwear is best if you will be outside long --- or two pair of sweatpants. Sunglasses to avoid sun blindness if it is a bright day.

Yesterday for the mid 20's, I had a hat on, hood up and a scarf going over the hood and around my neck and chin. I was shocked at how it kept my head warm and wind from my ears. I now know the usefulness of scarves.

 

[Hatfield]

Thanks Yes or No for all the good information. Congrats to your son! Have a good lunch and stay warm. We are expecting 15 below wind chills Thursday and I have an appointment. This old Texas girl has never felt anything below ten degrees. How do I dress? I have lived here for fifteen years and never experienced cold below zero. . Help!

There is some good advice given already and just want to "ditto" on the long thermal underwear and also make sure you have a good stocking type hat of some sort, and like Kensie saying a scarf is always good too.

For hats, I like the cotton blend type hats that are fuzzy and I usually get one that also has a mask that folds down where the face mask has 1 large oval hole. That way, I can bring down the mask when really cold and cover my chin and mouth if I want to. When I dont need the mask, I fold it up inside the hat and still wear just the hat.

For me, I like the oval holes because the ones that just have eye holes and nose hole just bock too much for me. Whatever suits you best. The main thing is to have some sort of good warm hat + gloves because you can lose lots of body heat out top of head.

 

[YESorNO]

My son decided that we should wait for the celebratory lunch for a better day, so here I am again.
------------------------
Updated Case Documents (seems I missed 1):

Case Documents

Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
1/6/2015 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/6/2015
1/6/2015 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/6/2015
1/5/2015 ALT - Appeals Letter Of Transmittal - Party (001) 1/6/2015

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021
-------------

Found this on the JM page:

[video=youtube;YD0Eg2bJ0Ts]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD0Eg2bJ0Ts&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[Niner]

:wave: Good morning all!

So.... nothing happening in court today?? :gaah: ullhair:

re cold weather - found this in reading my latest Reader's Digest - for all you in the "cold" section of the U.S.:

Winter Woes:
*Unfreeze locks with lighters - hold the flame to your key for a few seconds. The key's warm metal will help melt ice crystals that have formed inside the lock.

*Shovel with cooking spray - Spray your shovel with nonstick cooking spray before getting started; snow will slide right off.

*Make your own de-icer - mix 1 teaspoon Dawn dishwashing liquid. 1 tablespoon rubbing alcohol, and 1/2 gallon warm water; pour the mixture over walkways to keep them from freezing again right away.

*Use your porch to refrigerate - if your fridge is full during the holidays and the temperature is 40 degrees F or below, place hardy perishables (like fruits and vegetables) in a cooler outside near the back door. Doing so will free up a lot of extra shelf space while still keeping food cold.

*Get unstuck with kitty litter - if your tires are spinning in a pile of snow, sprinkle a healthy handful of kitty litter or birdseed under them to gain traction.

:coldout: :snowball:


Half an hour until my massage - will trek over to the Re-Trial thread and "see" what's going on now...

:seeya:

 

[YESorNO]

:wave: Good morning all!

So.... nothing happening in court today?? :gaah: ullhair:

re cold weather - found this in reading my latest Reader's Digest - for all you in the "cold" section of the U.S.:

Winter Woes:
*Unfreeze locks with lighters - hold the flame to your key for a few seconds. The key's warm metal will help melt ice crystals that have formed inside the lock.

*Shovel with cooking spray - Spray your shovel with nonstick cooking spray before getting started; snow will slide right off.

*Make your own de-icer - mix 1 teaspoon Dawn dishwashing liquid. 1 tablespoon rubbing alcohol, and 1/2 gallon warm water; pour the mixture over walkways to keep them from freezing again right away.

*Use your porch to refrigerate - if your fridge is full during the holidays and the temperature is 40 degrees F or below, place hardy perishables (like fruits and vegetables) in a cooler outside near the back door. Doing so will free up a lot of extra shelf space while still keeping food cold.

*Get unstuck with kitty litter - if your tires are spinning in a pile of snow, sprinkle a healthy handful of kitty litter or birdseed under them to gain traction.

:coldout: :snowball:


Half an hour until my massage - will trek over to the Re-Trial thread and "see" what's going on now...

:seeya:

BBM What's with all these massages lately?

(And all I have are my squirrel massages :sheesh

:floorlaugh:

Link: http://s.myniceprofile.com/myspacepic/535/53573.gif

 

[Bernina]

Hey, Kenise, have a red squirrel and chill a while!

And this is a special squirrel, straight from the Grand Canyon!!!
All we have here are Rock Squirrels.......who also hang at the Grand Canyon and enjoy Chocolate Mint Ice Cream and visitor's fingers:

 

[YESorNO]

"Larry Nurmi" :giggle:

I like the name "Lawrence" and think it's much better than "Kirk" (reminds me of Captain Kirk of the star ship Enterprise :facepalm:, but even Capt Kirk had a very dignified name : James Tiberius Kirk, IMO). I don't like Larry, tho'. That reminds me of Moe, Larry, and Curly. :hilarious:

Such deep thoughts for a snowy afternoon. :crazy:

:skip:

 

[Kensie]

Do we know how long we are chilling????

 

[Bernina]

See what you've started YorN?!?!?!?!?!:floorlaugh:

 

[Bernina]

Do we know how long we are chilling????

Like, totally forever, man............or were you NOT talking about the trial? :floorlaugh:

 

[Kensie]

I was talking about the trial.

Suppose to have a low of 9 tomorrow. Crazy!!!

 

[YESorNO]

I really think we should stop picking on Nurmi- he's doing a "great" job for missy:jail: with all his muddying-up of this crazy non-retrial.

Just think, by summer, we may be done with all of missy's:jail: trials/ tribulations and The Book of Jodi , but in the meantime, we have lots of time in between court sessions

to recuperate from Dr. G and the likes of "all" the "witnesses" that have been on the stand. :banghead: