05-09-2013, 11:03 PM
(05-09-2013, 08:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I hope your guess is right.
"To be heard" doesn't specifically call out "in-person", but hoping the language gives Judge Stephens the legal ground to deny Nurmi's alleged motion.
He really is grasping at straws.
However, case law does appear to be on his side.
Here's the request for video taped impact statements: More Bullshit
The gist is they want a peek at them so they can raise objections and protect her various Constitutional rights.
It's fucked up. Really.
Cut through all of the legalese and the premise is that the defendant is entitled to be portrayed ONLY in a light as to why her life is worth sparing while the victim's family is limited to addressing how the death has impacted them financially, emotionally, psychologically and physically!
Phrases such as "influenced by passion or prejudice", "subjective responses", "inflammatory rhetoric" and "irrelevant information" saturate this pathetic effort to prevent accurately characterizing Arias in open court, on the record and preserved for posterity.
Yeah. It's fucked up.
You can trash a victim with unsubstantiated accusations, character assassination, lies and deceit, but one can't call a murderous cunt a "Murderous Cunt" without violating her rights!
It's 9 pages and I gave it a quick skim.
That was enough for me.