3 ms·
> And your comment that an S.C. justice would comment on a case that's only just been decided, and not yet appealed (IMO it should be, based on this evidence/te
by treetalker 1y ago
> And your comment that an S.C. justice would comment on a case that's only just been decided, and not yet appealed (IMO it should be, based on this evidence/testimony alone, and regardless of other merits), is also bizarre.
Not sure why you think my comment is bizarre: I'm saying that it would be extremely unusual and disqualifying for an appellate judge to comment on a case that could be appealed, and therefore I suspect that the appellate judge (Timmer) probably made that statement in a context unrelated to the case. Unless I misunderstand, I think we're on the same page about that.
> IMO it should be …
Not as legal advice but as personal opinion, and based only on the information in the article, I agree and think that appealing would be a no-brainer.
The remedy you suggest would be what I would expect and what I would ask for, but I'm not sure how Arizona does things. It's possible that a new sentencing might be conducted with the same judge.
- dredmorbius 1y agoI don't think your comment is bizarre. I think the C.J.'s comment is bizarre. Talk about tipping your hand / biasing the case and disqualifying yourself. We agree. My argument for resentencing by a different judge is that the emotional impact of AI testimony is so strong as to be impossible to ignore, and hence disqualifying from judgement anyone exposed to it. It's one thing to say "disregard the evidence / testimony", it's quite another to exclude the evidence entirely.