THREAD: Wade Robson Appeal Process - Judges and Procedures
A panel of three (out of four) California appellate judges of the 2nd district, division 8, will be reviewing the merits of Wade's appeal to ultimately affirm or reverse the original judge's dismissal.
Details inside.
With the appellate process, judges will review the full case including all exhibits that were part of the case-in-chief.
No new evidence can be entered during the appeals process. The decision is whether Judge Beckloff erred by dismissing the case based on the known facts & law.
To be successful in the appeals process, the appellant (Wade) needs to convince at least two out of three of the judges that Beckloff acted against well-established law.
The original dismissal will stand if at least 2 judges determine Beckloff did not act improperly in ruling.
The choice of judges will be randomized but will be three of the following four judges, summaries and notes will follow:
* Presiding - Tricia A. Bigelow ('08)
* Associate - Elizabeth A. Grimes ('10)
* Associate - Maria E. Stratton ('18)
* Associate - John Shepard Wiley Jr. ('18)
Presiding Justice: Tricia A. Bigelow (2008+)
Former LA Deputy DA/AG (86-95)
Co-authored extensive written materials on CA sex crime law.
Recently affirmed high sanctions against school due to "frivolous appeal...no reasonable attorney could have believed an appeal had merit."
Associate Justice: Elizabeth A. Grimes (2010+)
Former longtime partner of private litigation firm (1980+).
Specialty: Business disputes and negligence claims.
Aptly dismissed a case where plaintiff claimed injury w/out any evidence after defense presented contradictory facts.
Associate Justice Maria E. Stratton (2018+)
Former law clerk, public defender, attorney & judge.
Specialty: General criminal/civil litigation; mental health.
Worked for many years w/ Dean Gits including as public defender; Gits defended the innocent in McMartin sex abuse hoax.
Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. (2018+)
Former supreme court clerk, law professor, prosecutor, circuit judge.
As a professor in the 1990s, commented to media about false convictions based on erroneous testimony/witnesses, prosecution theatrics and DNA exonerations.
Note that while the tidbits of information about each judge may be interesting, they must all conform to strictly established case law when evaluating each individual appeal.
Personal opinions & experiences generally have no merit to the legal decision they ultimately arrive at.
After the judges have reviewed the briefs, a hearing for oral arguments will be set (unless waived).
Both appeals (James+Wade) have been combined for oral arguments. Each side has a short time to answer ?s from judges.
Judges usually have their opinions in mind by this point.
While some California districts offer online audio or visual streams of oral arguments, the second district does not.
However, oral arguments can be attended by the public & audio recorded copies can be requested for a $40 fee.
No court transcripts are made for oral arguments.
Oral arguments can, at times, help foreshadow each judge's ultimate ruling based on their demeanor and questions asked of each side.
Since the judges will have been fully briefed before oral arguments, their questions often align w/ trying to solidify their existing viewpoint.
The final decision will be released as a singular opinion written by one of the elected judges. The other judges will concur or dissent.
In the majority of cases, all three judges share the same opinion. If one judge disagrees, he or she can optionally write a dissent excerpt.
Appellate decisions are always released to the public the day they are filed at courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm. They can be "published" or "unpublished", which determines whether or not they are certified for citation in other court cases.
The majority of opinions are unpublished.
The panel of judges (division 8) have released 66 opinions over the last two months; 16 published.
In some cases the judges ask to remand portions back to trial court, while still affirming the ruling & denying the appeal. The remanded portions are generally not substantial in the scope of the overall case and trial/appellate rulings.
Very rarely do appeals lead to reversals.
It is not uncommon for the judges to ask failed appellants to pay for expenses incurred by respondents.
If Wade's petition is denied, they may end up owing even more money to the estate based on all additional expenses accumulated since December 2017 on top of existing debts.
The average length of an appellate opinion from these four judges is 15 pages, but they can be as brief as two pages or as long as 50+ pages to cover all of the arguments.
The 66 opinions given in two months by these appointed judges span 1,022 pages in total.
After the opinion, the losing side has 3 options:
1.) Accept ruling and halt future appeals.
2.) File for en banc hearing (all judges).
3.) File petition for SCOTUS.
Options 2-3 are nearly impossible to have honored; less than 1-2% of all cases are accepted for those actions.
There is no fixed timeline for when an appeal is decided. A reasonable estimate is anywhere from 3-10 months after receiving all of the briefs.
If oral arguments are held, generally the opinion will be filed soon thereafter (3-6 weeks) but this too is entirely variable.
In Summary: To win the appeal Wade's side has to convince at least two of the three appellate judges—based strictly on law and other case examples—that the trial court was wrong in dismissing their case.
Statistically there is < 15% chance of the judges reversing a court ruling.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ARCHIVES: A day after the verdict in 05, Ron Zonen was already on a media tour to rewrite it. Part of this was painting the Arvizo family as outstanding citizens, Gavin as an astute student and athlete.
21 years later Zonen still continues this crusade of defending the grifters.
Note how Zonen continued stating—as fact—that MJ plied the kids with alcohol & how Janet rushed the family out of Neverland "within 36 hours" of learning this.
He says this despite witnesses and the jury roundly rejecting those claims in court and all related charges against MJ.
About that 36 hours: During the grand jury and Janet's testimony, it was stated they left March 10—as soon as she found out about son's alcohol use at 4 a.m.
This was corrected to March 12 for indictment. Because on March 10th, Janet was still enjoying pedicures at MJ's expense.
THREAD: A highlight of the many factual errors, deliberate omissions, timeline falsities and other material mistakes made in @AndrewHammel1's piece published by @Quillette.
Where fact-checking was clearly not of interest—but sourcing from Dimond and Gutierrez somehow made sense.
"MJ would later invite James to visit him at Hayvenhurst"
You omit how it was the Safechucks who kicked off this correspondence by sending him letters. This is also true with the Robsons. MJ had no communication with them; they spent 2 years trying to reach him from AU and USA.
"MJ repeatedly invited large groups of children to Neverland"
...and their families. Many of these occurrences were formal arrangements with organizations like D.A.R.E., Make A Wish, local churches and non-profits. They included an entire range of adult chaperones and staffers.
Perfect example of the way Diane Dimond operates and why anyone using her as a source is destined for failure.
This quote Quillette uses originates from Dimond's 2019-revised self-narrated version of her 2005 book, which she released amid the publicity of LN.
But wait a minute!
Dimond not only never mentioned this claim in her original 2005 book despite having all the "law enforcement sources" at her beckoning then, she outright dismissed these very claims as myth in 2013:
"There's no evidence to back up the claim that Jackson made that many payoffs."
In the interest of creating sensational bits to pad her 2019 release, Diane recycled this "20-24 victims—$200M in payouts" story first circulated by Stacy Brown, Page 6 and other tabloids, and reattributed it to herself and her own sources despite knowing it had no truth to it.🤣
10 hours of "sworn testimony 🤡" but King played only a moment's worth for estate.
Flashback to 2005 when King told the media he had 100s of damning, frantic messages from MJ then circulated several seconds worth, unverified and misleading, to the media.
The way King & Geragos are attempting to reframe the story as if it is the estate seeking to bury it. It has always been THEIR side presenting in private—to solicit millions.
Big brain idea? They could had just uploaded the 10 hours raw to YouTube. But where's the money in that?
Others who told hours of "horrific abuse" stories on video:
Daniel Kapon, who sold his tapes to the tabloids but had never met MJ.
Joseph Bartucci Jr., who claimed kidnapping & abuse while MJ was across the country.
Canada teen Dimond pursued for months only to admit the hoax.
Epstein's 95-page black book was published in full 5 years ago. MJ's "contact" in it was really Sam Gen, an attorney for a very short-term adviser to MJ.
But in new DOJ release you'd believe this was MJ's direct details within it.
One-upped by White House Press Secretary tweeting a 2003 pic of MJ, Ross, their kids and Clinton at a well-known event—no connection to Epstein at all.
Now with the children as "redacted individuals" and a byline implying it could be because they are victims of Epstein. Really?
"We redact the faces of victims and/or minors" has the same absurd energy as the Comedy Central skit from Nathan For You...Where a singular billboard housed the faces of "popcorn sharers and theater masturbators"—one or the other, let the public guess which one each might be. 🤦