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
Today in 04, MJ's defense filed a motion calling out Melville's factual errors in refusing to reduce MJ's egregious $3M bail.
The county max for comparable charges was $435K.
Sneddon: "MJ is no ordinary defendant & the bail schedule does not apply to him."
"Celebrity justice."
In the ruling, Melville baselessly suggested MJ had plans to travel to Brazil after sending the Arvizo family there (via hot air balloon?)
Except MJ had no involvement in any of those conversations, nor did he plan to go there.
Melville quoted non-existent remarks in decision.
Further, Melville leveraged the Chandler and Francia civil settlements based on 10+ yr. old allegations that never spawned any criminal charges after grand juries, 400 witnesses and millions of tax-payer expended travels to find any "victims."
GRANTED: Motion to quash subpoenas seeking body photos etc. This was the most important defense motion.
DENIED: Motion to enforce professional conduct by plaintiffs.
POSTPONED UNTIL OCT. 22 2024: Trial readiness & complex case considerations.
RE: Subpoenas
Judge Whitaker noted the prior unsuccessful requests made by Wade/James in 2014-18.
"To the extent Plaintiffs wished to seek relief from that order, they have not done so...subpoenas directly violate that order."
The one exception being the new request to SBCSO.
RE: Subpoenas
But the SBCSO subpoenas—the only new aspect introduced with Carpenter's latest requests—would still require a notice to affected consumers (including MJ's estate) and this was not done.
Therefore, these subpoena requests are included in quashing all four sets. 👍
The Wade/James court hearing tomorrow centers on three agenda items:
1. Trial readiness and tentative scheduling
2. Motion to enforce professional conduct by Wade's attorney(s)
3. Motion to quash four subpoenas to LAPD/SBSO/LADA/SBDA
The context behind each is as follows:
RE: Trial Readiness
The defense proposed a trial date of August 17, 2026 to allow 18 months for discovery, depositions, other calendar commitments and pre-trial motions. The plaintiffs did not object.
If honored, both sides will have until fall 2025 to finish major prep work.
Earlier this year, the media claimed the estate was delaying due to the biopic and to "silence" WR/JS and that Carpenter wanted a trial by April '25.
But in legal filings Carpenter agreed with the defense that discovery "is in infancy" and a 2026 trial date is fully reasonable.
From the original 11-page handwritten memo of Jordan's allegations, sold to the media in '93.
"Jordan stated he & Evan met with MJ & attorneys, and confronted him with ALLEGATIONS in AN EFFORT TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT and AVOID A COURT HEARING."
They never wanted court of any kind.
This is the same meeting detailed in Ray/Evan's book, where they outright admit to demanding $20M and how, had MJ just paid Evan it, he could've remained unscathed.
Instead, MJ staunchly refused any such demand including Evan's subsequent $1M pleading he sought later that month.
On August 5, 1993 following the failed meeting:
"I would like you to continue to negotiate...if those negotiations are not successful then as your client I am instructing you to file a complaint against MJ"
(By that, Evan meant filing a CIVIL case against MJ to allege such 💰.)
In Wade's suit he depicts himself as a superstar on an unmatched trajectory to fame & fortune if not for the realization of "abuse" in his 30s.
"It is not a question of whether Robson would have [continued to be] successful."
But he was already in major career decline by then.
By 2009, Wade openly admitted that he and his wife were depleting all of their time and money attempting to write failed short films and screenplays. Including the one filmed at NL.
"I spend most of my time saying no to jobs, probably to my own demise."
In 2010, a student spent time with Wade and Amanda to interview them for a paper and oral narrative.
At that point Wade said he was already far removed from the entertainment industry and for years had been out of that career's spotlight, allegedly to avoid Hollywood burnout.
"Plaintiffs’ new counsel, John Carpenter, has a problem: no matter which way one cuts it, his clients are inveterate liars... Carpenter has taken to a new tack, to poison the jury pool by making numerous false and misleading statements to the press."
In illustrating Carpenter's media rounds, she quotes his Daily Mail interview that the biopic "is normalizing very dangerous behavior—sure it will be used by padophiles."
Which is particularly ostensive, considering LN promoted extremely pro-pedophilia normalization throughout.
From Carpenter's TMZ interview, he suggested that the defense had access to "incriminating evidence" that they were not handing over.
Keller notes: "No such evidence was provided to Mr. Mesereau. No such evidence existed, and all responsive documents were already produced."