D.A. Moves Forward With Appeal Of Ju...

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21868 Jun 8, 2013
Dink wrote:
Thanks for splaining it SheStone.
This one I DO agree with though

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21870 Jun 13, 2013
Thanks JG! Hope you're well!
Celebrate

United States

#21871 Jun 15, 2013
Kim Kardash gave birth today ---- with sweet Kanyi by her side ----
What lucky baby to hav3 such wonderfil parents!!!!@@@@@@ Congrats!!!!!

Judged:

16

15

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21872 Jul 3, 2013
Per notice via email today...

the following transaction has occurred in:
PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH
Case: S210545, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2013-07-03
Event Description: Time extended to grant or deny review

Notes: The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including August 6, 2013, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search...

Not surprised. Judges and court personnel might be taking summer vacations. Anxious to see the end of this case though, one way or another.

Hope everyone is well. So good to see you Dink! I am well despite the extreme heat we have been experiencing here. Hope you and your family have a safe and Happy Fourth of July!!!! Enjoy the festivities and fireworks.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21874 Jul 6, 2013
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
So what does this mean?? And thanks for the update.
I believe it means we wait some more. Not sure if the review/decision will be the last of the case. Knowing the ANS saga and all the court proceedings, ie Marshall case, I have my doubts that this criminal case will reach a final conclusion in August. Just guessing that one or more of the parties is bound to appeal again if they legally can.
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21876 Jul 9, 2013
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
I canít even keep track of this anymore! What does the DA want again?? They are going over the appeals courtís head to the CA. Supreme court because they want to be able to overrule the double jeopardy rule??
The DA took the normal next step in the legal process of asking for a review of the Appeals Court decision to the CA Supreme Court. Since it is the DA asking for the review I believe it is over the double jeopardy issue.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21877 Jul 10, 2013
The CA Supreme Court has granted the petition for review of the Appeals Court decision in the criminal case limited to the issues raised in the petition for review.

Here is what it shows on the CA Supreme Court website for the criminal case.

Under 'Docket':

Date: 07/10/2013

Description: Petition for review granted; issues limited

Notes: The petition for review is granted. The issues to be briefed and argued are limited to the issues raised in the petition for review. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan, Liu, JJ.
__________

I would assume the issue it is limited to is the one regarding double jeopardy since the petition for review was requested by the DA.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21878 Jul 10, 2013
Just as I noted on the other thread I want to clear that since it does actually say "issues" there might be something besides the double jeopardy, although I don't know what that or those might be since I haven't seen the petition for review that was filed.

It may also be that it is just standard to automatically use the plural. I just don't know for sure.

Once again we will just have to wait and see what happens.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21880 Jul 11, 2013
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for this update shestone.(I donít know why Iím not getting them myself). This case is starting to remind me of the marshal case. Itís just going on and on and on, hitting every possible court level there is.:-/
Any thought on when this Next *sigh* court hearing will be??
Sorry, at least at this point unfortunately the CA Supreme Court website for the case doesn't have a 'Scheduled Actions' link like the Appeals Court site did so I don't know when any of the next actions will be. Maybe it is something that will show later.

It also doesn't currently list anything under 'Briefs'. I will check every now and then to see if there are any updates or changes.

So for now we wait again.

JMO

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21881 Jul 12, 2013
SheStone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, at least at this point unfortunately the CA Supreme Court website for the case doesn't have a 'Scheduled Actions' link like the Appeals Court site did so I don't know when any of the next actions will be. Maybe it is something that will show later.
It also doesn't currently list anything under 'Briefs'. I will check every now and then to see if there are any updates or changes.
So for now we wait again.
JMO
Thanks so much for the update SheStone. I just got the email notice myself and came to see if it had already been posted. I appreciate your clarification of the matter. My guess is this could take some time (maybe months) since it is referred back to the Ca. Supreme Court. Am I correct or not? It's been so long I had forgotten what the issue was about and who requested the review. Again thank you for all your clarification and explantions.
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21882 Jul 12, 2013
JustGuessing2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks so much for the update SheStone. I just got the email notice myself and came to see if it had already been posted. I appreciate your clarification of the matter. My guess is this could take some time (maybe months) since it is referred back to the Ca. Supreme Court. Am I correct or not? It's been so long I had forgotten what the issue was about and who requested the review. Again thank you for all your clarification and explantions.
I don't know how long it will take, but I doubt it will be very quick. LOL I would also guess months would be more accurate then weeks.

It was the DA who filed the petition for review. As I posted on the other thread this is now what the CA Supreme Court website under 'Case Summary' shows as the issues it will be reviewing:

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed orders dismissing counts and granting a new trial in a criminal case. This case presents the following issues:(1) If a trial court issues a ruling equivalent to an acquittal after a jury has entered a guilty verdict and the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court's ruling on appeal, does the trial court's erroneous acquittal nevertheless bar retrial under principles of double jeopardy if, on remand, the defendant renews an earlier motion for a new trial?(2) In such circumstances, is the Court of Appeal permitted to direct a trial court to dismiss charges and acquit a defendant if the trial court decides to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial under Penal Code section 1181?
__________

So we are in for more waiting.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21883 Jul 12, 2013
Oh I did find on the Appeals Court website for the criminal case under 'Scheduled Actions':

Description: Remittitur issued.

Due Date: 08/06/2013

Notes: 7/22.
-=-=-=-=-=

Description: Record returned from Supreme Court.

Due Date: 08/19/2013

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Description: Filed Supreme Court remittitur with opinion.

Due Date: 11/12/2013

Notes:
__________

I don't know how reliable that date is as I doubt it is set in stone considering how many times the date for the remittitur from the Appeals court was changed to later dates but maybe it gives at least some idea.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21884 Jul 12, 2013
Apparently the Appeals Court hadn't sent all the records of the case to the CA Supreme Court. On 05/20/13 they did send some records but it shows more having been sent on 07/11/13.

Here are both entries from the Appeals Court website under 'Docket':

Date: 05/20/2013

Description: Record transmitted to Supreme Court.

Notes: 1x6" (s210545)
-=-=-=-=-=

Date: 07/11/2013

Description: Record transmitted to Supreme Court.

Notes: Remaining Vol. 12x6"
__________

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21886 Jul 12, 2013
veritas wrote:
So what does those dates mean?? Dumb it down for me
I presume you mean the remittitur with opinion date? Since you already know what an opinion is here is the legal definition for remittitur:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx...

remittitur

n. 1) a judge's order reducing a judgment awarded by a jury when the award exceeds the amount asked for by the plaintiff (person who brought the suit). 2) an appeal's transmittal of a case back to the trial court so that the case can be retried, or an order entered consistent with the appeals court's decision (such as dismissing the plaintiff's case or awarding costs to the winning party on appeal).
__________

Of course in this case number 2) would be the one that applies. So as I understand it, but I could be wrong, at least for right now that is the date the Appeals Court has listed for the CA Supreme Court remittitur and opinion to be filed.

We will see if it actually happens that quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if that date changes and it take longer. We will just have to wait and see.

JMO
Vertias

Charlottesville, VA

#21887 Jul 12, 2013
This case is Never going to end! If the DA finally does win and gets to retry Howard again it's going to be Howard who is going to appeal. Forget how you fell about the clown video, I have NO idea how it was allowed into evidence since it was stolen.

And it also dawned on me. If the da does get to retry Howard again, what witness are they going to call?? All the witness in the previous trial where destroyed or sounded like defense witnesses.
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21889 Jul 12, 2013
I should also note that there are other possible outcomes once the case is finally remanded back to the trial court.

At this point though we just need to wait and see what happens.

JMO

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21891 Jul 24, 2013
Thanks, as always, for your updates and explanations, SheStone! I hope everyone is having a great summer!
cher

Springfield, OH

#21892 Aug 6, 2013
Dink!!!! You'll never know how much i miss you.Shestone thank you so much for your updates.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21893 Aug 6, 2013
Found this of interexst. More of an explanation as to what the Court of Appeals has been reviewing since May.

~~~~~~~~~~

Supreme Court
Change courtSupreme District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Div 1 District 4 Div 2 District 4 Div 3 District 5 District 6

Court data last updated: 08/06/2013 09:05 PM

Case Summary Docket Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys Lower Court

Case Summary


Supreme Court Case: S210545
Court of Appeal Case(s): Second Appellate District, Div. 5
B231411
Case Caption: PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH
Case Category: Review - Criminal Appeal
Start Date: 05/08/2013
Case Status: review granted/counsel needed
Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed orders dismissing counts and granting a new trial in a criminal case. This case presents the following issues:(1) If a trial court issues a ruling equivalent to an acquittal after a jury has entered a guilty verdict and the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court's ruling on appeal, does the trial court's erroneous acquittal nevertheless bar retrial under principles of double jeopardy if, on remand, the defendant renews an earlier motion for a new trial?(2) In such circumstances, is the Court of Appeal permitted to direct a trial court to dismiss charges and acquit a defendant if the trial court decides to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial under Penal Code section 1181?
Case Citation: none

NOTE: The statement of the issues is intended simply to inform the public and the press of the general subject matter of the case. The description set out above does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.
Cross Referenced Cases:
No Cross Referenced Cases Found

~~~~~~~~~~

IMO they (Stern and Eroshevich) are still desperately attempting to twist and turn the law to get all their charges dropped.(I have always believed they had a back door to Judge Perry's Office and I believe Stern et al wants to make sure Perry is able to drop their charges when the case comes back to him.)

I could be wrong about what the court is reviewing (the possibility of dropping charges rather than a retrial) but that's what it seems like to me from what I read. I do note the Court's disclaimer so there may be other issues as well. I'll wait for a SheStone clarification as to the review info cited in the docket.
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21896 Aug 7, 2013
JustGuessing2 wrote:
Found this of interexst. More of an explanation as to what the Court of Appeals has been reviewing since May.
~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Court
Change courtSupreme District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Div 1 District 4 Div 2 District 4 Div 3 District 5 District 6
Court data last updated: 08/06/2013 09:05 PM
Case Summary Docket Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys Lower Court
Case Summary
Supreme Court Case: S210545
Court of Appeal Case(s): Second Appellate District, Div. 5
B231411
Case Caption: PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH
Case Category: Review - Criminal Appeal
Start Date: 05/08/2013
Case Status: review granted/counsel needed
Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed orders dismissing counts and granting a new trial in a criminal case. This case presents the following issues:(1) If a trial court issues a ruling equivalent to an acquittal after a jury has entered a guilty verdict and the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court's ruling on appeal, does the trial court's erroneous acquittal nevertheless bar retrial under principles of double jeopardy if, on remand, the defendant renews an earlier motion for a new trial?(2) In such circumstances, is the Court of Appeal permitted to direct a trial court to dismiss charges and acquit a defendant if the trial court decides to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial under Penal Code section 1181?
Case Citation: none
NOTE: The statement of the issues is intended simply to inform the public and the press of the general subject matter of the case. The description set out above does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.
Cross Referenced Cases:
No Cross Referenced Cases Found
~~~~~~~~~~
IMO they (Stern and Eroshevich) are still desperately attempting to twist and turn the law to get all their charges dropped.(I have always believed they had a back door to Judge Perry's Office and I believe Stern et al wants to make sure Perry is able to drop their charges when the case comes back to him.)
I could be wrong about what the court is reviewing (the possibility of dropping charges rather than a retrial) but that's what it seems like to me from what I read. I do note the Court's disclaimer so there may be other issues as well. I'll wait for a SheStone clarification as to the review info cited in the docket.
It was the DA who filed the petition for review regarding the Appeals Court decision involving Stern and the double jeopardy issue if a new trial is granted. That is the issue the CA Supreme Court is addressing. They don't appear to be looking at the issues that were decided in the DA's favor regarding overturning Judge Perry and reinstating the verdicts.

The DA was successful when the Appeals Court reconsidered on their own on the basis of waiting on the US Supreme Court decision in a case in getting one the Appeal's court judges to agree with them on this issue so that does help and gives me hope with the CA Supreme Court taking up the issue.

JMO

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Anna Nicole Smith Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Attorney Frank Azar brings the "Strong Arm" to ... (Mar '07) Aug 5 Francine Azar 17
News Playmate-Honoring Apparel - Primitive Skateboar... (Dec '16) Jan '17 family of pimps 2
Stern & Doctors Criminal Trial (Jul '10) May '16 Karma babyyyyy 20,482
News Birkhead helps Stern care for Dannielynn (Apr '07) Apr '16 G-port lady 5
Have the sanctions in the Marshall case been di... (Aug '14) Mar '16 Questions 20
Poll Is Lucky A Stalker (Aug '15) Dec '15 Good day 8
News Anna Nicole Smith's ex-lover in 'happy mood' af... (Mar '07) Nov '15 Anonymous 593
More from around the web