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

Wichita, KS

#21897 Aug 7, 2013
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding is that it’s no longer in the appeals court’s hands. It now in the CA supreme court’s hand.
I don’t see how you can say that its stern/Dr. E who is desperately attempting to twist and turn the law Since it’s the DA who brought it to the CA Supreme Court when their initial VICTORY with the appeals court wasn’t good enough for them.
At the end of the day I still believe that after everything is said and done the most Howard will get is misdemeanors. Think about how much longer this has been dragged out- literally years. and how much more tax payer’s money has been wasted and the stress has been put on Howard’s elderly parents- all because the DA is afraid they won’t get their giant headlines,“ANNA NICOLE SMITH’S BOYFRIEND/LAWYER FOUND GUILTY OF MISDEMEANORS!!! THE DA WINS!!!!!”
It reminds me of that episode of Southpark when Canada goes on strike and Canada finally “wins” with getting coupons to some restaurant and bubble gum
You truly seem to be missing the point in more than one way.

First you seem to want to overlook that Stern and Eroshevich broke the law and in doing so lead to or at the very least contributed to the deaths of two people.

Second you seem to overlook the big picture that the Appeals Court opinion on the double jeopardy issue if left unchallenged would be a negative precedent not just affecting this case but other future cases. This is why the DA appealed to the CA Supreme court.

JMO
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#21898 Aug 7, 2013
F-ing A -- wonder if you get dizzy looking down from your imaginary 'high-horse' SS??

YOU seem and appear to be missing the BIG POINT that this case had NOTHING LEGALLY to do with the death of ANS and cannot be considered in any way legally..........
SheStone wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly seem to be missing the point in more than one way.

First you seem to want to overlook that Stern and Eroshevich broke the law and in doing so lead to or at the very least contributed to the deaths of two people.
THAT ABOVE is your opinion that means nothing in a court of law

Just like these lingering questions:(which maybe construed as law breaking & contributing also)
-Was it against the law a mom to hand-cuff ANS and keep her from -Was it child endangerment to leave a loaded gun in reach of a toddler??
Was it morally wrong for a mother going to the media after DWS passed which appeared to make ANS go 'over the edge' mentally....
-THE BIG KICKER>>> how ethical is it for a mother to get PAID (SPLASH INVOICES) for talking to the media for the sake of money and upsetting your only daughter???

--gee, some great role model you supporters picked to champion!

Must of us just wanted FAIR & EQUAL treatment in the justice system --NOT the made-up lies from the O'Q, DC camp and then the conspirators they got like FS who RECANTED that crap on the stand as he was under OATH. Don't forget the LYING NANNIES!!

--Maybe YOU overlooked some of those ACTIONS that could of mentally messed up ANS and THOSE ACTIONS may have contributed in the their fate also.......
________

Yes - they were found guilty of minor charges...
Yes - the BIG CHARGES were DROPPED BY THE JURY due to NO EVIDENCE.
Yes - those charges ARE ONLY MISDEMEANORS and they will most likely get fined in the end, if not dropped totally.

For GOD's sake quit trying to act like it is >>>>>>> >>>>>

ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT!

....OR MAYBE A BUNCH OF US non-HKS HATERS WILL COME HERE & list ALL THAT ANS's 'lovely supporting family' DID FOR HER THAT maybe LED TO GOD knows what....

lol >>> JMO too!

ps, watch your 'opinions' as your words may just lead to people not liking being accused of killing others....
I think there is a legal term for that, isn't there????*wink*

Judged:

14

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21899 Aug 7, 2013
JFA once a person weeds through the blustering and deflecting parts of your post it can be seen that you admit that Stern and Eroshevich broke the law. I am glad you are finally at least willing to admit that.

Logic should also lead you eventually to the truth that what they did in breaking the law at the very least contributed to the two deaths.

JMO

Judged:

15

14

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21900 Aug 11, 2013
SheStone wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Thanks for the explanation SheStone. I had forgotten who filed what when. I've lost track of the years this saga has been going on. All I know is when Stern is involved the cases go on and on and on and... ie the Marshall Case.

It will be interesting to see the outcome especially what Perry decides based on the Supreme Court decisions. I have forgotten which charges Perry dismissed even though the jury said guilty. Don't even remember if they were misdeamors or felonies. Some are prediciting Perry will give them a slap on the wrist and be done with it. Seems that whatever happens will probably be pretty anticlimatic at this point unless Stern is stuck with a felony and loses his license.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21901 Aug 12, 2013
It appears there was some recent activity on the case per an email alert today. I just put the last three court notes in.


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

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2013-08-12
Event Description: Opening brief on the merits filed

Notes: 8.25(b).

Docket (Register of Actions)

PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH
Case Number S210545


08/07/2013 Counsel appointment order filed Upon request of respondent for appointment of counsel, Janice K. Blair is hereby appointed to represent respondent Khristine Elaine Eroshevich on the appeal now pending in this court. Respondent's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before thirty(30) days from the date appellant's opening brief on the merits is filed.

08/07/2013 Counsel appointment order filed Upon request of respondent for appointment of counsel, Peter Gold is hereby appointed to represent respondent Howard Kevin Stern on the appeal now pending in this court. Respondent's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date appellant's opening brief on the merits is filed.

08/12/2013 Opening brief on the merits filed Plaintiff and Appellant: The People
Attorney: Phyllis Chiemi Asayama
Attorney: Serena Raquel Murillo 8.25(b).
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21902 Aug 12, 2013
JustGuessing2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the explanation SheStone. I had forgotten who filed what when. I've lost track of the years this saga has been going on. All I know is when Stern is involved the cases go on and on and on and... ie the Marshall Case.
It will be interesting to see the outcome especially what Perry decides based on the Supreme Court decisions. I have forgotten which charges Perry dismissed even though the jury said guilty. Don't even remember if they were misdeamors or felonies. Some are prediciting Perry will give them a slap on the wrist and be done with it. Seems that whatever happens will probably be pretty anticlimatic at this point unless Stern is stuck with a felony and loses his license.
Yes it can all get quite confusing. Right now the part of the Appeals Court decision that reinstated the felony convictions against Stern and Eroshevich is not officially part of the CA Supreme Court considerations. That doesn't mean that can't consider it just that it doesn't appear likely, most likely that part will stand although we don't know what Perry will do once that case is returned to his court.

If you are feeling down keep in mind there is at least some vindication with the guilty verdicts from the jury and with the Appeals Court agreeing that Judge Perry was wrong. Whenever anything drags out for too long it is possible for it to seem anticlimactic.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21905 Aug 13, 2013
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
“if left unchallenged would be a negative precedent not just affecting this case but other future cases.”
I think you are blowing that waay out of proportion. The DA went before the appeals court twice and only made one judge change his mind. How many other times has the da brought a case to the ca supreme court- after their initial VICTORY wasn’t good enough- for what should have probably originally been only misdemeanors? The simple fact is if this case didn’t involve Anna Nicole smith the DA wouldn’t have even given HKS the time of day. And they sure as hell wouldn’t have brought it twice to the appeals court and then the state supreme court
And ironically this whole thing could completely backfire in the DA's face. They are so intent on trying to retry howard again but do they even take into consideration that its possible that jury could actually find him not guilty?!...Howard’s team didn’t even bother to put on their case and he was Still found not guilty of most of the charges.
I think once again that you are making the case way too personal to just Stern. Double jeopardy issues are very important in the larger scheme of criminal cases. Remember that the Appeals Court on its own motion decided to grant the motion for rehearing after initially denying it on the basis of waiting for a case about double jeopardy to be decided by the US Supreme Court. Double jeopardy is that important of an issue as are the precedents related to the issue.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21907 Aug 13, 2013
SheStone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly. What it said in the order regarding the "13th juror" issue was this:
Or the trial court could grant the new trial motion after reweighing the evidence (acting as the so-called “13th juror”) subject to the following double jeopardy analysis.
__________
That is from page 29 of the order. Here is a link to the order:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B23...
So with the "13th juror" issue it would be to grant a new trial.
They did give several other options though for what could happen including ways it could be dismissed, but at the very end of giving the various options they did note:
We express no opinion as to how the trial court should exercise its discretion.
__________
Also please keep in mind, I believe that depending on what Judge Perry does rule there is still the possibility of the DA appealing whatever ruling he does make if they disagree with it. I don't know if they definitely would or if in all circumstances that they even could. I think it would depend on many factors including if they think they could be successful in the appeal. I think though that it is an option that may still be open to them at that point once again depending on many factors. So it could be a very long haul ahead for those following the case.
For right now though I am just taking the case as it goes along and waiting for the next step in the process to proceed. We still have a wait ahead of us.
JMO
I noticed after the fact that the opinion that is listed currently on the appeals court website and which I linked here to answer is actually the older opinion from 10/18/12. Unfortunately the other link I had for the newer opinion isn't working. I did find a cached version on google as well as it posted on another website called morelaw. Here are the links for those:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp...

It says the same thing in that part of the opinion just that instead of being on page 29 it is on page 30.

Sorry for any confusion.

JMO
Mosey

Berkeley, CA

#21908 Aug 14, 2013
Thank you, SheStone. I really appreciate your explanations. Hope everyone is well.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21909 Aug 23, 2013
Latest update per an email notice....

08/23/2013 Answer brief on the merits filed Defendant and Respondent: Howard K. Stern
Attorney: Peter Gold

.....and the case moves on.


Sure wish the "briefs" were available public information. Would be interesting,informative and certainly help (me) to understand all the legal jockeying and nuances of this case.
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21910 Aug 23, 2013
JustGuessing2 wrote:
Latest update per an email notice....
08/23/2013 Answer brief on the merits filed Defendant and Respondent: Howard K. Stern
Attorney: Peter Gold
.....and the case moves on.
Sure wish the "briefs" were available public information. Would be interesting,informative and certainly help (me) to understand all the legal jockeying and nuances of this case.
I would like the read the briefs as well. I haven't been able to get them although the site seems to indicate they could be available at certain sites. If you want to see if you can get them the places to look are listed on this page:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/appellatebriefs.htm

As to the current status on the case I am wondering if Eroshevich will or will not be filing an answer brief. It is possible I would imagine that her attorney might not since the issue that is being looked at with the double jeopardy really only applied to Stern.

The reason I got to thinking that she might not respond was because on the 'Case Summary' page it shows under-

Case Status: reply brief due
__________

Previously it had shown "answer brief due" after the opening brief had been filed.

It could also just be that since one answer brief was filed it change to reply brief due. We will just have to wait and see but it wouldn't surprise me either way with Eroshevich.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21911 Aug 23, 2013
I did manage to locate some of the briefs under the:

Los Angeles County Law Library

http://www.lalawlibrary.org/research/briefs/d...

When you put in the case number from the California Supreme Court website they show items for the 'Petition for Review' and two answers to the petition for review. I don't have time to read them tonight but will look at them later. At first I had trouble bringing it up, but I was able to bring up the petition for review.

They don't the opening brief listed or the answer filed today.

Maybe they will list them later.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21914 Aug 24, 2013
veritas wrote:
Oh man. What great sweet irony it would be if it was the state suprme court who finally dismissed everything
The California Supreme Court appears to only be reviewing the issue dealing with double jeopardy based on the case summary page and the description from their order granting the petition for review.

Case Summary page:

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?
__________

Under 'Docket' for description of order:

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.
__________

So it is very unlikely they will review the part of the Appeal's Court order that reinstated the guilty verdicts thus that part will stand and the guilty verdicts against Stern and Eroshevich will be reinstated.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

JMO
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#21915 Aug 24, 2013
veritas wrote:
Oh man. What great sweet irony it would be if it was the state supreme court who finally dismissed everything
Yes veritas - the sweet irony as you put it would be if; the REVIEW found double jeopardy WOULD EXIST and throw it back to Judge Perry to rightfully (imo) change those few minor charges from felonies to misdemeanors - that way the guilty verdicts will stay and be rightfully charged torts.

“tort - Law" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+law

If that happens, after all this money spent by the courts and for attorneys would be a small fine and eventually can go off their records....(expunged)

If the Review finds double jeopardy exists (which legally it does imoo) they cannot order the trial court judge to keep those minor torts as FELONY verdicts of guilty if there has been falsified testimony (a ‘not-so-truthful’ finding of ‘guilty by the jurors due to the evidence being f-ed with) THEREFORE > Judge P. will most likely make those felonies to misdemeanors and everyone will be satisfied…. What a disgrace of wasted money for the tax payers! The Prosecution tried so hard and spent so much on the Nannies b/c they professed to be ‘scared’ of what? LOL > Larry King?? What a ‘bad’ joke the whole trial is and was!

And for those few HKS haters ‘trying’ to IGNORE all the lies at that trial with NO STRONG evidence of conspiracy just b/c they picked the wrong side of justice are crazy to believe that these felony verdicts of guilty >> WILL EVER STICK to either Dr E or HKS.

Quoting the Case Summary Issues:

“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?

[[ Judge Perry (who saw the LYING witnesses RECANT } take back their lies) found LEGALLY what the jury based their ‘not- unanimous’ guilty verdicts on a couple of MINOR charges was NOT strong enough to be FELONY charges after what was presented at the trial.]]

The APPEALS COURT did reverse the WAY, repeat the WAY Judge P. dismissed those charges…

>> IF Perry would have dropped them to misdemeanors the Appellate court would not have reversed that legal move.

LOL, some people got to be NUTS (or stubborn HKS Haters) to actually believe that
Their words of ‘BS” would burst anyone else’s bubble…

In fact I’d go as far as to say that person’s own bubble of (HKS has to be found guilty no matter what attitude - b/c they are all in favor of the likes of the atrocities that VA, O’Q, DC and those characters did in this mess -- mind you NEVER, NEVER holding ANS accountable for being the most responsible of her bad choices that anyone…..)
Well >>> their own ‘bubble’ appears to be full of bad air that stinks of hatred of people they do not know, of ALWAYS wanting to be right, by posting these ridiculous ONE-SIDED opinions as ‘facts’-- that are mind you > only in her head.

Unbiased, and what I know of the legal system…..

Can there be a ‘RE-TRIAL’ due to double-jeopardy?
My strong thoughts are the REVIEW will opine: NO.
What will happen to the dropped verdicts of ‘guilty’ on MINOR CHARGES?
(as ALL major charges were found NOT GUILTY by the JURY)

* those minor charges that were dropped, and now back >> WILL BE FOUND TO BE MISDEMEANORS OR DISMISSED IN A DIFFERENT WAY due to the Prosecution NOT having enough evidence to prove them again in a new trial, as they CANNOT call the LYING NANNIES and they will not have FS being pushed by Texas to LIE!

LOL, JMO also…. Hope that hot air bubble of SS doesn’t have helium in it!*winks*
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#21916 Aug 24, 2013
"tort"
n. Law

"Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought."

----------

Not all charges by the DA/Prosecution fit the 'tort'....

Over 80% of the time they 'OVER-CHARGE' to get some sort of conviction verdict on even one for their 'win' and JUSTIFICATION for bringing the charges in the first place....

Well, J. Brown did get elected and as Judge P. stated there is ABUSE of prescription drugs BUT (I'm sure due to the lies and promises the DA said they'd prove then DID NOT) THIS WAS NOT THE CASE!

MJ would have been a better case I'd think of Doctors prescribing JUST for money....

EVEN the HKS and Dr E haters here cannot find any evidence proven at trial that existed for the charge of FELONYS imo....

c'est la vie
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21919 Aug 24, 2013
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
My bubble is not burst. I don’t see why howard’s lawyers would even bother bringing it up with the supreme court if they apparently didn’t have the authority to dismiss it themselves
The California Supreme Court does have the authority however that doesn't appear to be a part of their review. Their review appears to deal only with the double jeopardy issue. Based on what the 'Case Summary' page says and the description for the order granting review it appears the California Supreme court will leave in place the part of the Appeals Court ruling where they found "there was substantial evidence to support the jury's counts 1 and 3 verdicts. &#8194; Thus, the new trial order must be set aside as to Mr. Stern and the guilty verdicts reinstated."

Stern's lawyers weren't the ones who brought this to the California Supreme Court. The DA was the one who filed the petition for review as to the double jeopardy issue.

Hope that helps with any confusion.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21920 Aug 28, 2013
The Appeals Court website has updated, changed, the dates for 'Scheduled Actions'.

This is what had been listed under 'Scheduled Actions':

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:
__________
__________

This is what is now listed under 'Scheduled Actions':

Description: Record returned from Supreme Court.

Due Date: 04/14/2014

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

Description: Filed Supreme Court remittitur with opinion.

Due Date: 04/14/2014

Notes:
__________

I was waiting for them to change the dates since the 08/19/2013 date had passed. These dates from the Appeals Court site give at least some indication of a time frame for the case but aren't written in stone. We will see how accurate these dates turn out to be.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21923 Aug 28, 2013
veritas wrote:
Whats the diffrence between "Description: Filed Supreme Court remittitur with opinion. Due Date: 11/12/2013" And
"Description: Filed Supreme Court remittitur with opinion.
Due Date: 04/14/2014"
The date of the "Due Date".
SheStone

Wichita, KS

#21924 Aug 28, 2013
Eroshevich did file an answer brief with the CA Supreme Court. Here is what it shows under 'Docket':

Date: 08/28/2013

Description: Answer brief on the merits filed

Notes: Defendant and Respondent: Khristine Elaine Eroshevich
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair
__________

So now according to what it says on the 'Case Summary' page under 'Case Status:' it appears that
we wait for the reply brief from the DA to be filed.

I wonder if they will schedule any oral arguments or just submit it for consideration based on the briefs alone?

JMO

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#21926 Aug 28, 2013
SheStone wrote:
Eroshevich did file an answer brief with the CA Supreme Court. Here is what it shows under 'Docket':
Date: 08/28/2013
Description: Answer brief on the merits filed
Notes: Defendant and Respondent: Khristine Elaine Eroshevich
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair
__________
So now according to what it says on the 'Case Summary' page under 'Case Status:' it appears that
we wait for the reply brief from the DA to be filed.
I wonder if they will schedule any oral arguments or just submit it for consideration based on the briefs alone?
JMO
Just read the email update myself. SheStone...Thanks for all the information and explanations as this casegoes on...and on...and on some more. I hope I live long enough to see a final outcome. I'm beginning to have my doubts. LOL!!! I mean look at the Marshall case. There are still court actions going on.

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 '17 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 20,470
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