To keep some order, I've treated us to a new heading...
I need to write a synopsis & in-depth account of Kriseya's story. Our
present sessions may be my chance to do it.  Q's & A's are just what I need.
 RT> [my] opinions...best used as springboards for thoughtful discusssion...
 RT> decisions...not to be taken lightly.  I would *not* presume to urge you
 RT> toward any action based solely upon my suggestions.  My name is not
 RT> Alan Dershowitz. RT> Read that again, please.
Disclaimers fully noted, Rick.  Ironically, our best advisers to date have
been Herman Wallace & Jeff Clark--jailhouse lawyers.
 RT> didn't realize...you were at the stage of...oral argument on appeal.
Appeal was greatly delayed due to Atty's illness. Then our jailhouse lawyers
said many valid issues weren't argued. Viv, the atty, countered that the
judges wouldn't read anything over 30, 35 Pgs. Herman & Jeff wrote Kriseya's
Pro Per. Viv said she'd consider it, then ignored it. We thought it was
excellent.  Upon learning that the judges had to wait for a crucial file
left out & that Viv had retired, we decided to submit the Pro Per.  It was
accepted, but we think it delayed the decision.  Yes, it's all in.
 RT> ...review these with your new attorney. ...important [to] review and
 RT> understand the points of law addressed therein.
We must _get_ an attorney first.  Working on it.  We try to understand it
all. The ex-atty became frustrated at my scrutiny _and_ ignorance.
 RT> What troubles me is that you [wondered why] certain aspects of the case
 RT> were not argued...[i.e.] ancillary neglect charges. I gather...there
 RT> may be other significant points of law that ought have been addressed,
 RT> ...you may not be entirely aware of them. ...draw the inference that
 RT> your coordination with the attorney was not as complete...
You infer correctly on all points.  Considering that the door is now closed,
I don't know if anything can be done about it.
 RT> ...an appellate Justice had rendered an observation...asking if your
 RT> daughter ought have been acquitted as a matter of law...suggests that
 RT> [he] may be aware of some point of law that ought have been clearly set
 RT> forth in the appellate briefs.  What was this...point of law, and why
 RT> was it not clearly set forth in the appellate briefs?  Would it truly
 RT> have served to entitle [Kriseya] to acquittal as a matter of law? What
 RT> other such points of law may have been similarly overlooked? ...among
 RT> the first questions you should be reviewing at this stage.
More excerpts from the Oral:
Judge: ...any direct evidence that she stood by and watched him kill...
DepDA: Direct evidence? No. Not a bit. The circumstances would have allowed
that conclusion....{I'm only including bits relevant to "matter of law"...}
DepDA: There's a good deal of evidence by which they could have believed
that this appellant was virtually ignorant of what was going on--but they
didn't at this point...
Judge: You say there's a great deal of evidence, uh, that would have
supported an acquittal--that she didn't, she didn't know what was going on?
DepDA: There was some evidence...
Judge: Did I hear you correctly?
DepDA: There was some evidence that if the jury had chosen to believe that,
they could have aquitted.
Judge: I thought I heard you say there was a great deal of evidence.
DepDA; Oh, I may have. I don't know. It's one of those expressions that kind
of slips out every time.
Judge: Well, if that's the case, why wasn't she entitled to be acquitted as
a matter of law?
DepDA: It has to be no evidence to the contrary. When we evaluate the ques-
tion of whether or not someone's entitled to a directed verdict or a judgment
of acquittal or a reversal on insufficient evidence, the question is the
nature of the evidence in favor of the prosecution.  There was evidence that,
if this jury had believed it, they would have acquitted her completely. They
didn't do that.....So in this case they rejected the theory that this appel-
lant was wholly ignorant.....
Judge: If she had known, or should have known, that the baby had fractures,
that doesn't make her a murderer either. Does it?
  -+> Now that I have your correct address, it may be better if I send the
  tape transcript I did of the orals & other info.  It will take a day or 2.
 RT> [If it's determined] significant points had been overlooked...the
 RT> question becomes...how to properly modify the appellate briefs, or...
 RT> properly introduce these additional points of law into [appeal process]
 RT> already in progress.  The court may, or may not, incline toward a
 RT> motion for continuance in light of the appearance of new counsel.
 RT> The appellate court does not review the evidence. [nor] hear [witness]
 RT> testimony...[nor] determine guilt or innocence. ...merely reviews the
 RT> procedural aspects of the trial.  [Including] introduction (or with-
 RT> holding) of exculpatory evidence during trial, whether the trial court
 RT> erred in allowing, or in disallowing, certain testimony, and whether
 RT> the jury was properly instructed.
 RT> [If] appellate court determines...an error had occurred, it considers
 RT> whether...courts error was significant or..."harmless error." If the
 RT> former, it may remand for a new trial, often with instructions [to
 RT> follow] a particular procedure, or [admit] particular evidence...or that
 RT> the jury be differently instructed; else it may overturn or vacate the
 RT> judgement...the prosecutor often has the option of [charging anew].
 RT> ...court may also vacate part of a judgement, leaving in place another.
We knew some of this, but needed some clarity. Thank you.
 RT>...a few cases in which public defenders...passed a case on to the
 RT> appellate court for review [of] any valid issues to be raised on appeal,
 RT> ...microscopic scrutiny of a case by an appellate court is rare.
 RT> a case by an appellate court is rare.  When a case is submitted...to the
 RT> appellate court, its role is to properly consider only those issues
 RT> raised on appeal.  It passes on all other issues, without regard as to
 RT> their validity. ...why it is absolutely critical that counsel thoroughly
 RT> prepare these appellate briefs, clearly identifying each and every.
 RT> procedural error the trial court may have made.
We were not satisfied that counsel raised every issue, and is why we sub-
mitted a supplement.  The supplement was _not_ professional & included issues
outside of those proper for the Sup. Ct.  We knew this, but reasoned that
even if they ignored parts of it, some of it might lodge in their minds.  I
called the clerk of court to ask if we could submit & was told a Pro Per
might be favorably viewed because they had so little on Kriseya's case (!).
We first tried to get Viv to include some of the Pro Per points.  BTW, the
clerk said that the judges have to read everything accepted.
I'm wondering whether to send you _all_ that stuff: appeal brief, orals, and
Pro Per in addition to our packet with news clips & chronology.
 RT> judge had "misheard" the testimony. ...question is what effect this may
 RT> may have had on the proceedings...whether or not this error was harm-
 RT> less.  Whatever the exact circumstances of this mishearing...this
 RT> possible error...must be clearly articulated in...briefs, or otherwise
 RT> raised by counsel during appeal, [or the error] may be passed over.
It troubles me that no one raised this directly.  However, our jailhouse
lawyers' Pro Per _did_ say: "Also puzzling is why testimony by Judge Mills
Lane, who spoke before the committee which revised the child abuse and murder
stature in 1989, was disregarded."
 RT> ...you have some understanding of the process, and of the [appeal]
 RT> issues...write them down on a notepad.  Try to guage the importance of
 RT> each one, and compare them to the appellate briefs and oral arguments
 RT> to ensure that they have been presented. If not, find a way to...call
 RT> them to the attention of new counsel [so] they may be introduced in a
 RT> timely manner, to the extent...possible at this stage of the process.
May not be possible anymore.(?)  We are trying to prepare for anything, esp.
because Viv minimized the importance of the neglect charge. I'm sure her
interest was that the DA grossly overcharged & never *specifically* charged
Kriseya, but "tacked her onto" Michael's crime. She did address that.  The
issues Viv addressed _were_ well argued, but when she spoke "about" Kriseya,
her actual ignorance about Kriseya was obvious. Like saying that Kriseya
wandered around hitchhiking when she came to the U.S. from Mexico. She owned
a car.  Vivian portrayed her as an ignorant and homeless person who knew no
better.  Kriseya was well bred.  She did spend a few months drifting with
Michael (a side story).  She _was_ ignorant of many things and naive to the
bone, but not a "let it all hang out" derelict.  Kriseya is an exquisitely
loving, sensitive young woman who was always well loved at home.  I wasn't
a perfect mother, but that girl knew she was loved.
 RT> I understand, and appreciate, your...interest in pursuing justice for
 RT> others.  Often, one needs to be closely affected by a particular...
 RT> injustice in order to be called to such an active role. Consider the
 RT> otherwise ordinary people who became environmental activists after
 RT> having lost their homes and community to the Love Canal.
Interesting that you should mention that.  We were avid environmental
activists before this happened.
 RT> ...respect your genuine concerns for your daughter, given her plight,
 RT> ...how difficult...for...both of you emotionally. ...I suggest...that
 RT> you must focus all of your energies and activities on the short term
 RT> goal of setting her free. Once this is accomplished...turn toward the
 RT> longer term goals you seek.  ...emotional manifestations...must be
 RT> reigned in for the moment, such that they do not cloud your judgement.
Your words find deep resonance in me, yet we're so deeply into helping that
backing out may be all but impossible.  I'm trying to learn how to assign
priorities.  None of it comes easily to me. I'm a *Mother*, artist, and born
advocate. I allow myself few breakdowns so I can function from strength.
 RT> Right now, it is your task to work with clarity and focus toward
 RT> successfully meeting the short term goal.  There are bound to be many
I _hear_ you.  I think I'll make a sign out of your words & put them up
where I see them daily.  Appreciate you so much.
 RT> tears shed when the verdict is finally rendered, and you have our
 RT> help, for whatever it may be worth, and our sincere hopes and prayers
 RT> that these are to be tears of joy.
Rick, your full-hearted help and support are a joy and strength to us all.
OLR says "buffer full."  Will briefly comment on justices & atty separately.
God bless you.  We bless you.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 26
 * Silver Xpress V4.01
--- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0075
---------------