Friday, July 6, 2012

Next Step: Respondent's Brief is due May 21, 2015

07/06/2012Respondent's brief letter sent; due:    on or before May 21, 2015. (see California Rules of Court, rule 8.630(c)(1)(B), (C))

It appears that 2015 must be a typo.  But let's look at Rule 8.630(c)(1)(B)(C).  The combined record includes 50,347 pages of clerk's transcripts, 21,830 pages or court reporter's transcripts, and another 211 pages or so of unsealed pages.  That brings us to a grand total of 72,177 pages, 62,177 pages over the 10,000 page base.  62x15=930 days added to the 120 day limit in (B) = 1050 days, which is just short of 3 years, and I may have missed some pages.  Hence, the 2015 is correct.  

(c) Time to file 

(1)Except as provided in (2), the times to file briefs in an appeal from a judgment of death are as follows: 

(A)The appellant's opening brief must be served and filed within 210 days after the record is certified as complete or the superior court clerk delivers the completed record to the defendant's appellate counsel, whichever is later. The Supreme Court clerk must promptly notify the defendant's appellate counsel and the Attorney General of the due date for the appellant's opening brief. 

(B)The respondent's brief must be served and filed within 120 days after the appellant's opening brief is filed. The Supreme Court clerk must promptly notify the defendant's appellate counsel and the Attorney General of the due date for the respondent's brief. 

(C)If the clerk's and reporter's transcripts combined exceed 10,000 pages, the time limits stated in (A) and (B) are extended by 15 days for each 1,000 pages of combined transcript over 10,000 pages. 

(D)The appellant must serve and file a reply brief, if any, within 60 days after the respondent files its brief. 


6 comments:

LA Curry said...

Now that is just strange. Why would they have that long to respond? It doesn't make any sense to me, unless they were totally clueless as to what would be contained in the appellant's brief, which I have a feeling is not the case. Maybe they will get it in sooner. Sigh. That is almost 3 years.

Oh wait, it is the attorney general and not the prosecutor that responds at this point. That makes sense, they probably have no clue what Scott's brief would contain.

Grant Peterson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Grant Peterson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marlene Newell said...

The reason the State gets so long to rspond to the appellant's brief is because it usually is the State's Attorney General's office that handles this appeals. So they would not have the familiarity with the case that the DAs had. And that's 72,000 pages to cover -- a whole lot.

I saw that Dave Harris got a copy of the brief. I wonder if he's going to be involved in the respondent's reply.

Grant, I agree, I think they are going to drag this out just as long as they can, probably take every time extension they can take. Which is why we need to continually pray that someone with some information about what happened to Laci will call the reward tip line. I suspect a lot of people know enough to collect that reward, but they just won't call.

Saul Bedolla said...

Really doesn't matter when he gets another try at being guilty, he will die in prison or maybe speed up his death penalty before he gets the chance of an appeal

Burkey said...

I think radio stations need a news headline about that tip line. Let's see what we can do about that.

Marlene I sent you an email. I'm really disturbed by some of the stuff I'm reading in this brief in particular the bit about Tom Harshman seeing something on "the 28th."