For readers of the Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona. Comment and discuss. Be nice, now.
Muggs archive
▼
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Mystery Deepens
In today's installment on the DeMocker murder trial, Bruce Colbert uses and defines the term "Chronis hearing." I'm completely baffled about what he's referring to, all I can be sure of is that 'chronis' not an English word and does not appear on the web in any context other than as a person's name. I suspect it's a misspelling, but I haven't found the right word. Can anyone help?
6 comments:
I encourage you to share your own views and experience with me and other readers. How you do that matters, and I'm committed to maintaining a place where readers and commenters can feel safe from adolescent BS. So here's the deal:
There are two kinds of anonymous comments: those by people who have a genuine fear of revenge from the dark side, and those from darksiders just hiding to avoid accountability. You may post comments anonymously, but I reserve the right to treat anonymous comments as found items that belong to me and do with them as I see fit.
If, on the other hand, you're willing to stand by your convictions and post under your own name or a regular handle, your comments belong to you, and I'll edit them only on egregious violations of respect for others.
If this doesn't work for you, I'm sure you'll be happier somewhere else.
Here is an AZ case involving similarities in which "Chronis" is the defendant: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/Chronis%20v%20%20Steinle%20Opinion.pdf
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is the pertinent connection:
"We hold that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5(c)
permits a defendant in a capital murder case to request a determination of probable cause as to alleged aggravating
circumstances."
That's it, I'm sure, good work Mia!
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting: the AZ Supreme Court filed this opinion (Chronis v Steinle) on June 3 this year. It's very new law, showing that the DeMocker legal team is sharp and pulling all available strings. It's also a fair bit too new for Bruce to be using "Chronis hearing" as if it were standard jargon. That was the red flag for me.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am a master Google-er. And yeah yeah, like you know, the old Chronis appeal! Come on Steven, keep up with the times boy! Have you been following this pretty closely?
ReplyDeleteBeing a tad slower on the uptake, I thought I was pretty smart finding this at the top of a Google search for the string "chronis" alone:
ReplyDeleteChronis Famous Sandwich Shop - Los Angeles, CA, 90022 - Citysearch
I was going to suggest that Bruce might have misheard and not quite caught up when it was spelled out for him, and it shoulda been "chthonic" or something.
However, I do think it's interesting that Google didn't turn up that court case. And how hard would it have been for Bruce to put "(from Chronis v. Steinle)" after the reference?
I'm also wondering, Steven, whether in the original filing of the story there were the two occurrences of "Chronis," with the second giving a minimal explanation? Or was that added later... after your comment?
The use of "Chronis hearing" as jargon is what bothered me too, Candace. Yes,it should have come with the sort of reference you describe.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other idea, the story remains in its original state as I first read it. I've yet to see the Courier make an online correction of even the most egregious error.