Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe a dumb question, but-What are the hearsay rules in court-would this witness (if he or she is not Jodi) be allowed to relate information that was told to them by Jodi? Like for instance, if the witness is Aunt Sue, and she wants to testify to information she got from Jodi re: sex abuse by another family member-would that be considered hearsay, or is it evidence?
 
I am remembering talk awhile back about some potential defense witness from New Zealand. This person went to school with Travis. Someone back-thread mentioned Austrailia. I could be wrong about the country. Does anyone else remember this?



Hope4More said:
Of those 3 options it has to be number one and Skype. I have absolutely no doubt at all about those wicked lies. Travis never harmed a child .

I think we should stop bringing up the possibility of a child witness. There isn't one.
Click to expand...
 
Sulamith said:
I think Mr. Parker may be the mystery witness. I had read that he was the Bishop of the Riverside, Ca. ward where TA and Deanna Reeves attended. Deanna Reeves testified that she and TA confessed their affair to their Bishop, who was probably Parker. He might want to keep details as confidential as possible, so closed court. Just speculating. MOO MOO
Click to expand...

Interesting. So, a church Bishop can be compelled to reveal their parishioners' confessions?
 
AZlawyer said:
No. Trial court rulings don't set any precedent at all.
Click to expand...

I am glad to hear that, although I suspect if this stands the objections from the news media attorneys, then I think we will begin to see a lot of future witnesses asking for this same privilege.

Heck, i get all nervous and anxiety when I get called for jury duty, let alone being a witness in a trial. I definitely would want the same thing even in a simple case. I could envision lots of future witnesses wanting the same privilege to be allowed to testify only in front of the jury.

I suppose most judges would never grant this sort of permission. This is hopefully just an anomally, just like this whole trial has been.
 
I remember this but I can't for the life of me remember from where.
 
Paul Atkinson ‏@PaulAtkinsonASU 12m12 minutes ago
RT@william_pitts From our appeal: "Accordingly, closure of the proceedings is wholly contrary to settled First Amendment law..." #JodiArias
 
wenwe4 said:
LDS churches do not have Pastors or "clergy" like other churches I have attended - rather the Bishop is one of the laypeople (Member in good standing) who has been "called" to act in this role for a period of time. The Bishop is not a "professional" clergy (for lack of a better description).
Click to expand...

Thank you, wenwe4. I did not realize that the Bishop was a layperson.
 
William Pitts ‏@william_pitts 16m16 minutes ago
#JodiArias trial could continue but the anonymous testimony would stop until we're heard. Initial motion to be filed with Judge Stephens
0 replies 11 retweets 19 favorites
Reply Retweet11 Favorite19
More
William Pitts ‏@william_pitts 17m17 minutes ago
BREAKING: @12news will file a motion to stay the closed testimony until our appeal can be heard. Drafting the Stay now. #JodiArias
0 replies 19 retweets 26 favorites
Reply Retweet19 Favorite26
 
T-4-2 said:
snipped snippets:


Wow indeed. I started the day out being all happy that my Giants won another World Series for me. Now I'm mad. I had been trying so hard to give this judge the benefit of the doubt.

Are there higher-ups who could yank her if she keeps steering this ship toward the rocks?
Click to expand...

That's a good point--whatever the information is, it can't be kept secret from the presiding judge if he wants to make sure there is a basis for this decision.

Mindmatters said:
Hi AZlawyer, I am very appreciative that you share your knowledge with us. It is so helpful in my attempt to gain a better understanding of how trial law works.

I feel I have to ask this and I do so with all due respect: Is it possible that you are attributing to Judge Stephens reasoning and logic that you know to be ethically and professionally rational/sound practices, while she may very well not ascribe to these same rationales (for whatever reason), hence the confusion you are experiencing as to why the Judge would conceal the witness's identity. Or simply put, perhaps she does not uphold the same values and practices you would expect from a Judge, thus you cannot agree with the witnesses members have suggested thus far? TIA
Click to expand...

Yes, my assumptions are based on her being smart (which I know she is), ethical (which I strongly believe she is) and not prejudiced toward the defense (which as a former prosecutor of 20 years would make zero sense). It is possible that she is overwhelmed by this situation and made a poor decision, because she has made other poor decisions like sealing all bench conferences prospectively (e.g., before she knew what would be said during the conferences).

bznbear said:
There's a Vernon Parker who's a politician in AZ. Used to be mayor of Paradise, apparently.
Click to expand...

Different guy.

Hope4More said:
Of those 3 options it has to be number one and Skype. I have absolutely no doubt at all about those wicked lies. Travis never harmed a child .

I think we should stop bringing up the possibility of a child witness. There isn't one.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one, either. Just listing possibilities.

Jmoose said:
Maybe a dumb question, but-What are the hearsay rules in court-would this witness (if he or she is not Jodi) be allowed to relate information that was told to them by Jodi? Like for instance, if the witness is Aunt Sue, and she wants to testify to information she got from Jodi re: sex abuse by another family member-would that be considered hearsay, or is it evidence?
Click to expand...

The hearsay rules do not apply during the mitigation phase.
 
A couple of people have mentioned this creates a problem when it comes to JM rebutting the super secret witness. It also creates a problem for both sides at closing right?

This is a great situation for the DT it seems to me. The slightest slip-up over the next couple months would leads to howls for a mistrial.
 
I refuse to believe suddenly there is a child who has stepped forward to claim he was abused by TA. If this child existed, we would have seen this during her first trial. There is NO WAY this witness is a child. Because there is NO WAY you can ever convince me that TA was a pedophile.

I think we are taking this too far and over thinking, because the seriousness of the court room being closed. I'm almost certain it's just one of her witnesses (probably a psych doctor, etc) to come and back up her mental illness claims. They probably are worried about their professional lives being attacked by the crap they are about to spew. I don't think it's more than that, we all saw the posts on Amazon, the threads attacking ALV and Samuels. As much as I hate JA, the attack on these 2 witnesses in their personal lives was over the top and it shouldn't have gone as far as it did. I truly believe JSS is just trying to prevent that from happening again.
 
Hey! I've got it! If witnesses now get to state the conditions under which they will testify, then ALV could offer:
"I'll come back only if that mean little man has to stay in time out and can't ask me questions." :tantrum:
 
Hope4More said:
There isn't a logical answer to that because we have all been sucked down into the rabbit hole where up is down and wrong is right and there is a Queen making rules but only in whispers we aren't allowed to hear.

Yeh. I'm frustrated too.....
Click to expand...


If it is the bishop, maybe Jodi has something on him and is threatening to tell if he doesn't? But then why didn't he in the first trial? Not slamming just thinking of how can you get them to break their confidence. You know how much Jodi likes to lie and blackmail people she wants to use.
 
katiecoolady said:
One other option in the chain of unending speculation is that it's Jodi herself, using her manipulative powers to shut down the media then she will change her mind by Monday and want them back in, then later claim she had an unfair trial because of this somehow. Just a thought. She loves to jack things around.
Click to expand...
That gets my vote!
 
G&AMom said:
No way this can withstand an appeal. No way. People have had to testify against mobsters in open court.
Click to expand...

This might be different, though, because this part is not the trial; it's the penalty phase. I believe that in a trial, the defendant has the right to confront their accuser. In mob trials, the people testifying against mobsters are required to be known to them, because of the right to confront your accuser. This person we are speculating about isn't Jodi's accuser, but rather a mitigator, working on Jodi's behalf. Having said that, I'd still like to know who it is, and why they require such secrecy to be of assistance to a vicious murderer
 
T-4-2 said:
snipped snippets:


Wow indeed. I started the day out being all happy that my Giants won another World Series for me. Now I'm mad. I had been trying so hard to give this judge the benefit of the doubt.

Are there higher-ups who could yank her if she keeps steering this ship toward the rocks?
Click to expand...
There, there now, we still have the Giants! In fact I DVR'd it on my new High-def TV. Wanna com eover and watch it again, LOL?
 
Very disappointed that Nancy Grace did not even mention the re-trial at all tonight..not one word!
Maybe Drew will..up next
 
G&AMom said:
I thought that was the reason, but I don't know that it's official. I don't think the court has given ANY reason why the courtroom was cleared. I think the basis for assuming this is the reason is because back in August (I think), Nurmi was saying that he promised witnesses their testimony wouldn't be televised.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember him saying that. So nurmi knew back in August how this judge would rule today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 3,798 (members: 143, guests: 3,655)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,655
Total visitors
3,798
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,294
Messages
18,170,327
Members
232,299
Latest member
Migeemp79
Back
Top