Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/14/14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LambChop

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
30
Please continue to post through the weekend starting with this thread.


:tyou:
 
As I said, iirc, Travis was having dinner at his friends home. Don't remember which one. It was the week before his murder. One person said it was Dave Hall. Another said it was a doctor friend, maybe his roommates dad? It was brought up in the first trial. AZlawyer just said she didn't see how it would be relevant. To me everything should be relevant and come out. I saw Beth Karas say tonight that JM would have his own strategy and use what he needs to. I don't understand it myself. The court of law has become pretty much a game. Maybe it always was. I don't like it at all.
Click to expand...

Bringing over Curious in Indiana's post from the last thread.

For something to be relevant, it has to make some fact at issue more or less likely to be true.

So what can the jury consider in this phase? (1) The circumstances of the offense (just how premeditated and cruel was this, etc.)--Travis's feeling that he might turn up dead is not relevant to the circumstances of the offense. (2) Other things that could justify a life vs. death sentence for Jodi--Travis's feeling that he might turn up dead also has nothing to do with whether Jodi's life is worth sparing.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Caylee Advocate View Post
I suppose we will all grow old before she ever accepts full responsibility and apologizes. I myself have been played, and I myself have been a player.... I sure didn't ever consider butchering anyone. I just moved on.


It will never happen.
Sometimes I wonder....she said something to Flores about not being able to move on...did she kill Travis in order to be able to "move on" to another PPL target, Ryan Burns? She had already invested nearly two years in her futile attempt to marry Travis...she wanted a man to commit to her, Travis refused. She saw the Mormans as the best option for a quick marriage. Hard working, family oriented, nice men But would Travis rat her out? Tell people in PPL/Ryan that she was a "*advertiser censored*"? A psycho who slashes tires, hacks emails, runs phones etc?
To her, Travis rejected her after she'd left Daryl, her house, converted to his religion, had #threeholewonder sex with him. She was 27, alone, crummy job, living in grandmas small house. She knew she wasn't going to Cancun or the alter with Travis but was he going to ruin her shot at rebounding and snagging her next Morman man? Maybe she didn't want to take that chance.
Idk
 
Regarding the secret witness: Does JM have the right to cross-examine that person? If it was JA, she has a right to not take the stand, but if she has taken the stand and testified in front of the jury, the state should have an opportunity to cross-examine her, even if she is now executing her right to not take the witness stand (because the media was allowed back in).

Will the DT get away with testimony in front of the jury that the state cannot question in front of that jury?
 
krkrjx said:
Regarding the secret witness: Does JM have the right to cross-examine that person? If it was JA, she has a right to not take the stand, but if she has taken the stand and testified in front of the jury, the state should have an opportunity to cross-examine her, even if she is now executing her right to not take the witness stand (because the media was allowed back in).

Will the DT get away with testimony in front of the jury that the state cannot question in front of that jury?
Click to expand...

No. JM will be allowed to cross-examine the secret witness.
 
From the last thread, got caught in the door:
bsk said:
Great idea! Stealing the gun, getting two gas cans, getting a third can, getting the most nondescript rental car possible, flipping the plates, destroying her laptop, destroying evidence, sending the post-murder message, grinding with Ryan, etc. -- "Ma'am, are you saying that each of these acts was caused by what you are claiming was Mr Alexander's so-called 'abuse' or were they the acts of a person planning, carrying out, and then covering up a murder?"
Click to expand...
Don't forget hair-dyeing!:silly::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious:
 
AZlawyer said:
Bringing over Curious in Indiana's post from the last thread.

For something to be relevant, it has to make some fact at issue more or less likely to be true.

So what can the jury consider in this phase? (1) The circumstances of the offense (just how premeditated and cruel was this, etc.)--Travis's feeling that he might turn up dead is not relevant to the circumstances of the offense. (2) Other things that could justify a life vs. death sentence for Jodi--Travis's feeling that he might turn up dead also has nothing to do with whether Jodi's life is worth sparing.
Click to expand...

But if Travis has said he wished JA was dead then we'd be hearing about it for sure, even though that seems even more irrelevant from a logical viewpoint.
 
krkrjx said:
Regarding the secret witness: Does JM have the right to cross-examine that person? If it was JA, she has a right to not take the stand, but if she has taken the stand and testified in front of the jury, the state should have an opportunity to cross-examine her, even if she is now executing her right to not take the witness stand (because the media was allowed back in).
Click to expand...

Yes, he does, but that won't keep L. Kirk from objecting.


krkrjx said:
Will the DT get away with testimony in front of the jury that the state cannot question in front of that jury?
Click to expand...

No, they won't.

As I understand it, the prosecutor may even cross-examine the accused who exercises right of allocution.

And as we all know, JA is too allocute by half.
 
bsk said:
But if Travis has said he wished JA was dead then we'd be hearing about it for sure, even though that seems even more irrelevant from a logical viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Probably, because that would fit in with JA's story that he overreacted to things and was abusive.
 
Truth Detector said:
Yes, he does, but that won't keep L. Kirk from objecting.




No, they won't.

As I understand it, the prosecutor may even cross-examine the accused who exercises right of allocution.

And as we all know, JA is too allocute by half.
Click to expand...

JM can't cross-examine JA's allocution, but he can introduce evidence to rebut any new things she raises in allocution.
 
AZL what do you think of the timing of the two victim impact statements? I think they might have Samantha speak too but later? Does that make sense?
 
@TrialDiariesJ: The Hughes have been speaking up on social media saying this expert didn't interview them 4 context #jodiarias

@TrialDiariesJ: Hughes also state they haven't been called to testify #jodiarias
 
AZlawyer said:
JM can't cross-examine JA's allocution, but he can introduce evidence to rebut any new things she raises in allocution.
Click to expand...

[h=2]Supreme Court of Arizona.[/h][h=3]STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DEREK DON CHAPPELL, Appellant.
[/h][h=3]Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-07-0384-AP[/h][h=3]Decided: August 3, 2010[/h]- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1533676.html#sthash.Rkxgyg9U.dpuf

2. Limits on Allocution


¶ 31 Chappell argues the trial court's warning that he might be subject to cross-examination if he disputed his guilt during allocution prevented him from freely exercising his right to allocution and the jury from considering all relevant mitigating evidence.

¶ 32 In Arizona, a defendant has a right to allocute before sentencing.   Ariz. R.Crim. P. 19.1(d)(7), 26.10(b)(1).   This right, however, is “not absolute.”  Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 100, 111 P.3d at 392.   Defendants may not “shift a mitigating circumstance ․ [into] allocution and thereby insulate that mitigating circumstance from rebuttal evidence.”  State v. Armstrong, 218 Ariz. 451, 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d 378, 390 (2008).   We have repeatedly upheld trial courts' admonitions that defendants may be subject to cross-examination if they exceed the scope of permissible allocution.   See, e.g., State v. Womble, _ P.3d _, 2010 WL 2720408, *7-8 ¶¶ 42-45 (Ariz. July 12, 2010);  Armstrong, 218 Ariz. at 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d at 390.   The judge did not abuse his discretion in so warning Chappell.

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1533676.html#sthash.Rkxgyg9U.dpuf


Then I'm misreading this and another case.

Please enlighten.
 
katiecoolady said:
AZL what do you think of the timing of the two victim impact statements? I think they might have Samantha speak too but later? Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

They happened right when they are supposed to under the current rule. The rule might have been different for your sister's trial--I mean, I know it was different, but I can't remember exactly how. :) I doubt the judge will allow them to do another one.
 
@TrialDiariesJ: Chris H "how do these people sleep at night? If they could get full context from us, the jury would be outraged by these games." #jodiarias
 
TexMex said:
Quote Originally Posted by Caylee Advocate View Post
I suppose we will all grow old before she ever accepts full responsibility and apologizes. I myself have been played, and I myself have been a player.... I sure didn't ever consider butchering anyone. I just moved on.


It will never happen.
Sometimes I wonder....she said something to Flores about not being able to move on...did she kill Travis in order to be able to "move on" to another PPL target, Ryan Burns? She had already invested two years in her futile attempt to marry Travis...she wanted a man to commit to her, Travis refused. She saw the Mormans as the best option for a quick marriage. Hard working, family oriented, nice men But would Travis rat her out? Tell people in PPL/Ryan that she was a "*advertiser censored*"? A psycho who slashes tires, hacks emails, runs phones etc?
To her, Travis rejected her after she'd left Daryl, her house, converted to his religion, had #threeholewonder sex with him. She was 27, alone, crummy job, living in grandmas small house. She knew she wasn't going to Cancun or the alter with Travis but was he going to ruin her shot at rebounding and snagging her next Morman man?
Idk
Click to expand...
Slightly OT. I was watching Mystery Diners tonight and there was this server who was sabotaging her co-worker. Turns out they had gone out a couple times, but it didn't go anywhere. She knew his passcode and would go into the sales system and cancel his orders to make him look bad in front of the customers. He confronted her and she said it was because he was up for a promotion and might go and manage the owner's other restaurant. She told him she didn't want him to go so that's why she sabotaged him. He freaked and said they only hung out twice and they were drunk but never 'hooked up' and he wasn't into her at all. She got furious and threw a glass container at him right in front of the customers! One of the other servers called her a stage five clinger who became obsessed. She got fired of course, but kept blaming him for what she did and making excuses for her behaviour. Oh and she kept saying he was being 'mean' to her. Sounds familiar, huh?

p.s. Stage Five Clinger Girl found employment at another restaurant. :scared: Loverboy kept his job, but didn't get the promotion.
 
Truth Detector said:
[h=2]Supreme Court of Arizona.[/h][h=3]STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DEREK DON CHAPPELL, Appellant.
[/h][h=3]Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-07-0384-AP[/h][h=3]Decided: August 3, 2010[/h]- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1533676.html#sthash.Rkxgyg9U.dpuf

2. Limits on Allocution


¶ 31 Chappell argues the trial court's warning that he might be subject to cross-examination if he disputed his guilt during allocution prevented him from freely exercising his right to allocution and the jury from considering all relevant mitigating evidence.

¶ 32 In Arizona, a defendant has a right to allocute before sentencing.   Ariz. R.Crim. P. 19.1(d)(7), 26.10(b)(1).   This right, however, is “not absolute.”  Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 100, 111 P.3d at 392.   Defendants may not “shift a mitigating circumstance ․ [into] allocution and thereby insulate that mitigating circumstance from rebuttal evidence.”  State v. Armstrong, 218 Ariz. 451, 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d 378, 390 (2008).   We have repeatedly upheld trial courts' admonitions that defendants may be subject to cross-examination if they exceed the scope of permissible allocution.   See, e.g., State v. Womble, _ P.3d _, 2010 WL 2720408, *7-8 ¶¶ 42-45 (Ariz. July 12, 2010);  Armstrong, 218 Ariz. at 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d at 390.   The judge did not abuse his discretion in so warning Chappell.

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1533676.html#sthash.Rkxgyg9U.dpuf


Then I'm misreading this and another case.

Please enlighten.
Click to expand...

If a mitigating circumstance is introduced in allocution, the prosecution may rebut it. If the defendant disputes his or her guilt during allocution (I think that was what happened in the Chappell case), then he/she might be subject to cross-examination. Presumably KN and JW would script JA's allocution to avoid anything that would trigger a right to cross.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 118 more.
Total: 328 (members: 119, guests: 209)

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
209
Total visitors
328
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,995
Messages
18,248,284
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top