Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion* #2

[AZlawyer]

AZL, according to an article from about 18 hours ago about Perryville, CMJA will be in Max Sec for at least 2 years, before being considered for Gen Pop. Single cell, 23 hours a day, one 15 min phone call per week.

All inmates into a state pen also go thru an intake process of a few days to a few week. During that time, they administer some psych testing, medical testing, assess medical needs, etc. The inmate is given "orientation" to the rules, etc. As she is slated for max security, she won't be eligible for work programs or things like educational classes for a long while.

However, will the 2,400+ days CMJA has already served count towards the 2 years in max security??

No.

Just for clarification purposes. ...

Since Jodi's "fog" has been lifted, there's no way she can use this to her advantage via appeal nor financial gain, is there? Meaning, can she say Nurmi insisted she use The Fog story? Or can she say I'll give full details for x or y? Like selling her story or plea deal?

Sure, she can say that Nurmi made her lie. As you have seen, she can say whatever she wants--doesn't mean she'll get anywhere with it, though. (This would be something she'd have to say in a post-conviction relief petition rather than on appeal, but I don't think your question intended to make that distinction.)

There is no plea deal to be made at this point. She's already been sentenced. No one on the prosecution side cares a whit about the "full details" any more.

She could sell her story, but that money would ultimately end up in the hands of the Alexanders, so I don't think she'll bother.

 

[Moonchime]

You know how WSers like to pick apart Jodi's statements to find the lies? Maybe you can use your expertise to help me out with a case. Tell me, do you think this guy was lying to me?

Me: [Asks Mr. X if he was the author of a certain inflammatory internet comment.]
Mr. X: No. Well, it was just pretty random but... [sentence left hanging in air]
Me: [repeats question]
Mr. X: No, I'm too busy to do that. I'm pretty positive I wouldn't do such a thing.
Me: You're pretty positive or do you know?
Mr. X: I mention to you, I'm pretty busy, I barely have time to do anything.
Me: I know, but if somebody asks me, you know, did you stab this kitten, I would say no. I'm pretty busy, but I know I would remember if I stabbed a kitten. [Asks again if he wrote the comment.]
Mr. X: Not that I know of?
Me: Wouldn't you be the one who would know?
Mr. X: Why would I know?
Me: Because it's you doing it.
Mr. X: I sit on a computer 24 hours a day doing a billion of things.
Me: So are you sure you did not leave that comment?
Mr. X: I'm pretty positive that I would never do such a thing.
[Mr. X's counsel bangs head on conference room table.]

:floorlaugh:

I'm raising my hand. I know the answer!!! Yes! He is lying to you!!!! :floorlaugh:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

You're funnin' us AZlawyer. The whole conversation was one big lie. The red flags fly for all to see. Just for the fun of it:

Me: Asks Mr. X if he was the author of a certain inflammatory internet comment.

Mr. X: No. Well, it was just pretty random but... [sentence left hanging in air] (the definitive answer)

Me: [repeats question]

Mr. X: No, I'm too busy to do that. I'm pretty positive I wouldn't do such a thing. (Add in, wouldn't is in the future, the activity was in the past)

Me: You're pretty positive or do you know?

Mr. X: I mention to you, I'm pretty busy, I barely have time to do anything.

Me: I know, but if somebody asks me, you know, did you stab this kitten, I would say no. I'm pretty busy, but I know I would remember if I stabbed a kitten. [Asks again if he wrote the comment.]

Mr. X:Not that I know of? (Love that he asks it as a question.)

Me: Wouldn't you be the one who would know?

Mr. X: Why would I know? ((add the appropriate ending... if I did it.)

Me: Because it's you doing it.

Mr. X: I sit on a computer 24 hours a day doing a billion of things. (extended hyperbole, a clue to a liar as well as in conflict with a previous answer.)

Me: So are you sure you did not leave that comment?

Mr. X: I'm pretty positive that I would never do such a thing.

[Mr. X's counsel bangs head on conference room table.]

 

[CarolinaWoman]

No.



Sure, she can say that Nurmi made her lie. As you have seen, she can say whatever she wants--doesn't mean she'll get anywhere with it, though. (This would be something she'd have to say in a post-conviction relief petition rather than on appeal, but I don't think your question intended to make that distinction.)

There is no plea deal to be made at this point. She's already been sentenced. No one on the prosecution side cares a whit about the "full details" any more.

She could sell her story, but that money would ultimately end up in the hands of the Alexanders, so I don't think she'll bother.

Arias could sell her story? Doesn't the Son of Sam law prevent that? How about her art, will she still be able to sell the prints while in Perryville?

Just one more question, when a person is sentenced to LWOP in Arizona is there a set number of appeals or can they just keep appealing their sentence? If they are indigent does the state pay for appeals?

I really appreciate you AZlawyer and thank you for taking your time to answer legally challenged people like me.

 

[AZlawyer]

Arias could sell her story? Doesn't the Son of Sam law prevent that? How about her art, will she still be able to sell the prints while in Perryville?

Just one more question, when a person is sentenced to LWOP in Arizona is there a set number of appeals or can they just keep appealing their sentence? If they are indigent does the state pay for appeals?

I really appreciate you AZlawyer and thank you for taking your time to answer legally challenged people like me.

Son of Sam laws don't prevent free speech--they prevent the criminal from keeping the profits from that speech.

She can probably sell the art one way or another, yes. Again, even though the art doesn't relate directly to the crime, the Alexanders should be able to get hold of the profits from the art as well once they get their wrongful death judgment.

There will be one appeal, but also one post-conviction relief proceeding. If the AZ Ct App denies the appeal, it can be taken up to the AZ Supreme Court (which doesn't have to hear the case), and theoretically to the US Supreme Court but that won't happen. The post-conviction proceeding will follow the same path, but involves a hearing at the trial court level first. The state pays for the appeal for indigent persons. I don't think we pay for post-conviction relief counsel except in death penalty cases.

 

[Tiger09]

Since the Jail Report might come out, I'm a wee curious. .... if Arias bragged or spoke of things that are mysteries in the trial.... would she face further charges? What would cause further charges?

 

[AZlawyer]

Since the Jail Report might come out, I'm a wee curious. .... if Arias bragged or spoke of things that are mysteries in the trial.... would she face further charges? What would cause further charges?

Like what? Stealing the ring? I suppose it's possible.

 

[RickshawFan]

Like what? Stealing the ring? I suppose it's possible.

In your opinion, if JA had bragged about another murder while under Sheriff Joe's care, do you think AZ would go through the whole trial circus again? If she kills someone while in PV? Is there anything she could be charged with that would get her extra solo time (like a few years?) in her nice little cell one over from death row?

 

[AZlawyer]

In your opinion, if JA had bragged about another murder while under Sheriff Joe's care, do you think AZ would go through the whole trial circus again? If she kills someone while in PV? Is there anything she could be charged with that would get her extra solo time (like a few years?) in her nice little cell one over from death row?

You can't convict someone just based on a confession. But sure, if she confessed to something serious and corroborating evidence was found, she would probably be tried for it. If she kills someone in prison, she will almost certainly be tried for it. And there are lots of ways to screw up and lose privileges in prison.

 

[RickshawFan]

You can't convict someone just based on a confession. But sure, if she confessed to something serious and corroborating evidence was found, she would probably be tried for it. If she kills someone in prison, she will almost certainly be tried for it. And there are lots of ways to screw up and lose privileges in prison.

Thanks. My question was really directed at whether AZ would bother to try JA for another murder (if she was implicated), since she already has LWOP. Crassly, there's justice and the there's practicalities: what else can AZ do to her in the name of justice? Also, crassly, Jodi could commit another murder just for the opportunity to go through the whole 7-year media circus all over again, since now she has nothing to lose?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks. My question was really directed at whether AZ would bother to try JA for another murder (if she was implicated), since she already has LWOP. Crassly, there's justice and the there's practicalities: what else can AZ do to her in the name of justice? Also, crassly, Jodi could commit another murder just for the opportunity to go through the whole 7-year media circus all over again, since now she has nothing to lose?

That's what I meant. Yes, they would prosecute her for a prison murder. If there was a confession plus corroborating evidence, they would probably prosecute her for another murder also. I don't see why it would be a 7-year media circus, though.

I don't feel more qualified than anyone else here to speculate on Jodi's mental state.

 

[LinTX]

(Just posting this here in case AZlawyer is monitoring this thread

Originally posted by Caylee Advocate:

I don't know if AZ Lawyer still reads here, but I am wondering what this entry on the Appeals court site means in 281129 appeals case. I see that all transcripts must be filed by 10/1/2015. Hopefully they are moving this along and SOON we will read "APPEAL DENIED"



23. 4-Sep-2015 FILED: Motion to Disqualify the Court of Appeals; Certificate of Service (Appellant)

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Thanks for bringing this over for me Lin, I got busy and forgot about it. :spinner:

 

[AZlawyer]

(Just posting this here in case AZlawyer is monitoring this thread

Originally posted by Caylee Advocate:

I don't know if AZ Lawyer still reads here, but I am wondering what this entry on the Appeals court site means in 281129 appeals case. I see that all transcripts must be filed by 10/1/2015. Hopefully they are moving this along and SOON we will read "APPEAL DENIED"



23. 4-Sep-2015 FILED: Motion to Disqualify the Court of Appeals; Certificate of Service (Appellant)

Oh for heaven's sake. It sure looks like it's a motion to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing the case. I have no idea what grounds they could cite; I mean, there are 5 or 6 three-judge panels there, so it's hard to imagine ALL of them should be disqualified.

To give you an example of when something like that would happen, a couple of months ago the entire AZ Supreme Court (only 5 judges, though, not like the Court of Appeals) recused themselves from a case that would affect their personal pension plans. Five Court of Appeals judges who had started after the pension rules changed were assigned to deal with the case instead.

 

[Hope4More]

Oh for heaven's sake. It sure looks like it's a motion to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing the case. I have no idea what grounds they could cite; I mean, there are 5 or 6 three-judge panels there, so it's hard to imagine ALL of them should be disqualified.

To give you an example of when something like that would happen, a couple of months ago the entire AZ Supreme Court (only 5 judges, though, not like the Court of Appeals) recused themselves from a case that would affect their personal pension plans. Five Court of Appeals judges who had started after the pension rules changed were assigned to deal with the case instead.

Holy Toledo!! The batcall still works! . Thank you, AZL.

Is it possible CMJA is still dictating legal strategy? I thought her appellate attys would be largely moving forward on their own, on auto pilot.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Oh for heaven's sake. It sure looks like it's a motion to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing the case. I have no idea what grounds they could cite; I mean, there are 5 or 6 three-judge panels there, so it's hard to imagine ALL of them should be disqualified.

To give you an example of when something like that would happen, a couple of months ago the entire AZ Supreme Court (only 5 judges, though, not like the Court of Appeals) recused themselves from a case that would affect their personal pension plans. Five Court of Appeals judges who had started after the pension rules changed were assigned to deal with the case instead.

Thank you AZL :loveyou:

 

[LinTX]

Oh for heaven's sake. It sure looks like it's a motion to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing the case. I have no idea what grounds they could cite; I mean, there are 5 or 6 three-judge panels there, so it's hard to imagine ALL of them should be disqualified.

To give you an example of when something like that would happen, a couple of months ago the entire AZ Supreme Court (only 5 judges, though, not like the Court of Appeals) recused themselves from a case that would affect their personal pension plans. Five Court of Appeals judges who had started after the pension rules changed were assigned to deal with the case instead.

OK, so going by that example, the Chief Judge could recuse all the COA judges with SC judges taking their place. It's still considered a COA appeal though, correct? So let's say they ruled against the motion. It would normally go to the SC for review - but wouldn't the SC judges then have to be recused because they ruled on the COA appeal?

 

[samspace070]

OK, so going by that example, the Chief Judge could recuse all the COA judges with SC judges taking their place. It's still considered a COA appeal though, correct? So let's say they ruled against the motion. It would normally go to the SC for review - but wouldn't the SC judges then have to be recused because they ruled on the COA appeal?

I can not believe this nut job could control an appeals lawyer like this? I have never heard of this before. What grounds, the media bringing out all the lies she told, or the fact that she admitted she did remember the murder and she told everyone in her sentencing?

 

[ParrotGal]

WOW! The wonderful AZlawyer answering our questions! Seems like old times! :loveyou:

 

[LinTX]

Quoting my own post from discussion, but asking if COA goes along with this, doesn't eliminating the COA mean she has one less free appeal and less chance of success?

The COA motion (10 pages) has been posted on twitter under the #jodiarias hashtag. It is against the State of Arizona, and is about the article that Judge Cattani wrote. But it says b/c of his impropriety, the whole COA (both divisions) are incapable of being impartial. They want to skip COA and go directly to Supreme Court.