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

[Colie]

Thanks so much. Makes more sense of what is going on.

 

[mydirtysecret]

What are the chances that for the next week, both sides will be going back and forth on a settlement?

 

[AZlawyer]

What are the chances that for the next week, both sides will be going back and forth on a settlement?

I would be very surprised if there were any settlement discussions at this point, unless Nurmi finally succeeds in getting a mistrial.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I would be very surprised if there were any settlement discussions at this point, unless Nurmi finally succeeds in getting a mistrial.

Thank you az. I know that DT has probably pushed for lwp, since I don't see JA accepting LWOP. They are stuck at a perpetual impasse. I was wondering if the DT are doing these shenanigans though to break TAs family will and BACK to the settlement table.

Eta- I am glad to hear that the state would be unlikely to make a deal at this point

 

[Colie]

Any idea what this motion is for?:truce: Thanks

11/5/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/6/2014
NOTE: MOTION FOR JOINDER AND FOR OMNIBUS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH PENALTY

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

MDLR could be the secret witness, but that wouldn't provide any explanation for the closed courtroom.
JA would not have to testify first.

Oh well, there goes my latest mystery witness guess - serves me right for trying to apply logic to something that is probably not logical. So perhaps it really is JA?

Nurmi already has a good point about the media videotaping MDLR speaking with JA. They shouldn't have been doing that, although to be fair the media perhaps didn't realize that MDLR would fit within the category of people they shouldn't tape, since the rule says "attorneys."

I was thinking Nurmi was making the point because MDLR could be the witness, but based on your answers above, probably not. It looked to me as if the camera person tried to immediately pan away from the sidebar, and settled on JA's table while the sidebar was going on, like they did during trial (IIRC), basically just the back of JA's head, and the back of the guy sitting behind her, then MLDR when she arrives ( mostly obscured by the guys head), but the only one facing the back at times . Surely the guy seated there could easily have heard whatever was said, and any one there could see them chatting, maybe hear them as well.
Does it become more of an issue because it was a hearing, or is Nurmi just trying to make it an issue now?

Sure, the (hypothetical) child or family could be called in rebuttal, and if they didn't want a closed courtroom I don't see why it would be closed.

The thought that a hypothetical child, or their family could become involved for any reason is cringe inducing, and I really hope that is not the reason for secrecy. Even if any hypothetical person could testify that a suggestion is false, it would be a horrible position to put anyone in - especially in this case. I gather they would have to be questioned by Nurmi or Willmott as well?

I truly hope that is in not part of the 'secret' - I don't imagine it would go well for the defendant, and would be in my opinion, an unspeakably cruel thing to do.
Unfortunately, I can imagine JA trying to do that, but I hope I am way off.

Court must be a very hard place to be at times. I thank you again AZL, for helping us all to understand things a little better. You are very kind to help in this way, and the thanks button is never enough (plus, it makes my screen freeze

 

[skab]

If these have been asked and answered, my apologies. Is there someone JSS turns to for help with this case? Are judges not subject to oversight in the courtrooms? If JSS was doing something unlawful, wouldn't Juan be doing something about it? I personally think she doesn't know what she is doing but I am not a lawyer nor do I even begin to understand most of what has been going on. But following Websleuths, has led me to believe certain things about this case and it isn't good in her favor. I tried asking this kind of question right as there was something very pressing going on with this case and my questions got buried. Thanks for any and all answers.


The above was posted on the Retrial for Sentencing page and it was suggested to put it here so I have. I hope this is all okay to post here. Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh well, there goes my latest mystery witness guess - serves me right for trying to apply logic to something that is probably not logical. So perhaps it really is JA?

I was thinking Nurmi was making the point because MDLR could be the witness, but based on your answers above, probably not. It looked to me as if the camera person tried to immediately pan away from the sidebar, and settled on JA's table while the sidebar was going on, like they did during trial (IIRC), basically just the back of JA's head, and the back of the guy sitting behind her, then MLDR when she arrives ( mostly obscured by the guys head), but the only one facing the back at times . Surely the guy seated there could easily have heard whatever was said, and any one there could see them chatting, maybe hear them as well.
Does it become more of an issue because it was a hearing, or is Nurmi just trying to make it an issue now?

The thought that a hypothetical child, or their family could become involved for any reason is cringe inducing, and I really hope that is not the reason for secrecy. Even if any hypothetical person could testify that a suggestion is false, it would be a horrible position to put anyone in - especially in this case. I gather they would have to be questioned by Nurmi or Willmott as well?

I truly hope that is in not part of the 'secret' - I don't imagine it would go well for the defendant, and would be in my opinion, an unspeakably cruel thing to do.
Unfortunately, I can imagine JA trying to do that, but I hope I am way off.

Court must be a very hard place to be at times. I thank you again AZL, for helping us all to understand things a little better. You are very kind to help in this way, and the thanks button is never enough (plus, it makes my screen freeze

Questions BBM.

1. Recording and broadcasting a privileged communication is a problem under the rule whether it's during a hearing or in the hallway on a break. Makes no difference.

2. As well as whom? If there is such a person, they apparently have been called as a witness by the defense, so Nurmi/Willmott would be the primary questioners, and JM on cross.

If these have been asked and answered, my apologies. Is there someone JSS turns to for help with this case? Are judges not subject to oversight in the courtrooms? If JSS was doing something unlawful, wouldn't Juan be doing something about it? I personally think she doesn't know what she is doing but I am not a lawyer nor do I even begin to understand most of what has been going on. But following Websleuths, has led me to believe certain things about this case and it isn't good in her favor. I tried asking this kind of question right as there was something very pressing going on with this case and my questions got buried. Thanks for any and all answers.


The above was posted on the Retrial for Sentencing page and it was suggested to put it here so I have. I hope this is all okay to post here. Thanks

They are not really subject to oversight on an ongoing basis. There is an ethics committee that can discipline them if they violate an ethics rule. There are Judicial Performance Reviews that are compiled from comments solicited from parties and attorneys who appear before each judge. (JSS does well on these.) The presiding judge might call JSS if she seems to have veered away from settled court procedures.

But what you do if a judge makes a bad legal ruling is to object--which Juan has done--and appeal if you care enough--which the media has done.

 

[AZlawyer]

Any idea what this motion is for?:truce: Thanks

11/5/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/6/2014
NOTE: MOTION FOR JOINDER AND FOR OMNIBUS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH PENALTY

Was that in the Superior Court docket? If so, I suspect it's a request from Nurmi for the judge to hear all of his multiple motions to dismiss the death penalty at once--perhaps including motions already denied, on the ground that each single complaint might not be enough to justify dropping the death penalty but the sum of all the complaints together are enough.

ETA: Apparently identical motions to dismiss the death penalty have been filed in multiple cases in Maricopa County--it sounds like this is actually a request to join that bandwagon. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092014/m6477369.pdf

 

[shiloh42]

Was that in the Superior Court docket? If so, I suspect it's a request from Nurmi for the judge to hear all of his multiple motions to dismiss the death penalty at once--perhaps including motions already denied, on the ground that each single complaint might not be enough to justify dropping the death penalty but the sum of all the complaints together are enough.

ETA: Apparently identical motions to dismiss the death penalty have been filed in multiple cases in Maricopa County--it sounds like this is actually a request to join that bandwagon. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092014/m6477369.pdf

There is a lot of chatter on social media that this is exactly what she's trying to do - join a group of defendants to try to stop Ariz. from imposing the death penalty ('bandwagon').

My question to you is this: if she is allowed to join that case, wouldn't her current penalty-phase trial still go ahead as planned, let the jury decide DP or not, and this issue would be decided at whatever date that motion goes before the court? It would make no sense to stop all progress in this trial for that, that would be a dangerous precedent, right?

Re the omnibus motions to dismiss the DP: do you think this is just another desperate attempt to dismiss the DP, by lumping them all together, even though he's been rejected time after time? Isn't there some point at which the court should make him stop if he's not presenting different justifications?

 

[Colie]

I think it may be the second.
Do you know how often this is done and who pays for it?
Thank You.

 

[AZlawyer]

There is a lot of chatter on social media that this is exactly what she's trying to do - join a group of defendants to try to stop Ariz. from imposing the death penalty ('bandwagon').

My question to you is this: if she is allowed to join that case, wouldn't her current penalty-phase trial still go ahead as planned, let the jury decide DP or not, and this issue would be decided at whatever date that motion goes before the court? It would make no sense to stop all progress in this trial for that, that would be a dangerous precedent, right?

Re the omnibus motions to dismiss the DP: do you think this is just another desperate attempt to dismiss the DP, by lumping them all together, even though he's been rejected time after time? Isn't there some point at which the court should make him stop if he's not presenting different justifications?

Oh, sure, I think the penalty phase will continue even while this motion is being decided.

This seems to be a motion by numerous defendants in numerous cases, so it probably has nothing to do with JA's specific circumstances at all. In which case it's a different motion than Nurmi has filed before.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think it may be the second.
Do you know how often this is done and who pays for it?
Thank You.

The second what?

 

[Colie]

Your second opinion about a group filing a motion. Sorry.

 

[AZlawyer]

Your second opinion about a group filing a motion. Sorry.

Oh! OK. Then I know it has happened several times in Maricopa County alone. Not too long ago the defense bar tried to get the entire County Attorney's office disqualified from all cases IIRC.

 

[gcharlie]

Oh! OK. Then I know it has happened several times in Maricopa County alone. Not too long ago the defense bar tried to get the entire County Attorney's office disqualified from all cases IIRC.

Back in 2010, there was a motion which joined more that 26 defendants. At the core of the motion was problems with Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. He resigned on April 6, 2010, so the basis for the argument was moot.

So what is the climate in Maricopa County that could bring about a similar action now? I haven't seen anything in the news to explain this and the originating motion has not been made public yet.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Questions BBM.

1. Recording and broadcasting a privileged communication is a problem under the rule whether it's during a hearing or in the hallway on a break. Makes no difference.

2. As well as whom? If there is such a person, they apparently have been called as a witness by the defense, so Nurmi/Willmott would be the primary questioners, and JM on cross.

Thanks AZL! Everything is IMO, and JMO....FTR (I'm all legal-like)

1. Ah! -if the rule is any communication (even though JA's face isn't seen), sounds like they should probably focus on the state seal, or JA & crew should face the Judge or something during sidebars when they pan out and away from the bench (but there were sooo many.... It does seem as though they make a concerted effort not to film the lawyers speaking to anyone. If anyone speaking to JA counts, then it sounds like they should be pointed away from bench and anywhere but at JA?
I wonder why Nurmi didn't kick up a fuss about that during trial? - (she spoke to MDLR, Sherrif's Officers, etc - pretty much anyone in earshot, regularly during sidebars), and seems very aware of cameras (JA never faces the camera at the hearing, but wrist brace does)?
It made me wonder why this became a sticking point now (also why I thought mystery witness could be MDLR)?

2. In addition to Juan, as to the whom - I had asked if the whole Mystery Witness/Secret Courtroom could have been because a minor was being discussed, and if that minor or family could testify in rebuttal in open court . IOW, secrecy thing could speak about a minor, and be permitted in secret for that reason, but could later be addressed, not in secret, by the State.
It's disturbing on many levels, but it occurred to me later that both sides would have to question, such a rebuttal witness, so that was the 'in addition to whom' - I don't think the mystery witness is a minor.

I dearly hope this is not the reason for secrecy, but can't think of many reasons it would be allowed - I don't think JSS lost her mind, and I do think if she allowed it she had a legal reason (and yes, I have given this far too much thought).

3. Thanks Again!

 

[AZlawyer]

Back in 2010, there was a motion which joined more that 26 defendants. At the core of the motion was problems with Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. He resigned on April 6, 2010, so the basis for the argument was moot.

So what is the climate in Maricopa County that could bring about a similar action now? I haven't seen anything in the news to explain this and the originating motion has not been made public yet.

Boytwnmom mentioned maybe it was about the lethal injection drugs not working correctly. Who knows. There's nothing "big" that I'm aware of, but when I get together with defense attorneys we don't talk about their cases.

Thanks AZL! Everything is IMO, and JMO....FTR (I'm all legal-like)

1. Ah! -if the rule is any communication (even though JA's face isn't seen), sounds like they should probably focus on the state seal, or JA & crew should face the Judge or something during sidebars when they pan out and away from the bench (but there were sooo many.... It does seem as though they make a concerted effort not to film the lawyers speaking to anyone. If anyone speaking to JA counts, then it sounds like they should be pointed away from bench and anywhere but at JA?
I wonder why Nurmi didn't kick up a fuss about that during trial? - (she spoke to MDLR, Sherrif's Officers, etc - pretty much anyone in earshot, regularly during sidebars), and seems very aware of cameras (JA never faces the camera at the hearing, but wrist brace does)?
It made me wonder why this became a sticking point now (also why I thought mystery witness could be MDLR)?

2. In addition to Juan, as to the whom - I had asked if the whole Mystery Witness/Secret Courtroom could have been because a minor was being discussed, and if that minor or family could testify in rebuttal in open court . IOW, secrecy thing could speak about a minor, and be permitted in secret for that reason, but could later be addressed, not in secret, by the State.
It's disturbing on many levels, but it occurred to me later that both sides would have to question, such a rebuttal witness, so that was the 'in addition to whom' - I don't think the mystery witness is a minor.

I dearly hope this is not the reason for secrecy, but can't think of many reasons it would be allowed - I don't think JSS lost her mind, and I do think if she allowed it she had a legal reason (and yes, I have given this far too much thought).

3. Thanks Again!

Maybe Nurmi has more people reporting to him now about the media, since "mistrial by media" is his current theme. Or maybe Maria told him the camera was pointing at her the whole time (she seemed very aware of it).

 

[APT]

It's random.



It used to be 20-25 years. I heard it was down now, so maybe 15?

Thanks! Wow, that's definitely much sooner than I thought. Good!

 

[garthmax]

Would the prosecution be able to use the video tapes CMJA used after her conviction? Especially the ones in which she states she has no mitigating factors according to her defense attorney. Also, how do you think the Court of Appeals is going to feel about the secret witness being Jodi Arias, if in fact that is the secret witness?