04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[Sleuth5]

I didn't make this. I got if off some other site.

<modsnip>

Smoking gun. No pun intended.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

BBM: Well if the DT or their "spies" were reading here, I have been saying FOR MONTHS that JA's diagnosis is BPD (ad nauseum, of course).

I bet my lily-white-ones that it is JA herself that is demanding this cockamamey surrebuttal of "Manslaughter by Quarrel" nonsense.

And of course Wilm*tt has to give into her "soul sister" JA's demands while Nurm* sits way back and chuckles.

JA is holding her DT's in an emotional ransome........her DT's are walking on eggshells around her. :scared:

That's what Borderlines do: They control everyone around them. Anyone with whom Jodi comes in contact is subject to manipulation like the pieces on a chess board. Jodi moves everyone around her, getting them into place exactly where she wants them to be. She will pit them one against the other and doesn't care who or how many people get hurt in the process. If you do what Jodi tells you to do, you'll survive the evil chess game, but once you decide to go against her bidding, watch out!

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Judge's chambers when Jodi and her DT are discussing certain issues during the trial. I'm sure that Jodi is in charge and makes darn sure that everyone knows it. :moo:

 

[indycornstalk]

Wait. Hold the phone. This new psychologist the DT wants to testify has never evaluated or even spoken with Jodi?

No yet anyway...I am sure if this Judge grants the Defense this witness, he will be on the first plane to AZ at the expense of the taxpayers of AZ. I can't believe the AZ news media isn't ALL over this case as far as the exorbitant costs this trial is incurring at the cost of the taxpayers of AZ. Why is this woman, Arias being allowed an unlimited budget for her defense when others haven't been afforded the same treatment?

 

[SCSam]

Quoting myself here but did some quick research and wanted to correct myself. Arizona is stricter with regard to surrebuttal. Refusal to allow surrebuttal testimony is only considered reversible error on the rarest of occasions. See the following cases:

The decision whether rebuttal evidence should be admitted is within the sound discretion of the trial court" and "the discretion of the trial court in allowing surrebuttal testimony is even greater." See State v. Steelman, 120 Ariz. 301, 319, 585 P.2d 1213, 1231 (1978).

Evidence that is merely cumulative is generally held inadmissible when proferred as surrebuttal testimony. See State v. Jensen,153 Ariz. 171, 179, 735 P.2d 781, 789 (1987).

And finding that it was reversible error to exclude surrebuttal expert (which may be applicable here):

State v. Talmadge, 196 Ariz. 436, 999 P.2d 192 (2000).

English, please

 

[sammijo]

I didn't make this. I got if off some other site.

<modsnip>

Wow, those definitely do NOT look like Travis' hands in the explicit pic.

 

[EquallyDivided]

I don't understand. Dr. DeMarte testified to rebut the testimony of Samuels and LaViolette. How can the defense bring in someone to re-rebut the testimony of someone who was rebutting the testimony of their witnesses? Couldn't this go on endlessly than?

Seriously confused. #scratchingmyhead

Hold The Phones! I just had an epiphany - and it didn't hurt!

What if the new Defense expert is being brought in the refute Dr. Demarte, and not her findings.

They spent a lot of time arguing practicing vs. licensed, in her credentials. Maybe try to get her testimony thrown out entirely due to perjury?!?!

I can't see a respectable Dr. would hitch his career after the last two failures. Maybe he's there to argue semantics!?

 

[LinasK]

I'm trying to find witness testimony other than Dr. DeMarte about the doggie door and Christmas tree incidents. I listened again to Mimi Hall's testimony from the first day, but she did not make these assertions.


Sent from my hippocampus using Tapatalk

It was Clancy Talbot who told it on one of HLN's talk shows.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Wow, those definitely do NOT look like Travis' hands in the explicit pic.

It's totally Daryl ..

 

[SweetT]

I hope those juror instructions include that the jury should not consider mental illness or ptsd etc in deciding if Jodi is guilty of premeditated murder..as those factors would be addressed later in the punishment/sentencing/mitigating factors phase. These problems I feel should not be brought up before she is found guilty...it is biased and confuses the jurors. IMO

 

[YESorNO]

Why not subpoena Nancy Grace while they are at it?? It would liven up the testimony. That's for sure. I would pay to see JW cross examine Nancy.

:laughcry: Nancy would ython: on JW. :floorlaugh:

 

[bznbear]

Quoting myself here but did some quick research and wanted to correct myself. Arizona is stricter with regard to surrebuttal. Refusal to allow surrebuttal testimony is only considered reversible error on the rarest of occasions. See the following cases:

The decision whether rebuttal evidence should be admitted is within the sound discretion of the trial court" and "the discretion of the trial court in allowing surrebuttal testimony is even greater." See State v. Steelman, 120 Ariz. 301, 319, 585 P.2d 1213, 1231 (1978).

Evidence that is merely cumulative is generally held inadmissible when proferred as surrebuttal testimony. See State v. Jensen,153 Ariz. 171, 179, 735 P.2d 781, 789 (1987).

And finding that it was reversible error to exclude surrebuttal expert (which may be applicable here):

State v. Talmadge, 196 Ariz. 436, 999 P.2d 192 (2000).

Well then, I'd say the DT have had ample opportunity to address anything Dr D said prior to her testimony! This Sounds cumulative to me, but I'm not an attorney.

 

[Litigatrix]

English, please

Sorry! I haven't taken the time to get verified, so I wanted to post specific case information...plus I don't practice in AZ.

Essentially, the only way the defense will be allowed to put on additional witnesses after the prosecution's rebuttal is if there is new evidence introduced that goes to the "heart" of Arias' case. Otherwise, surrebuttal is very rare and the Judge doesn't have to allow it.

 

[getReal]

ETA: Please let me know if there are any margin issues with the pic and I will try to make it smaller.

:floorlaugh: Love your collage of JA (with glasses!!) in all those scenarios! :rocker:

 

[Sleuth5]

It's totally Daryl ..

They are obviously not Travis', that's for sure.

 

[Paintr]

English, please

It's up to the judge.

She decides if this new Dr will just say the same thing as ALV and Dr S only better or if his testimony is necessary to give JA a fair trial.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Me too dog.gone.cute. I do believe that folks have a harder time making black and white decisions when there are too many gray areas given as choice. I also believe that having a person in front of a jury day in and day out for months on end personalizes that person with the jury. It is harder to make a DP verdict in my opinion. I truly became more disgusted with Jodi the longer and more I heard from her and her DT..but I am not sure that the jury feels the same way I do. Plus I feel we know a few more details than they do..since so much was not allowed.
I am truly tired of our Criminal justice system caring more about the killers than it does the victims. Travis did not get a jury to determine his fate..he didnt get to defend himself or tell his story. Jodi gets to do all those things even to the point of lying ...and got to play executioner. Why should she get so much better treatment?

:rocker:

BBM: I agree ... and that is exactly why "manslaughter" should NOT be an option.

All it will do is "confuse" the jurors !

:moo:

 

[SunnyinMO]

JA has been so schooled now by ALV and Samuels in how to portray herself as domestic violence victim and what to say to promote Samuels diagnosis of PTSD ...to put another Dr. on now is another abuse of our judicial system.

 

[Bernina]

 

[kayice]

Good gosh, I've got my toddler grand-son today, who rules the roost (just kidding) but I cannot use the computer when he is awake lest we watch 'GiggleBellies' or 'Baby Einstein'. I'm so behind. Finally, turned the TV to HLN....ugh, playing the filthy sex tape again, thankful baby is fast asleep and Mama is on her way.

The defense is pulling another fast one? Jodi is changing her story again? Jodi has already flipped this case to what her behavior was, not Travis'...I am appalled, this is not justice. Too bad everyone is the court room for Travis could not have T-shirts made in dark blue with the words in bold letters, "LIES, LIES, LIES".

 

[SusieD]

Hold The Phones! I just had an epiphany - and it didn't hurt!

What if the new Defense expert is being brought in the refute Dr. Demarte, and not her findings.

They spent a lot of time arguing practicing vs. licensed, in her credentials. Maybe try to get her testimony thrown out entirely due to perjury?!?!

I can't see a respectable Dr. would hitch his career after the last two failures. Maybe he's there to argue semantics!?

I sort of agree, but realistically JM is not going to put someone on the stand whose credentials are faked. And someone from a licensing board, or a graduate school, not another psychologist would have to testify to that.

I believe he will talk about testing, interpretation and evaluation protocols. I doubt he will be able to mention the name "Jodi Arias." If he tries to testify about her specifically JM's cross will look something like this.

How many hours did you spend evaluating the defendant?

None.

I have nothing further.