04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[rose222]

You guys..I have posted this several times but am going to do so again as it is pertinent.

State v. Andriano, STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wendi Elizabeth ANDRIANO, Appellant.

"We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.”  135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856 (1983);  see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 29, 126 P.3d 148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or-nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction);  State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that lesser-included offense instructions were not required where evidence at trial and defendant's self-defense theory presented an “either-or” situation requiring either first degree murder conviction or acquittal)."


Even in the unlikely situation where this Judge does allow the jury to consider lesser offences I have this unshakeable faith in JM. He will do everything to make this very smart jury understand what really happened. And the jurors have the option of felony murder as well. As JM said Travis would have considered JA to be an unwanted person in his house after the first stab wound.

Don't worry. Surrebuttal if there is one thing will not take long. JM will not let us down even if the unlikely event that lesser charges are an option.

 

[spcagrl]

I don't understand, is this the DT's surrebuttal?

Yes....but........he had KEYNOTES!!!!!!:floorlaugh:

 

[Arabian Girl]

Litigatrix,

Because JM has BOTH premeditated and felony murder as counts, do you see a conviction there? I've been told the jury can be mixed between the two and it still adds up to Murder One.

 

[nic2200]

The DT had JA's jail visitors sealed. Maybe this Dr was their 'hail mary, ace in the hole' if the trial wasn't going well. They couldn't exactly stand up and say that 'our 2 experts bombed so let us try another'. They had to introduce the 3rd Dr on rebuttal. He may have already talked to JA months/weeks/days ago. Maybe when JA was ill or on the weekends.

If this Dr. was willing to testify, he would have been way more credible than ALV, so I don't understand why they just didn't use him in the first place. That is what is confusing.

 

[joypath]

I've read a lot of autopsy reports and I've never seen the level, or amount of sperm that remains in a body. It's not related to the death, so I've never seen it "looked at" so to speak.

BBM


:blushing: Me too, and written a few..... but for the record, it's the seminal fluid/prostatic ejaculate that we're rather interested in IF it becomes an issue in a death investigation. There are those pesky killer/rapists :banghead: who believe that a vasectomy :blushing: "saves" :blushing: them from detection.....but not so much! And now that we have the tool of DNA analysis, those "little swimmers" aren't ALWAYS critical any longer, either! :rocker::rocker:

 

[KathrynL]

In case anyone's interested, the charge requested is at p. 105 of this link

http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf

Thanks much for the link. I see the charge states that words alone are not sufficient provocation under the charge. I know JA laid it on thick with both the words she attributed to TA, and the choking/slapping/wrist-grabbing in the past and the infamous Tinkerbell linebacker tackle on the day she murdered him. With everything in front of the jury (interrogation video, 48 Hours, JA's testibaloney, etc) I would hope the jury wouldn't go for this Hail Mary defense pass. Also that they will notice the obvious shift in the defense theory and see it for what it is. I will be :scared: until I hear a nice 1st degree murder verdict-hopefully sometime before I die of old age.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I can see that.
Who gets into a sudden quarrel in the shower unless both parties are in there fighting over the shower head or first dibs at shampoo though.
One good thing about this crazy new development is that JA can never accuse her DT of being ineffective or not giving her all shots at a good defense.

Look at this Dr. qualification. I think Jodi's family is throwing itself under the bus on child abuse/family violence etc. He's going to tell us how that affected Jodi and her brain and how she reacted to Travis's "body slam". It's going to be the same except Jodi "snapped" through no fault of her own, so where's the gun and knife in this new revelation?

 

[Nhic]

Now that JM knows who this surrebuttal witness is, he'll also know what he's going to testify about (discovery). Sooooooo, can JM head the guy off at the pass during JM's rebuttal case, effectively destroying what the DT's new witness plans to say? (thereby preventing a surrebuttal)

 

[Arabian Girl]

You guys..I have posted this several times but am going to do so again as it is pertinent.

State v. Andriano, STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wendi Elizabeth ANDRIANO, Appellant.

"We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.”  135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856 (1983);  see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 29, 126 P.3d 148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or-nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction);  State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that lesser-included offense instructions were not required where evidence at trial and defendant's self-defense theory presented an “either-or” situation requiring either first degree murder conviction or acquittal)."


Even in the unlikely situation where this Judge does allow the jury to consider lesser offences I have this unshakeable faith in JM. He will do everything to make this very smart jury understand what really happened. And the jurors have the option of felony murder as well. As JM said Travis would have considered JA to be an unwanted person in his house after the first stab wound.

Don't worry. Surrebuttal if there is one thing will not take long. JM will not let us down even if the unlikely event that lesser charges are an option.

Thanks Much!! Let's not forget who the prosecutor was here! I think this is why JM refused to negotiated also, he probably saw this coming. Thanks again.

:drumroll:

 

[YESorNO]

Agree .. I want to see her face when they recommend it, and then again when the Judge imposes it .. just to see her expression when she knows that every single thing she said was disbelieved and that she LOST the case after all her lies, and to know that the jury wants her DEAD and the judge agrees, and that that's what people think of her for doing what she did .. etc etc etc .. I just want the satisfaction of Jodi losing as much as anyone can possibly lose after such a despicable defence strategy for such a despicable crime.

And yes, of course then to be on Death Row .. which actually means just her hanging out with three other chicks who are as just bad as she is (one's a double murderer, one killed a young boy, the other one killed her husband because she couldn't wait for him to die of cancer) and the only way she'll be able to communicate with them anyway is limited because there'll be no hanging in the day room playing cards for Jodi anymore, it'll be herself, a TV, and a couple of cr*ppy novels for the rest of her life

:rocker: , :rocker: , and :rocker:

 

[spcagrl]

A reminder to those who weren't here earlier today. :yes:

YIKES! I just got here for the evening. I promise to be good. Really.

 

[kaydono]

Litigatrix,

Because JM has BOTH premeditated and felony murder as counts, do you see a conviction there? I've been told the jury can be mixed between the two and it still adds up to Murder One.

I researched that fact last night. Interesting read. I never knew that before, that there could be a split in the jury votes, regarding guilt for first degree murder and felony murder. I always assumed it had to be unanimous. but with thee two options, the punishment included the DP. Learn something knew everyday.

 

[Mellinyce]

11.03A2
−
Manslaughter by Sudden Quarrel
or Heat of Passion
The crime of manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion requires proof that:
1.
a. The defendant intentionally killed another person;
or
b. The defendant caused the death of another person by conduct which the
defendant knew would cause death or serious physical injury;
or
c. Under circumstances which showed an extreme indifference to human life, the
defendant caused the death of another person by consciously disregarding a
grave risk of death. The risk must be such that disregarding it
was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have done;
and
2. The defendant acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion;
and
3. The sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulted from adequate provocation by the
person who was killed.
[It is no defense that the defendant was unaware of the risk solely by reason of
intoxication.]
“Adequate provocation” means conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive a
reasonable person of self control. Words alone are not adequate provocation to justify
reducing an intentional killing to manslaughter. [There must not have been a “cooling off”
period between the provocation and the killing. A “cooling off” period is the time it would
take a reasonable person to regain selfcontrol under the circumstances.]
[
If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or
manslaughter but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the
defendant guilty of manslaughter

Words alone are NOT ADEQUATE PROVOCATION to justify reducing an intentional killing to manslaughter!!! She so corrected JW so many times that he said "Effing kill you B*" AFTER she had already started rolling/running away and according to this...The sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulted from adequate provocation by the
person who was killed. AND There must not have been a “cooling off”
period between the provocation and the killing. A “cooling off” period is the time it would
take a reasonable person to regain selfcontrol under the circumstances.][/B][/B]

 

[nic2200]

I'm curious, can you see a Felony Murder conviction?

Of course! I think this is Murder 1 all the way and if I were on the jury, that would be my vote. I also think it's pre-med, but we'll see how well that is proven over the next week. Either way, it's some form of Murder 1 in my mind.

I was simply trying to say, if the jury didn't believe self-defense, but they didn't feel that this qualified as Murder 1.... the lesser charge is Murder 2. I just don't even see how manslaughter comes into play based on anything that is being presented in the case.

But as others had said, this was probably going to be requested by the DT no matter what happened up until this point as another "out". If that makes sense.

 

[travelgal]

Speaking of "gas cans" -- I posted this earlier today here :

But did anyone see Mike Galanos' on HLN demonstration of the three 5-gallon cans ?

OMG -- those gas cans are much bigger than I thought ...

Seriously, I wish Mr. Martinez would bring in THREE 5-gallon cans to show the jury ... it really surprised me how big they are, and when you see 3 of them, it will clearly prove that she did NOT want to stop for gas in Arizona !

:moo:[/QUOTE]

I realize there are many WS'ers that have negative opinions about HLN but it is all I have to follow the court proceedings. Anyway, my point is that many of their demo-experiments would be very helpful to JM. They had a young woman Jody's size demonstrate moving a 200 lb dummy from the bedroom door to the shower and it was very interesting. She was winded but she accomplished it. If you haven't seen the mock up of Travis' bathroom on HLN - it is worth checking out. MOO

 

[rose222]

Interesting little nugget from the Wendi Andriano case (one of JM's case)

"Linda Percy (a juror), 63, a Realtor in Gilbert, said the trial devastated her business life. It prevented her from visiting her ailing 97-year-old grandmother in West Virginia in October.

"It deprived me of a chance to see her" before she died, Percy said. She sent her son as a substitute. Percy said that finding Andriano guilty of first-degree murder was very easy. She did not believe Andriano was a battered woman, saying that nearly any relationship qualified as abusive under defense expert Sharon Murphy's definition"

Isn't this applicable here? ALV said it was ok if JA had lied about the physical abuse, pedophilia etc. The few instances of name-calling (judged without context) were enough! I bet the jurors are laughing at this BS.

 

[Nezumi]

If this Dr. was willing to testify, he would have been way more credible than ALV, so I don't understand why they just didn't use him in the first place. That is what is confusing.

That's what makes me think that he won't be testifying about anything other than Dr. D's testing methods or conclusions.

 

[Jeffssis]

You guys..I have posted this several times but am going to do so again as it is pertinent.

State v. Andriano, STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wendi Elizabeth ANDRIANO, Appellant.

"We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.”  135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856 (1983);  see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 29, 126 P.3d 148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or-nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction);  State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that lesser-included offense instructions were not required where evidence at trial and defendant's self-defense theory presented an “either-or” situation requiring either first degree murder conviction or acquittal)."


Even in the unlikely situation where this Judge does allow the jury to consider lesser offences I have this unshakeable faith in JM. He will do everything to make this very smart jury understand what really happened. And the jurors have the option of felony murder as well. As JM said Travis would have considered JA to be an unwanted person in his house after the first stab wound.

Don't worry. Surrebuttal if there is one thing will not take long. JM will not let us down even if the unlikely event that lesser charges are an option.

If so, then why would the defense go with the self defense defense? (Yipes!) Anyway, such an all or nothing seems like a risk with so much evidence to indicate otherwise. As I'm typing, I guess I answered my own question. I truly hope that what is above is followed by this judge.

 

[joypath]

I would NOT want to be the new witness having a DEPO at this point in the trial process with JM......................NO WAY! I don't care HOW much per hour, it would NOT be worth it to face a depo and THEN the CROSS....NOPE!

 

[katiedid2]

You guys..I have posted this several times but am going to do so again as it is pertinent.

State v. Andriano, STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wendi Elizabeth ANDRIANO, Appellant.

"We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.”  135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856 (1983);  see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 29, 126 P.3d 148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or-nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction);  State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that lesser-included offense instructions were not required where evidence at trial and defendant's self-defense theory presented an “either-or” situation requiring either first degree murder conviction or acquittal)."


Even in the unlikely situation where this Judge does allow the jury to consider lesser offences I have this unshakeable faith in JM. He will do everything to make this very smart jury understand what really happened. And the jurors have the option of felony murder as well. As JM said Travis would have considered JA to be an unwanted person in his house after the first stab wound.

Don't worry. Surrebuttal if there is one thing will not take long. JM will not let us down even if the unlikely event that lesser charges are an option.

Rose
Thank you for posting that. If there is surbuttal wilmott will drag it on for months. They don't know when to stop, I've never seen any team work that slow?
Plus this jury has been hanging In for four months! How will this affect them? To wait another four months.