04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[Paintr]

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.

I think she'll allow it for fear of appeals. The manslaughter was always going to be offered regardless if this DR testifies or not.

 

[Sleuth5]

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.

Me too, and me neither! I can't see much beyond bolstering PTSD/Abuse claims from the new guy. Maybe they have something else in mind, but his expertise doesn't argue for a direct challenge on the BPD.

 

[Allyne Smithe]

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

The only stories I recall from TA's friends such as Clancy Talbott (about sleeping under the Christmas tree) weren't addressed in court, afaik.

Page 6 of Detective Flores' Investigation Supplement Report summarizes his interview with Marie Hall:

"She didn't know too much about Jodi, other than what she learned tonight. She learned that she was kind of obsessive and that she had manipulated Travis' facebook account. She also mentioned hearing that Jodi would get into the house through the doggie door without being invited. She described Jodi as a "stalker ex-girlfriend. Marie said she was actually kind of worried about her, because she was obsessive. She had also heard that Jodi had stolen some of his personal journals and they [sic] had recently taken some pages of his new book he was writing. She knew Travis spoke to Jodi sometime last week. Travis called Jodi, because he caught her hacking into one of his email or Facebook accounts and confronted her about it. Other than this she knew very little about Jodi Arias."

JA described the doggie door as installed in the sliding glass door, that the sliding door butted up to the doggie door but wasn't locked. Meaning she could walk in the sliding door.

Here's a photo of TA's doggie door showing the tiny 8" x 11" opening of the doggie door that it was probably impossible for her to fit through. But she could still walk in the sliding door that abutted it.

<modsnip>

 

[lil_buddy]

How do you guys know this geffner never met with JA?

 

[Nezumi]

Given the requirements for "heat of passion/sudden quarrel" and in light of the testimony so far, I don't think the jury is going to buy this version either.

****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&#8217;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.]
&#8220;Adequate provocation&#8221; 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 &#8220;cooling off&#8221; period between the provocation and the killing. A &#8220;cooling off&#8221; period is the time it would take a reasonable person to regain self-control under the circumstances.]

 

[Arabian Girl]

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.

Because there is an auto appeal on a DP conviction, is a Judge perhaps more likely to stand firm on the law?? This JSS seems to have been quite generous with the DT so far, is this any measure?

 

[Phesey]

I have a "feeling" ALV, Samuels, and Geffner all work in the same circle. JMO

I wonder if they site each other as sources in their books. Of if they quote each there. I'll never know because I'll never read their books, or articles, or anything.

 

[PPKik]

I feel the same way. I am generally happy to have someone thrown in jail for their natural lives and count that justice. But the more I see her smug face and watch the DT smear TA's name, the more I want her to get the DP. I actually don't even care if she is ultimately executed. I just want to know that she is in solitary for 23 hours a day, with no one to manipulate. Hopefully the jury feels the same.

I agree with your post, but I don't think if she gets the DP there will be no one to manipulate.
Her appeals will go on, surely, for way more than a decade and she has achieved so much notoriety, I'm not so sure it would stop. It might even increase. She would be in solitary, but she will be getting lots of attention. That causes me to be torn on her ultimate punishment, assuming she is found guilty of the most heinous charges.

 

[sammie]

The DT knows that she won't be acquitted. They want to offer the jury a 'compromise' verdict. They are hoping that the jury will not all agree on 1st degree and will settle on lesser charge. It is possible.

I think I heard one of the talking head lawyers on HLN state that if the votes are split and The jury can't come to unanimous agreement that in Arizona , the law requires them to go with the lesser charge.

 

[EquallyDivided]

Pshaw, with her spidery long arms she could have reached through the doggie door and unlocked the sliding door.

 

[Paintr]

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.

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.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Several of us last week about this. hope this helps.


Plus she came bouncing in and announced herself as Travis's girlfriend and he said nope not all all and there is no room at the inn. And she stayed that's what gets me. I would of been so embarrassed,but then again I wouldn't do anything that stupid.
__________________
ILTBP

 

[Litigatrix]

Because there is an auto appeal on a DP conviction, is a Judge perhaps more likely to stand firm on the law?? This JSS seems to have been quite generous with the DT so far, is this any measure?

In my opinion JSS has been TOO lenient with the DT, almost to the exclusion of reason. I think she is more likely to grant this motion because it is one of the few areas that the DT has pursued that is pretty "black and white." If the reviewing court finds that the testimony should have been allowed, then the conviction is reversed. Period. So I fear that she will err on the side of caution.

 

[nic2200]

The DT knows that she won't be acquitted. They want to offer the jury a 'compromise' verdict. They are hoping that the jury will not all agree on 1st degree and will settle on lesser charge. It is possible.

The lesser charge is Murder 2 if the jury does not believe the self-defense story, but also doesn't believe this qualifies for Murder 1. I can't see in what universe, based on what is being presented in this case, manslaughter fits the picture. If you believe it was self defense, she is acquitted. If you believe it was not self defense, it is some form of murder. She didn't accidentally shoot him in the head, slit his throat, and stab him 29 times not understanding he would be dead after that.

I just think the DT is grasping at straws.

 

[Sleuth5]

Given the requirements for "heat of passion/sudden quarrel" and in light of the testimony so far, I don't think the jury is going to buy this version either.

****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 self-control under the circumstances.]

Thanks, Nezumi. And given that the DT has utterly and completely failed thusfar to prove sufficient grounds to believe that she was in imminent fear for her life and thus justified to exercise deadly force against Travis as per her self-defense claim, this one must by definition fail for the same reason.

 

[tss]

It was my understanding that the Judge initially told the jury that their services would be required until April 12. That was the day that #11 was let go due to "illness". I don't buy the Judge's explanation for this juror's departure, but she probably was not at liberty to tell the public what really happened. Juror #11's employer might have told him that he would lose his job if he didn't return by a certain date.

As time passes, I fear that other jurors might also be forced to leave for one reason or another. I was hoping that Judge Stephens would have discussed this aspect of the trial with the attorneys during the status hearing last Friday. This trial has got to move forward, and it should not be up to the DT to stall for their own purposes. Needless to say, this irks me no end :furious:, but I don't think that the Judge will deny the defense's request.

""""""""" I don't think that the Judge will deny the defense's request"""""""""

I sure hope you're right...but based on past performance, past rulings, this DefTeam has been allowed to have virtual control of this court room and trial

many rulings given to the Def were seen as surprises that they got in (the Ped the biggest, based solely on words coming out of JA's mouth), and the State has not been allowed in so much, even her display of her finger cut by the "Ninjas" knife...its like Facts are not allowed in, too prejudicial appears to equal too obvious. I was hoping the judge was setting new rules in that meeting with both sides the other day, to get this moving faster, 1-hour lunch, prompt starts @ 9:30am, etc., etc.

>>>Underlining your note re: the Jurors and Apr 12 is what they were told as max
>>>they must view the judge as giving in to them easily
>>>Extending is viewed as a Positive for the Def
>>>might also be a play to see if Now JM would settle for 2nd degree, which they previously offered
>>>this trial is likely near $2 million now, do all DP cases in Arizona treated this way?

BTW: I spent a lot of today looking back because I only started watching a few weeks ago, so many questions, and so much I missed, so much these Jurors don't know and will never know until its over

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Something else which may make life a little difficult for Jodi on Death Row .. one of her new friends there is a radical racist .. has an issue with Mexicans, doesn't care if they're second generation either ..

Murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She was a member of the Minuteman Civil Defence Corps:

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is a volunteer group headed by Chris Simcox and dedicated to preventing illegal crossings of the United States border. Arguing that the government is insufficiently concerned with securing the U.S. border,[1] they have organized several state chapters, with the intention of providing law enforcement agencies with evidence of immigration law violations.[2] Simcox states that the group merely reports incidents to law enforcement, and does not directly confront immigrants. There is a standard operating procedure (SOP) that must be followed by Minutemen volunteers. Rules include not speaking to, approaching, gesturing towards or having physical contact in any way with any suspected border crossers they may see.[3] The organization has been criticized as being a right-wing militia.[4] The MCDC is often confused with or thought to be affiliated with The Minuteman Project Inc., but the two groups are wholly distinct.[5] The group was originally co-founded by American neo-Nazi, J. T. Ready.[6]

They asked her to leave however because she was too 'unstable' ..

Interesting times ahead for Jodi on Death Row.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

If "manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion' doesn't work maybe the DT will say that TA tried to steal JA's gas cans from the trunk of her car and she had to murder him to save the gas cans. Version 5

or maybe if the 'gas can' defense doesn't work they can come up with Version 6 and pretty soon JA will be 50+ and still on trial.

:seeya: :floorlaugh::floorlaugh: and I would not be surprised ... lol !

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:

 

[Arabian Girl]

The lesser charge is Murder 2 if the jury does not believe the self-defense story, but also doesn't believe this qualifies for Murder 1. I can't see in what universe, based on what is being presented in this case, manslaughter fits the picture. If you believe it was self defense, she is acquitted. If you believe it was not self defense, it is some form of murder. She didn't accidentally shoot him in the head, slit his throat, and stab him 29 times not understanding he would be dead after that.

I just think the DT is grasping at straws.

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

 

[Nhic]

If the DT was paid by the case instead of the hour, this case would have been over 2 months ago.

I feel sorry for Arizona taxpayers having to foot the bill for this lunacy on the part of the DT.