Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[Madeleine74]

If I am remembering correctly she only gets one appeal that the state will pay for.

Not sure what happens for an indigent defendant who wants to appeal upwards if they lose at the CoA level. Maybe AZLawyer can clarify.

FYI, here's the verbiage about indigent defendants and appeals.

Rule 5. Appeals by Indigents

a. A defendant who had appointed counsel at the determination of guilt or at sentencing may proceed on appeal as an indigent without further authorization, unless the trial court finds that the defendant is no longer indigent or the punishment imposed did not result in a loss of liberty.

 

[jojo87]

And the ones who are not dangerous should NOT have to be subjected to Jodi Arias!

Absolutely. But they will be. Even though there are regulations regarding classification and security due to overcrowding in Arizona some Max security inmates are assigned cellmates. Despite security inmates will make weapons out of every day things including their own body fluids. Prison is a dangerous place especially in Arizona.

 

[summer4meplz]

I haven't got the patience (or frankly, the interest) to keep reading about this trial much longer. I appear to be one of the only people on the whole internet who thinks that the mistrial was sad, and frustrating, but acceptable and that JSS will give JA the maximum possible sentence.

Just briefly, can anyone tell me: what exactly do you want out of prosecuting Juror #17 if the official investigation proves she's guilty of perjury in jury selection? JA will never be eligible for the death penalty again.

I want any potential juror that thinks about lying to get on a case, to stop and remember what happened to J17 and her cohorts when they did it....

 

[Steve44]

I don't know why anyone would want to hire them for the simple reason that they've done everything they can to string out the trial and garner large paychecks for themselves. If you retained them, you'd be paying for a lot of doing nothing, getting some bogus "experts", and filing bogus motions.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Exactly right, this case was high profile and we're talking about the RETRIAL of the penalty phase, so stealth jurors were always a huge risk, we were talking about the possibility of stealth jurors here all the way though, so why didn't his office do some fine tooth (or even not so fine tooth) checking on the final 20, at the very least? The second it was discovered her first husband was prosecuted by Juan inside a day of their wedding she would have been history, no questions asked. If Twitter could have uncovered her past and connection to Juan within hours of learning her name, then of course the prosecutors office could have. There is just no denying it. Prosecution fail.

IMO there should be full background screening on jurors in DP cases, period. If I want a pass from TSA (Homeland security) so I can use the expedited security system at an airport, they do considerable scrutiny- surely Jurors should undergo some similar checks. As it is we are reliant on people who may lie in order to get on a high profile case, or just omit essential information as it seems Juror 17 did.......

 

[Renee110]

He's feverishly writing as we speak. LOL :lookingitup:

You mean he's feverishly trying to find a way to make it believable? Because if he just used what has really happened in this trial, readers of his book would scoff and say this is stupid. This wouldn't happen in REAL life!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

IMO there should be full background screening on jurors in DP cases, period. If I want a pass from TSA (Homeland security) so I can use the expedited security system at an airport, they do considerable scrutiny- surely Jurors should undergo some similar checks. As it is we are reliant on people who may lie in order to get on a high profile case, or just omit essential information as it seems Juror 17 did.......

Yep, that sounds reasonable, there should be no assumption that all potential jurors are telling the truth during voir dire, especially in a case like this.

 

[Kamille]

Are you feeling worried that Perryville, which houses MAXIMUM security inmates, doesn't know how to properly classify, contain, and control their prisoners? Arias will be assigned to a maximum security status and she will have to earn her way out of that. One would think Arias is the only murderer that prison has ever dealt with. I bet they know more about controlling murderers than Sheriff Joe.

It appears that none of the murderers currently housed in Perryville have the level of pure manipulation that JA has. None of them had a 3 million dollar, 7 year trial due to their own psychopathy. She's in a class all her own.

MOO

 

[GigiG]

Nice to be able to see the Jurors speaking out. Three Jurors showing their faces. There's the cowboy hat, and he seems like a very sincere man. More Jurors will be speaking tomorrow.

I just want to take a moment say Thank You Jurors.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...ideo-jodi-arias-jurors-weigh-in-on-sentencing

BBM

If he was the one she was flirting with, so glad he saw right through her. In fact, it makes me happy that none of the men were Zervakos types. Hope she got the message that her "charms" no longer work.

 

[Steve44]

Steve44, please forgive me for not going back to quote your post.

Donovan was one of the first people that was tweeting for JA. The phone calls between the two would result in Donovan tweeting for JA. However, once JA was a felon Donovan was no longer allowed to have contact with her since she was herself on parole. My guess is that she is no longer on parole since she was once again in court for this retrial.

I'm sure that if I am misremembering this someone will chime in!

I think soon she'll have more pressing concerns than publishing her manifesto in a series of sad and desperate tweets.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

A liar and saboteur only assassinates their own character. She has no one to blame but herself.

I suppose I would rather wait until that is proven, rather than posting untruths about someone.

 

[Madeleine74]

It appears that none of the murderers currently housed in Perryville have the level of pure manipulation that JA has. None of them had a 3 million dollar, 7 year trial due to their own psychopathy. She's in a class all her own.

It's true none of those other murderers had multiple defense attorneys and then ended up with Nurmi & Wilmott at those high $$ hourly fees, who were determined to do anything they possibly could to defend their client to the ends of the earth, no matter what, and no matter how aggressive or slimy they needed to get. DP cases do cost more to legislate. Regardless of how psychopathic the killer was (is), her defense team simply would not give up and they were fine with creating delay after delay for years. None of those other murderers had JSS as their judge either. Perfect Storm.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I have some questions for those in the legal community. These 'Mitigation specialists' - what credentials and experience are required for this job? Any formal qualification? Are they licensed or regulated by any local or Government body? Is their performance monitored by the Bar Assn? Is there a system whereby the public can complain about unprofessional behavior ? What are their professional standards and scope of practice? Or are they self anointed 'experts'?

 

[panthera]

Yep, it's a hollow "W" on paper only (oh, excuse me, per Nurmi himself - with MDLR smiling in the background - it was a "V" for Victory)

Ugh.

Just like Jose Baez, stooped low, but got the "W" in a high profile case. Makes me sick.

One main difference, however, is that Baez's client was acquitted. Arias is a convicted murderer. Just because one hold-out or rogue juror in the second sentencing phase decided not to go with the other 11 and vote for the DP doesn't equate anywhere near a win or victory for this defense team.

MOO

 

[Boytwnmom]

as you can bring a suit against a person where that person lives and you don't also have to live there as you are submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of that court by filing suit. The standing issue is in terms of whether the individual has a legally protectable interest that lets them bring the controversy.

First, there is immunity for all parties in a juridical proceeding. This goes back to before we were a country

King v. Skinner, Lofft 55, 56, 98 Eng. Rep. 529, 530 (K. B. 1772), where Lord Mansfield observed that "neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or Judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office."

. There are exceptions where one can argue immunity should not apply. That may be possible here in the case of the juror's perjury for example. But her perjury, if proved, is not really legally related to what I assume is the underlying claim/issue here.

And that goes to the biggest issue.What is the cause of action? You can only bring a civil case. But the alleged "harm" is essentially not getting the DP for JA because of this juror. But there is no legal right to the DP or even to a verdict. Even if it were for "failing to deliberate in good faith" or something there is still no cause of action available. Civil actions are set out in AZ statutes. You can look but I don't think you'll find one that encompasses the situation here. Even things like intentional infliction of emotional distress have to be attached to an underlying cause of action. That's why you can't just sue someone who upsets you. They have to do something that's legally actionable.

Even if you could make up a cause of action There is no remedy available. No civil action can reach the criminal process. The criminal result exists independently and can not be affected.

So, I don't see any civil actions on the part of the family against anything to do with the criminal trial. They will sue JA for wrongful death and ensure she can't profit from any earnings. That's really all they can do. And I really doubt they want to start suing jurors anyway.

Or maybe I lack creativity. We can ask AZL. Maybe AZ has something novel.

I'm not positive this is a question for an attorney, but I doubt that the Alexanders have standing for a suit against a juror. They may be able to sue the State of AZ but while being victims, they are not citizens of AZ. The people of AZ are the prosecutors, and they are the ones cheated if judicial error occurred. It's messy. The people of AZ could maybe indict the juror on perjury, but I do not think that this is a civil issue. (LOL confusing myself!) Wheres AZ Layer? Help! JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I have some questions for those in the legal community. These 'Mitigation specialists' - what credentials and experience are required for this job? Any formal qualification? Are they licensed or regulated by any local or Government body? Is their performance monitored by the Bar Assn? Is there a system whereby the public can complain about unprofessional behavior ? What are their professional standards and scope of practice? Or are they self anointed 'experts'?

I'm not in the legal field, but I did look up what Maricopa County requires to become a mitigation specialist.

2.1.1.1.2

To qualify for a mitigation specialist contract with Maricopa County, contractor shall fully meet the qualifications of Rule 15.9 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 15.9 defines a mitigation specialist as:
- a person qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, or other training as a mental health or sociology professional, to investigate, evaluate and present psycho-social and other mitigation evidence.

Indicia of qualifications under Rule 15.9 are as follows:

2.1.1.1.2.1

Applicant shall possess either:
2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Fifteen (15) years of experience working as a mitigation specialist or fifteen (15) years of experience in mental health services; social services; or juvenile and/or adult probation services;

2.1.1.1.2.1.2 Bachelor’s degree (or higher degree) in social work or social services, nursing, psychology, education, counseling, criminal justice, or related field(s); and five (5) years experience as a mitigation specialist.

 

[Steve44]

Describe oneself as 'cougarlicious' on your CV.....

"...but not too much change."

 

[ZsaZsa]

I'm not in the legal field, but I did look up what Maricopa County requires to become a mitigation specialist.

2.1.1.1.2

To qualify for a mitigation specialist contract with Maricopa County, contractor shall fully meet the qualifications of Rule 15.9 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 15.9 defines a mitigation specialist as:
- a person qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, or other training as a mental health or sociology professional, to investigate, evaluate and present psycho-social and other mitigation evidence.

Indicia of qualifications under Rule 15.9 are as follows:

2.1.1.1.2.1

Applicant shall possess either:
2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Fifteen (15) years of experience working as a mitigation specialist or fifteen (15) years of experience in mental health services; social services; or juvenile and/or adult probation services;

2.1.1.1.2.1.2 Bachelor’s degree (or higher degree) in social work or social services, nursing, psychology, education, counseling, criminal justice, or related field(s); and five (5) years experience as a mitigation specialist.

OK thanks- So Mitigation specialists are not licensed per se, as a Paralegal would be - then I'm trying to find if MDLR is licensed in any of those listed professions....

 

[dog.gone.cute]

JAII has removed the 11 jurors' names.
Someone must be feeling some heat.

It isn't enough that they just removed the names.
Someone needs to be prosecuted for putting them up in the first place.

:seeya:

1st BBM: GOOD ! And I sure hope that heat is really hot !

I was reading somewhere today -- not sure IF I can link here, but it's interesting that Sandy Arias made an "appearance" at the JAII site the day before the mistrial announcement was made. And even more interesting is the last thing she wrote in that post was "We got this" !

2nd BBM: JMO but I have no doubt that it was MDLR who leaked those names to the JAII site ... The former "Cougarlicious" has her paw-prints everywhere in this. Another JMO but I will NOT be surprised to find out some sort of "connection" with MLDR and Juror #17 ... MOO !

The State should have FIRED her a long time ago for her unethical and unprofessional behavior.

Juan KNOWS what MDLR was up to and it was brought out in court ... but I sure hope that the State is thoroughly investigating MLDR's shenanigans and ALL of her trails on social media.

Maybe ... just maybe IF they would have gotten rid of her when she was sneaking art in and out of the :jail: for JA, setting up 3rd party phone calls with the killer, tweeting FROM the courtroom, etc., maybe things would be different right now.

:moo:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Oh my!!!! What a way to end a career with DOC.



http://archive.azcentral.com/commun...ex-inmate-state-prison-van-goodyear-abrk.html