Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #4

[Steve44]

Her family have put all her money into trust funds so that it is technically not hers and thus cannot be counted when considering her indigent status.

It's a loophole that in my opinion should not be allowed. If it weren't taxpayer money paying her way no one would care but it is--and because it is, everyone should care.

But they can't use it for anything but appeals and I doubt it will ever get near enough to hire an attorney.

 

[Meemaw12]

@KillersLie: Some might be interested to see the Minutes from Devault's sentencing to get a feel for what one is like. #jodiarias
http://t.co/tFNmQYurhh




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Buttercup117]

Witness #1

could the JAII website be charged with internet harassment of the Alexander Family?

 

[Sweet Fox]

I get that people are passionate about this case and thought JA should get the DP. But I don't understand the speculation and hate towards Juror 17. I haven't seen all the negative things being said backed up in MSM. jmo

I did listen to the audio interview of the jurors. I realize some have said this juror refused to deliberate but I also heard "this juror led the way and wanted to focus on the journals". When the interviewer asked if they thought this juror violated their oath the answer was uhnooooo. They also said the juror had her mind made up from the beginning and if I recall the 11 had their minds made up from the beginning or by the second day.

The difference is the 11 jurors looked at all the evidence and the indisputable facts to reach their conclusion. To the contrary, juror #17 decision was based on a Lifetime movie and Jodi’s self serving journal. Juror #17 refused to review all the other evidence (wouldn’t even look at the autopsy pictures), ignored the facts and failed to deliberated with the rest of the jurors.

 

[Madeleine74]

Or prosecutorial misconduct and I think insufficient assistance of council. None of it's going anywhere in this case, imo.

Ineffective assistance of council is one of the common defense strategies used at the CoA level. Prosecutorial misconduct was the basis for some motions during trial in which the judge ruled. So it would be the judge's rulings on those motions that could be challenged with the CoA. Doesn't mean they will be challenged though. Anything the defense objected to during trial and then the objection was overruled is potentially something that could be used by an appellate defense attorney to claim judicial error. Each issue objected to is preserved for the record and out of those potential issues, an appellate attorney will look for 1 or more issues to base the appeal on.

I agree that JSS bent over backwards giving the defense very little to work with on appeal.

 

[krkrjx]

The fact that she brought up the movie, and actually wanted to use it as an argument while sitting in the midst of all that actual evidence, and having sat through months of the actual trial, means she was reaching for straws, knew she had no real argument, and was determined to keep her mind closed. It's very strange.

For me, it goes beyond just a closed mind and determination to vote her own way. I see this as an infraction of the rules because the movie was not part of the evidence and had no place in deliberations. Furthermore, if she viewed the movie while on jury duty in this case it is another infraction.

 

[krkrjx]

But they can't use it for anything but appeals and I doubt it will ever get near enough to hire an attorney.

Who says they can't?

 

[deedee21]

Yes, especially the one where someone wrote that they believe they saw that Sandy Arias wrote that she had one juror in her pocket.

I think the guy who went to NZ was in her pocket. So it might be a combination of being in her pocket and two degrees of seperation. We dont know whats going on at the DAs office. There could be a full scale investigation. There is a tactic that LE uses. I wont post it. Dont mess with JM.

 

[deedee21]

Yes, especially the one where someone wrote that they believe they saw that Sandy Arias wrote that she had one juror in her pocket.

I think the guy who went to NZ was in her pocket. So it might be a combination of being in her pocket and two degrees of seperation. We dont know whats going on at the DAs office. There could be a full scale investigation. There is a tactic that LE uses. Its not something Im willing to post. Dont mess with JM. Sorry for the double post.

 

[I'mjazzed]

Oh my gosh! Juan Martinez is a class act for sure. I respect him even more after his statements.

I agree.. definitely an amazing man! Love him!

 

[sammie]

Who says they can't?

The terms of the trust they set up...but with her Aunt serving as trustee....I don't trust'em...pun intended.

:laugh:

 

[Sweet Fox]

The state will pay for Arias' appeal, though she (through her attorney) will have to file the appeal. Indigent defendants' appeals are covered by the state.

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.

Are indigent defendants allow to have trust funds?

Never mind saw the answer above.

Another question - donations are gifts but the sale of her art is not a gift, it's a business transaction. Can the income from these sales be considered?

 

[daisydomino]

Didn't J17 say she only watched a few portions of the movie? How would that be useful for her argument?

Maybe you all have seen or heard more juror interviews than I've been able to find. What I heard the other jurors say in the press conference was that J17 had seen parts of that movie. Based on her preconception from TV, she was expecting to see "a monster" but (somehow!?) Jodi did not seem like a monster to her in the courtroom. It sounded like the juror explaining this was saying J17 did not think JA was "normal."

 

[Madeleine74]

Are indigent defendants allow to have trust funds?

If a trust fund is legally in her name and she has access to the funds then she won't be considered indigent. Indigent is a descriptor/status as a result of not having money (with which to fund a defense.) However, if there is a trust fund and that fund is in someone else's name and JA cannot access those monies and (probably some other legalstuffrequirements related to trusts), then Arias might still be considered indigent. Depends how the trust was set up, what kind of trust it is, and lots of other factors that go into the legal structure of the trust. Bet the state will be looking at that funding account.

 

[krkrjx]

The terms of the trust they set up...but with her Aunt serving as trustee....I don't trust'em...pun intended.

:laugh:

They claim they set up a trust fund and they state what the terms are.

The Anthonys did something similar, I believe.

No further comment.

 

[RadarLuv]

I have a feeling the Alexanders will go face to face with JA for as long as she is alive. They seem like true justice seekers who will never lie down despite the pain it causes. I don't believe in "closure" in a case like this. Or people that say "well they can finally get closure".....There is no closure and I believe that if they were given a THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH opportunity for trial they would take it without hesitation. I just have a feeling the entire family would pretty much sacrifice their lives for justice. Is that healthy? Not for me to say. I admire their strength in numbers.

MOO

My guess is when she used the JA movie as part of her reasoning, that's when the other jurors really became concerned. Let's turn the tables and imagine if 11 had voted for death b/c they had seen the movie and thought she was a monster b/c of it AND refused to discuss the evidence. That would be ridiculous. Juror #17 should have referred to the evidence, not a TV biopic (one that she shouldn't have watched, then served as juror with an "open" mind).

That said, as I stated before, I think it'll better for the Alexander family in the long run to not have to face her in appeals so they can heal.

 

[LambChop]

Maybe you all have seen or heard more juror interviews than I've been able to find. What I heard the other jurors say in the press conference was that J17 had seen parts of that movie. Based on her preconception from TV, she was expecting to see "a monster" but (somehow!?) Jodi did not seem like a monster to her in the courtroom. It sounded like the juror explaining this was saying J17 did not think JA was "normal."

That is the scary part. The evidence photos of Travis shows us that a monster did this to him. The fact that Jodi did not look like a monster in court should have scared the heck out of her. It is hard to make sense out of what J17 told the other jury members. jmo

 

[sammie]

They claim the set up a trust fund and they state what the terms are.

The Anthonys did something similar, I believe.

No further comment.

Well if they have half a brain they did set up a trust otherwise once the Alexander's win a wrongful death suit, those funds will need to be protected from any judgement.

 

[krkrjx]

Well if they have half a brain they did set up a trust otherwise once the Alexander's win a wrongful death suit, those funds will need to be protected from any judgement.

And there you have it!

They set up the trust fund so she could sell artwork and take donations and who knows what else, with no one able to touch her. I am not saying they might not fund some of her legal stuff with it but I do not for a minute believe they intend to use those funds solely for that, regardless of what they say.

Remember, the Anthonys had a Caylee trust fund for the purpose of finding missing kids. The trusts are closed now and funds all used up. Has anyone heard they ever found or aided in a search for any missing child?

The IRS or anyone else in charge didn't care what the Anthonys did with trust funds; I see no reason to believe they will care enough to monitor Arias trusts.

 

[krkrjx]

That is the scary part. The evidence photos of Travis shows us that a monster did this to him. The fact that Jodi did not look like a monster in court should have scared the heck out of her. It is hard to make sense out of what J17 told the other jury members. jmo

The boogie man can get you only because he doesn't look like what you expect him to look like.