Can Juan use FJA's obnoxious Tweets in this retrial? And her prolific advertising and selling her "art?"
Also, Juan was precluded from arguing "lack of remorse" in the guilt phase--is that also true of the sentencing phase?
Also--Juan was not allowed to ask ALV about Jodi's abuse and torture of animals--is the sentencing phase a clean slate where he can bring this in (or argue to?)
THANK YOU AZ LAWYER!!!! :loveyou:
He might be able to use some of these things IF he is responding to some argument made by Jodi. E.g., if Jodi claims remorse, he can argue lack of remorse.
During Monday's hearing, Nurmi was heard making a request to the judge for an ex parte meeting. The court session ended and CMJA was seen leaving the courtroom. A court observer tweeted that Nurmi and Willmott then met with Judge Stephens in her chambers.
Is there any basis for such a meeting without the defendant's permission? Could this have been to present the judge with the subpoena for the phone records? I would have thought that a clerk of the court could approve this, but want to make sure.
First of all, do we have some reason to think the meeting was without Jodi's permission?
Either way, if they have some ethical issue to discuss with the judge, which they can't disclose to the prosecutor for (other) ethical reasons, an ex parte hearing would be OK.
AZ attorneys can issue their own subpoenas online. No need to get the judge involved unless there is a motion to quash the subpoena filed. And, in that case, an ex parte meeting would be highly, highly unlikely.
AZ Lawyer - how much of the evidence in the guilt phase will have to be re-introduced in the penalty phase retrial to a new jury? Are we looking at a month of the prosecution's case again and 3 months of the Defense? And will the Defense be able to re-introduce all the claims of abuse, and subject us again to all the text messages and the sex tape all over again? Because it's a new jury, would the penalty phase likely be week or months long, instead of just a few days as it was in the original trial?
The new jury will need to hear everything that could possibly relate to this phase--which is a lot, maybe most of the prior testimony. Perhaps they could be shown the videotapes or allowed to read transcripts. Yes, the abuse will come up again. The penalty phase will certainly be longer than last time.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the roles of MCSO and the County Attorneys Office and how information might be given by MCSO to Juan Martinez.
For example: "I was under the impression that the Sheriff's Dept. would turn over the calls to the state if there was something in them they thought they needed to hear just as they did with the magazine codes. They caught what she was doing and turned the mags over to the state. Wouldn't it be the same for phone records and recordings? Is this something the state can get from the MCSO without needing a subpoena? As lamb said, they both work for the govt. And pros. offices work in conjunction with LE, right? "
Do you know what the procedure is for an inmate's information being turned over to the prosecution? As noted above, Juan was able to obtain the coded magazines that were confiscated. MCSO also confiscated one of CMJA's journals on or around April 1, 2013; the DT filed a motion to compel the journals but I am not aware of any ruling on this.
What kind of rule infraction might form the basis for MCSO to confiscate CMJA's journals, or is there another possible reason?
The MCSO has lots of rules, and I'm confident that if they wanted to read her journals they could think of a rule that would cover that situation. Perhaps they suspected that she was passing the journals back and forth with some other inmate and was planning something, for example.
Yes, if they found anything in her journals or phone calls (if they bothered listening to them--they can't possibly listen to all phone calls of inmates) they would tell the detective on the case, who would tell the prosecutor.
