Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/15 thru 1/20 Break

[oceanblueeyes]

Ah, you're right. I was only thinking of the factors that I myself would consider. I do hope that Juan makes it clear that those angry text messages were in response to years of Arias snooping, stalking and being a terror. I love Juan but he didn't do a very good job of emphasizing that point last time around.

I watched one of the links that was provided by ZoeyW this morning and as usual once I watch one that leads to another one.

I watched Juan's closing again and to me he was very clear on that aspect of the case. Not only did he cover it well but he put the text messages of May 26th up on the big Elmo screen. He stressed that Travis had become very fearful of Arias and her stalking.

He said this showed that Travis couldn't take the stalking behavior anymore and had had enough.

I loved the way Juan stressed the part about 'you are the worst thing that has ever happened to me' and what prophetic words they turned out to be.

I have no doubt that Juan will make this clear for this jury as well.

 

[ZoeyW]

Someone caught something in the ruling that I didn't notice and don't think it's been mentioned here. On page 3, re: mitigation witnesses it states (BBM):

"Defendant claims possible mitigation witnesses will not speak with defense counsel"

They won't even take the DT's calls, but Nurmi counts them as potential witnesses? :thinking:

I had a friend, a psychologist, get after me for being so very adamant that there are no 14. I jokingly call them "The Phantom 14". She said how can you imply that the lawyer is lying to the court. That is not like you. I am not implying it , I respectfully answered my elder. I am saying it. NURMI IS LYING. No way was he EVER intending to call any family member or friend that Juan could tear apart. For God's sake I could whip up a file on their public comments in five minutes flat. Can you imagine how READY Juan is? Nurmi never sent out one subpoena. That has been proven. In a sidebar Jen/Nurmi admitted that outside of Jodi they had "NO other witnesses". It isn't even Nurmi's job to be calling them. That is what the taxpayers of AZ are paying Ms. Cougarlicious for, eh?

 

[Nali87]

BBM

This is actually exactly the kind of thing the jury is supposed to consider in mitigation.

IMO it's not enough even if the type of "abuse" alleged here actually happened. But some (or one) juror(s) could disagree.

So they're basically allowed to blame the victim in a sense then?

Thinking to myself here and I guess it does make sense in cases where the victim was a real ******* (or rapist or something like that) for the jury to consider the effect the victim (and his actions, words or whatever) has had on his murderer.

Hmm. Ok. Yeah, not good.

 

[bsk]

I think it's different somehow because it's a different jury. They will be told that they will have to accept the verdict and that the murder was cruel, but really even though they don't say it, any of the things they've heard during this re-trial will influence their decision. They're not supposed to, but it could happen that one or two goes "You know that guy was so abusive to her, it's no surprise she went crazy and murdered him like that." That person can then and turn that feeling into: "You know, she is awfully young. And she hasn't killed before." something like the Foreman from the first trial.

BBM

This is actually exactly the kind of thing the jury is supposed to consider in mitigation.

IMO it's not enough even if the type of "abuse" alleged here actually happened. But some (or one) juror(s) could disagree.

The judge in any case like this where there is a separate penalty phase must have an incredibly fine line to to walk.
- Jurors are supposed to use their common sense along with what they see as the facts.
- Meanwhile the defense is ignoring relevance and trying to convince them that the original guilty verdict doesn't count.
- And at the same time the defense wants the judge to instruct the jury to ignore 90% of what the defense says.

 

[MeeBee]

Reminds me of when Flores told her she did not act like an innocent person. And Jodi got all coquettish like and in her best Lolita voice she questions Flores on how an innocent person would act....

So he tells her she should be crying. And a few minutes later...she's crying.

 

[Teresa]

In my opinion, the big issue will be: "Was Jodi Arias emotionally abused by Travis Alexander?" I think that is the big thing that will be discussed by the jurors and the big thing that JW will talk about in her closing arguments. I will be waiting to hear the "Hughes" name again.

Kindle warning Anyone who has felt wronged by a friend or boyfriend feels emotionally wronged but that doesn't make it emotional abuse. The defense has no options to argue...JM will clarify this point in a heartbeat. The jury won't need much help..welcome to life experiences.

 

[ICit]

AZlawyer question; when you visit a client in jail or prison are you allowed to take in phones or computers that can connect to the Internet? THANKS!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So they're basically allowed to blame the victim in a sense then?

Thinking to myself here and I guess it does make sense in cases where the victim was a real ******* (or rapist or something like that) for the jury to consider the effect the victim (and his actions, words or whatever) has had on his murderer.

Hmm. Ok. Yeah, not good.

Frankly, I don't see any emotional abuse by Travis. It was only when Arias drove him to the brink that he reacted like the human being he was. Most of the time Travis was too good for his own good when it came to JA. And when manipulation is used that is a form of abuse, imo and Arias was the victimizer which also included stalking and that is another form of domestic violence abuse.

I think this younger jury wont think this was emotional abuse (heck I am 68 and don't think it is emotional abuse ) but will think petty infighting is common occurrences in Arias and Travis' age group. I have no doubt that many on that jury have also had blowups and said things to others they may have wished they hadn't said but they feel that does not define who they really are.

I am so glad juror #3 came out and let us know she didn't buy what Arias is selling. That tells me she is still testifying in that flat robotic way this time around too.

 

[MeeBee]

Someone caught something in the ruling that I didn't notice and don't think it's been mentioned here. On page 3, re: mitigation witnesses it states (BBM):

"Defendant claims possible mitigation witnesses will not speak with defense counsel"

They won't even take the DT's calls, but Nurmi counts them as potential witnesses? :thinking:

Omg. I did miss this Lin, lol.

It appears Nurmi is strongly over stating what he has here. He's making it sound like these people WANT to testify but are too afraid to. But people have a right to decline to testify if they don't want to. And if it's that important to you, you subpoena them. I do strongly feel Nurmi never intended to call any of them and is making excuses for them. That's pretty dishonest. The only guy who seems willing is Marc McGee and no way the defense will put him on.

 

[Amster]

So, *advertiser censored* is one of the mitigating factors? That's why Sherry has to allow unending argument about it?

 

[Kamille]

Kindle warning Anyone who has felt wronged by a friend or boyfriend feels emotionally wronged but that doesn't make it emotional abuse. The defense has no options to argue...JM will clarify this point in a heartbeat. The jury won't need much help..welcome to life experiences.

Exactly. When she started to "feel" emotionally wronged right at the beginning she did nothing other than to continue to see him whenever possible even though they lived in different states. IMO of course she lied about everything to do with their initial meeting and encounters. When she started to "feel" emotionally wronged after a few months (lied about that too) she broke it off with him (we have no proof who "had the talk" with the other) then told her Dad she was moving there to marry him.

Too bad the jury won't be hearing that part. And won't know why her Dad is not up there defending her life because of it.

MOO

 

[rose222]

I watched one of the links that was provided by ZoeyW this morning and as usual once I watch one that leads to another one.

I watched Juan's closing again and to me he was very clear on that aspect of the case. Not only did he cover it well but he put the text messages of May 26th up on the big Elmo screen. He stressed that Travis had become very fearful of Arias and her stalking.

He said this showed that Travis couldn't take the stalking behavior anymore and had had enough.

I loved the way Juan stressed the part about 'you are the worst thing that has ever happened to me' and what prophetic words they turned out to be.

I have no doubt that Juan will make this clear for this jury as well.

The only thing that I'm not sure of is whether the jury realized that Travis and Arias exchanged thousands of text messages--I remember the number being close to 84,000. If you count the number of times that Travis sent angry messages and compare it with the total number of messages then it all becomes very clear. I got the impression that some of the jurors believed that Travis frequently sent angry messages. Perhaps it was just the biased foreman. :thinking:

Juan's closing was a thing of beauty! I hope he does the 'it's not her fault' bit for this jury. Epic greatness!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer question; when you visit a client in jail or prison are you allowed to take in phones or computers that can connect to the Internet? THANKS!

I don't visit clients in jail or prison, because if I'm working on a criminal defense case it would only be on appeal.

 

[Kamille]

I don't visit clients in jail or prison, because if I'm working on a criminal defense case it would only be on appeal.

So for her appeals, JA will not be having field excursions to a court room? I have no idea how that works can you give me a very short synopsis of what she can expect?

TIA

 

[ZoeyW]

I watched one of the links that was provided by ZoeyW this morning and as usual once I watch one that leads to another one.

I watched Juan's closing again and to me he was very clear on that aspect of the case. Not only did he cover it well but he put the text messages of May 26th up on the big Elmo screen. He stressed that Travis had become very fearful of Arias and her stalking.

He said this showed that Travis couldn't take the stalking behavior anymore and had had enough.

I loved the way Juan stressed the part about 'you are the worst thing that has ever happened to me' and what prophetic words they turned out to be.

I have no doubt that Juan will make this clear for this jury as well.

He will do it, friend, and without looking at a single note. It was masterful, that closing argument. I especially loved his rebuttal to Nurmi's closing where he pointed out how many facts of the case Nurmi was wrong on. Simple things like Nurmi claiming how impossible it would have been for Jodi to use a certain hand, "Have we forgot that the defendant testified she was ambidextrous? " Nurmi had it wrong what side of the head Travis was shot in. That gave Juan the opportunity to act it out..."She drug him down the hall into the bathroom, grabbed the gun off the counter and just shot him in the head for good measure. She killed him THREE TIMES OVER". My absolute FAVORITE, NOT JUST OF THIS CASE BUT ANY CLOSING I HAVE EVER SEEN is when Juan was able to capitalize on Nurmi's HUGE mistake he made about the gas cans. Nurmi argued in closing that what the hell....she could have returned that damn gas can to ANY WALMART along her long trip. "She never said it was to the same Walmart she bought it". Juan had a field day......because, Yes, Mr. Nurmi she did. Here ya go friends the clip of the day
http://youtu.be/AridRn61d3c

I just knew at that moment Juan Martinez is someone I would remember fondly, forever. He DOES NOT USE NOTES AND HE DOES NOT MISS A BEAT.

 

[AZlawyer]

So, *advertiser censored* is one of the mitigating factors? That's why Sherry has to allow unending argument about it?

No, *advertiser censored* is not a mitigating factor. But it's relevant to mitigation because the defense theory is that Travis was this Jekyll/Hyde guy, especially when it came to sexual issues, and the *advertiser censored* was part of the Hyde personality. And that Jodi was super-stressed out by having a secret relationship with someone like this. And due to her delicate mental state, Jodi reacted to that stress by murdering Travis.

Weak, I know. But that's the argument, and the judge is required to let them present their weak argument if that's all they've got.

BTW I didn't catch on to this *advertiser censored*=Hyde theory until Nurmi finally said it in open court just recently. Previously, I thought that only child *advertiser censored* would be relevant (to support Jodi's "Travis was a pedophile" story, which in turn supports the "this was a secret and very stressful relationship" story),

 

[ICit]

I don't visit clients in jail or prison, because if I'm working on a criminal defense case it would only be on appeal.

So, are any attorneys allowed to take devices that could make phone calls into visits in the jail?

 

[AZlawyer]

So for her appeals, JA will not be having field excursions to a court room? I have no idea how that works can you give me a very short synopsis of what she can expect?

TIA

Normally, the only courtroom appearance for an appeal is one oral argument, which rarely lasts longer than an hour. Convicts do not attend.

 

[AZlawyer]

So, are any attorneys allowed to take devices that could make phone calls into visits in the jail?

That's what I'm saying; I don't know the rules for jail visitation because I don't go there. I know that the rules have to be much more lax for attorneys than for other visitors, though, and they basically can't forbid you from bringing anything that you claim you need for purposes of the representation.

 

[ZoeyW]

To cheer you up about this mess. Here is a compilation that is called " The best of" http://youtu.be/dWnAn9KOkVA

JM to JA:

I love when Juan gets fired up...."Ut ah...There is no guessing here NOW, ut ah".

"If it wasn't loaded. You told the jury Mr. Alexander told you the gun was unloaded. So you go with this belief that the gun was unloaded you run into this closet to go get this gun that was unloaded......What were you going to do with the gun.....throw it at him?"

"You said many times that you tried to kill yourself. You said you cut your wrist, it was a nick, and you stopped , it stung so much, you stopped. To use YOUR standard, CAN YOU IMAGINE... ( his voice amplified) how much it must have hurt Mr. Alexander when you plunged that knife into his chest?"

"Were you crying when you shot him? Were you crying when you stabbed him? Were you crying when you slit his throat?"

"If you are in a fog , you are in a fog about everything, not just certain select things, right?"
JA to Juan "I don't know".
Juan replies "Well, IT'S YOUR FOG!!!!!"

JM to JA "These problems with your memory, is it a recent vintage?"
Jodi responds "Define recent"
JM does not miss a beat " I don't know. Since you started testifying!"


Nurmi and Jen both slam their hands on the desk like an Ally McBeal episode "O B J E C T I ON"