Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/20 Sizzle Break

[DebinGA]

On a more optimistic note, could it be that JSS has infinite faith in Juan`s ability to overcome all this stuff. One can dream.

When JSS gets home at night and reflects on the day's happenings, she may then or a day/week or two later regret a ruling/s, but by then it's too late. I strongly doubt her ruling yesterday re the affidavits admission and Geffner being allowed to give his expert opinion of what they reflect was due to her faith JM would make everything all right in the end.

 

[Hez]

I hope it is not lost on the jury that since JM can't question any of these 'witnesses' that are 'testifying' through affidavits, they also won't be able to submit any questions to these 'witnesses', unlike the real witnesses that have testified in open court. :thinking: If the killer refuses to get back on the stand and finish her testiphony, the jury won't get the opportunity to ask her questions either. It will be interesting to see what kind of questions the jury has for Geffner about these 'witness' affadavits. That is if the judge allows those types of questions to be read in court, because we all know that some of the juror's questions are only read by the judge and the attorneys and then tossed in file 13.

 

[ICit]

D

Sounds like she was hounding him by phone and he didn't answer her calls.

I don't call people late at night unless it's a dire emergency. Maybe they're trying to SLEEP! Says a lot about her.

Not to mention that she was breaking the very same rule Fonseca testi-lied to that says people who text or phone after 11pm are baaaaddddddd! Of course, that was when JA claimed that was the time Travis called and texted her. Not a two way street? NO! Slime Highway is a one way street!

 

[elementary]

On a more optimistic note, could it be that JSS has infinite faith in Juan`s ability to overcome all this stuff. One can dream.

I would call that magical thinking.

 

[Spellbound]

Thank you. I will increase it one size up, ok?

Some complain if the font is too large so that is why I didn't increase it.

Is this enough or do I need to increase it some more?

Oops let me increase it a little more.

.
I also have the same problem reading your posts on my tablet, so I usually have to scroll past them. You do have good posts, and I would appreciate an increase in font size if you can. Thanks, oceanblueeyes.

(The quoted post does not look any larger....?)
If I remember from another site, certain fonts don't enlarge beyond a set size? That may be the problem.

 

[AZlawyer]

When JSS gets home at night and reflects on the day's happenings, she may then or a day/week or two later regret a ruling/s, but by then it's too late. I strongly doubt her ruling yesterday re the affidavits admission and Geffner being allowed to give his expert opinion of what they reflect was due to her faith JM would make everything all right in the end.

Was JM even objecting to Geffner testifying about how the affidavits bolstered his opinion? In the mitigation phase, especially, I don't think JSS had the option to say no to that. I could see objecting to (1) the ADMISSION of the affidavits as separate evidence to be brought back to the jury room, and (2) the discussion of certain paragraphs of the affidavits that were clearly irrelevant, e.g., "Jodi must have been brainwashed."

I don't know exactly what JM's objections were or which of them, if any, were sustained.

 

[Ricki]

Does Juan have the name of these witnesses or is a secret to him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DebinGA]

JM's style imo is know what you want from a witness, get it, and get out. I wish he'd linger much longer than last time with Dr. Geffner. A Google of "What's wrong with Dr. Geffner?" takes you to a blog post outlining a number of cases around the country where judges bashed his testimony. Someone posted yesterday a video of JM, printout in hand, quoting one such judge who'd had Geffner's entire testimony striken. This time, I wish JM would slow way down and use the overhead screen like JW did yesterday to show the jurors how other courts described Geffner's testimony. And if legally possible, since Geffner was allowed to opine on the affidavits, I wish JM could put on the screen affidavits from witnesses re the veracity of Marc McGee et al and read them aloud using JW's "Can you see that?" gambit.

 

[daisydomino]

I wish we knew more about JA's work history in Mesa. Ditto where and with whom she lived while there. Ditto whether she attended her LDS ward's Monday evening singles events, and, if so, what those folks thought of her. Seems likely JM could find many Mesa witnesses who could attest to JA's strange behavior there.

JM doesn't have to go that far to rebut the statements read from the affidavits by Dr. Geffner yesterday. There is already enough from the first trial.

We will see what he does, though. I'm sure we are all very much looking forward to his cross examination of Dr. Geffner! Fingers crossed that it begins today.

 

[AZlawyer]

Does Juan have the name of these witnesses or is a secret to him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He definitely has the names.

JM's style imo is know what you want from a witness, get it, and get out. I wish he'd linger much longer than last time with Dr. Geffner. A Google of "What's wrong with Dr. Geffner?" takes you to a blog post outlining a number of case around the country where judges bashed his testimony. Someone posted yesterday a video of JM, printout in hand, quoting one such judge who'd had Geffner's entire testimony striken. This time, I wish JM would slow way down and use the overhead screen like JW did yesterday to show the jurors how other courts described Geffner's testimony. And if legally possible, since Geffner was allowed to opine on the affidavits, I wish JM could put on the screen affidavits from witnesses re the veracity of Marc McGee et al and read them aloud using JW's "Can you see that?" gambit.

I think JM has his eye firmly on the ball. He is concerned about spending too much time debating side issues, because of the risk that the jury will think those issues are important to the case.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Yes, I have the flu. But started Tamiflu right away and am moving around better today.
AZL, I hope you're feeling better - flu can really knock you out, then make you weak as a kitten, I hope the tamiflu is helping some. Take care of yourself, please. Your calming presence was sorely missed yesterday ( don't think I'm alone in that thought), so rest, hydrate, and get well.


She wouldn't be required to be a notary but probably is.
I'm not sure how different notary laws are from state to state - in my state, as a notary, I can take an oath or affirmation from someone, but only to verify the person made the statement. I can't verify truthfulness.

Either way, she could testify about the affidavits. But Juan's objections to certain parts of the affidavits had nothing to do with who was testifying about them.

I understand Juan's objections to affidavits were about content, rather than to who read them in court - but I was a little confused about who wanted MDLR to admit them - I thought it was JM that was insistent (like she took the statement, she should read it), but as I read here, it seems like it was JW who wanted MDLR to read them- is that right?

It seems ludicrous that Geffner is opining on statements he didn't even hear, third party statements, at best, and some further removed than that - I can't believe he's allowed to read them in court, let alone offer opinion.
If MDLR read them, wouldn't that at least remove one layer of hearsay? Sure, it wouldn't make them any more true, but at least she heard the statement -why would JM fight that? I can think of many reasons why defense wouldn't want MDLR on the stand - but why wouldn't JM?
Answer only when you're feeling better, which i hope is soon!!

 

[MarVa]

Gotta go to work; gonna miss everything. Boo

 

[Bernina]

I know we're supposed to not talk religion, but I'm thinking this factual question would be okay...because it's just a yes or no.

Bernina - Can people come home to visit (for holidays or otherwise) while on their mission?

No, not ever. If there is a death in the immediate family, missionaries are given a choice to go home, but are cautioned that God is testing them, they should fast and pray on it.
Missions are currently 2 years in duration. At one point, they were 18 months, somewhere around the 1980's. The Church shortened the duration to 18 months because of the financial burden on the missionary's family, but that changed. My bro went to Australia for 18 months in 1980. My mom and her 2nd husband went to the Czech Republic in 2000 (?) for 2 years (senior couple's mission). My nephew went to Spain for 2 years (2006). My dad served a mission in Sweden for 2 years (1958)

 

[Sweet Fox]

.
I also have the same problem reading your posts on my tablet, so I usually have to scroll past them. You do have good posts, and I would appreciate an increase in font size if you can. Thanks, oceanblueeyes.

(The quoted post does not look any larger....?)
If I remember from another site, certain fonts don't enlarge beyond a set size? That may be the problem.

Try simultaneously holding down the CTRL and + sign key on your keypad. It should enlarge the text view.

 

[Dmacky]

Geff or the defense team knew that Juan could use the video of Deanna's prior testimony, so he/JA/df made sure he added in his testimony that these girls did not even realize they were being abused. SMH

 

[DebinGA]

He definitely has the names.



I think JM has his eye firmly on the ball. He is concerned about spending too much time debating side issues, because of the risk that the jury will think those issues are important to the case.

I'm pretty sure what "ball" you mean, but I"m more worried about the "ball" chained to JM's ankle by JSS.

 

[daisydomino]

Geff or the defense team knew that Juan could use the video of Deanna's prior testimony, so he/JA/df made sure he added in his testimony that these girls did not even realize they were being abused. SMH

That sounds pretty bogus given the knee and the screaming from that one affidavit, doesn't it? Makes him sound like he's full of carp all the way. I almost feel bad for poor Dr. Geffner (but not quite.)

 

[ShadyLady]

Will the authors of affidavits ever come out? What remedies are there for out right lies??

 

[AZlawyer]

I understand Juan's objections to affidavits were about content, rather than to who read them in court - but I was a little confused about who wanted MDLR to admit them - I thought it was JM that was insistent (like she took the statement, she should read it), but as I read here, it seems like it was JW who wanted MDLR to read them- is that right?

It seems ludicrous that Geffner is opining on statements he didn't even hear, third party statements, at best, and some further removed than that - I can't believe he's allowed to read them in court, let alone offer opinion.
If MDLR read them, wouldn't that at least remove one layer of hearsay? Sure, it wouldn't make them any more true, but at least she heard the statement -why would JM fight that? I can think of many reasons why defense wouldn't want MDLR on the stand - but why wouldn't JM?
Answer only when you're feeling better, which i hope is soon!!

I don't think either side was suggesting that MDLR should read the affidavits.

Experts can often testify about hearsay even in the guilt phase--and much more so in the mitigation phase. That's normal. I don't think JM was fighting about how many layers of hearsay there were but about parts of the affidavits that were clearly irrelevant or improper and shouldn't be read by anyone. I assume he objected to the parts of the affidavits showing that they were obtained by MDLR on the grounds that it was irrelevant who obtained them and that the jury might somehow think that they were more reliable because they were obtained by an officer of the court.

 

[DebinGA]

Any reason to believe Geffner read more of the 80,000 TA-JA msgs/emails than Dr. Fonseca, who admitted to JM she only read those the DT provided?