Sorry for responding to comments in the previous thread and responding without quotes. Somewhere, in the previous thread, there was a discussion as to JA’s culpability re: her defense. There was speculation (as has been ongoing) that JA’s long, freaky “creature” hands have guided her defense/mitigation arguments. ITA with those in the previous thread who believe JA is in charge of her defense.
This current jury knows that JA is guilty of premeditated murder with cruelty. Did I say that right? THAT verdict is not in question. Premeditated. Cruelty. Here is what this jury knows: JA stabbed, chased, cut through a windpipe; dragged a lifeless body across a blood soaked tile floor; shot “it” in the head; arranged/kicked “it” into a shower; attempted a cleanup; and (likely) rinsed herself off, as “its” lifeless body bled out in the shower.
That said …
IIRC, earlier in this sentencing phase, the DT filed a motion saying the Defense for JA would be “scrutinized” in years to come if JA was not allowed to testify in “secret.”
Allow my non-legal take: The DT has known, from the beginning, JA’s insistence for “self-defense” was bogus. They have known, from the beginning of this sentencing phase, that “TA was a bad boyfriend/TA viewed chorn/I was abused” are all poor/non-existent mitigating factors. Yet, give the DT credit: JA testified without cross. Seriously slimy; but the DT got her “I was abused” chit in the record and in front of the jury, without JM’s “wha?” The Geff’s testimony was disrupted. And the Alexanders’ VIS are a thing of the past. The DT also presented “innuendoes,” in front of the jury, that the Victim sought out *advertiser censored*; the Prosecutor tried to hide the Victim’s proclivities for *advertiser censored*.
DT also got the Court to admit testimony out of order, further confusing the “truth landscape” (as opposed to the “slime highway.”
I don’t agree with the DT’s strategy, but ….? I think they did what they had to do, given “puppeteering” by their client.
AZL: Is there any precedent for a Defense Team filing an appeal based on, “Our Client insisted *advertiser censored* defense, in spite of our advice?” Does an Appeals Court consider such an argument?