Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/9-1/12 Break - Part 2

[ElleElle]

You call granting KN's demand for secret testimony a maneuver by the judge to force the defense's hand??? If she wanted to force the defense's hand, she would have just denied the original request instead of going through all this other time-wasting right??

What if there was no "secret testimony"? Then what? The whole planet would hear what Jodi had to say, and she will argue that she is being "bashed" by haters etc.
So, perhaps JSS was taking a chance on letting her testify in secret for fear of not having a fair trial due to being "sentenced by media"?

And, yes, this case is an anomaly. MOO

 

[cindymac]

IF JSS is against the DP, as some have opined, then why did she deny the defense's multiple (at least 20 or more) motions to dismiss the DP from consideration?

I don't know how many times AZLawyer has told us the reasons for various decisions by the judge, not all of which make sense, but certainly many of them are a result of the judge either not having a choice at all (her hands are legally tied by the laws of AZ) or she is trying not to provide any reason for a successful appeal by Arias in the future, when everyone knows with 100% certainty Arias will be appealing regardless.

But little of what AZLawyer informs seems to be believed and spectators continue to insist JSS rules as she does because she either secretly supports the killer, or is against the DP, or hates the prosecutor, or wants to subvert justice, or any other number of reasons, none of which have any factual basis behind them. JSS is a weak scaredy-cat judge, but I don't see where she's on the side of the defendant.

Perhaps it would make people feel better if JSS ruled exactly how they themselves want, laws of the state and future appeals be damned.

I completely disagree that "little of what AZLawyer informs seems to be believed". Perhaps forgotten at times, or never read - new and old memebrs alike haven't necessarily read each and every post. And I'm sure others will agree that AZLawyer adds a very special dimension to WS.

What's more, JSS' decisions typically relate to new and different issues, often raising fresh new concerns about her motivations. Regardless of whether or not these concerns are valid, they have great value. They are the starting point of a search for answers which (in this case in particular) sheds valuable light on particular laws, technicalities, processes, etc., which adds up to great learning process.

In other words, it doesn't really matter why people question her decisions. What matters is that they do question them, and that everyone can benefit from the explanations. Most notably those provided by AZLawyer.

Simply trusting that there's a "good reason" for everything, doesn't accomplish this.

 

[MeeBee]

I completely disagree that "little of what AZLawyer informs seems to be believed". Perhaps forgotten at times, or never read - new and old memebrs alike haven't necessarily read each and every post. And I'm sure others will agree that AZLawyer adds a very special dimension to WS.

What's more, JSS' decisions typically relate to new and different issues, often raising fresh new concerns about her motivations. Regardless of whether or not these concerns are valid, they have great value. They are the starting point of a search for answers which (in this case in particular) sheds valuable light on the certain laws, technicalities, processes, etc., which adds up to great learning process.

In other words, it doesn't really matter why people question her decisions. What matters is that they do question them, and that everyone can benefit from the explanations. Most notably those provided by AZLawyer.

Simply trusting that there's a "good reason" for everything, doesn't accomplish this.

Not only that, but AZL did not agree with the secret testimony decision or much of JSS's rulings, nor does she think there should be a fear of successful appeal when it's not even a valid appeal able issue, such as Jodi didn't get to testify in secret.

I feel that's an inaccurate take on what AZL has said.

 

[Madeleine74]

You call granting KN's demand for secret testimony a maneuver by the judge to force the defense's hand??? If she wanted to force the defense's hand, she would have just denied the original request instead of going through all this other time-wasting right??

I asked what IF the judge was pulling what is known as a "long con." I'm not the first to think it or wonder about it after the fact. IF the judge had refused the defense, the defense would have objected and that ruling and their objection would be put "on the record." It's the record that the CoA will eventually review. This way the media took the issue and pushed it up for appeal, and it's not a ruling the judge can be erred on during a defendant's appeal. I'm not saying that was a good thing to do, so please don't think I am applauding it. I'm just wondering if this is what was going on (or not).

 

[Madeleine74]

Not only that, but AZL did not agree with the secret testimony decision or much of JSS's rulings, nor does she think there should be a fear of successful appeal when it's not even a valid appeal able issue, such as Jodi didn't get to testify in secret.

I feel that's an inaccurate take on what AZL has said.

AZL disagreed with the secretTestimony but she did not think JSS was doing it "because she favors the killer or is trying to get the killer off" or any number of other intents assigned to this behavior by the judge. AZL agreed that the judge is scared of the future appeal and this fear has caused the judge to make questionable and strange rulings along the way. And that is the point. People are staying JSS is making rulings *specifically to favor the defendant* and that does not appear to be what's behind her rulings and AZL has provided commentary that in some cases (not all, but yes, some), JSS' hands are tied.

 

[MeeBee]

I asked what IF the judge was pulling what is known as a "long con." I'm not the first to think it or wonder about it after the fact. IF the judge had refused the defense, the defense would have objected and that ruling and their objection would be put "on the record." It's the record that the CoA will eventually review. This way the media took the issue and pushed it up for appeal, and it's not a ruling the judge can be erred on during a defendant's appeal. I'm not saying that was a good thing to do, so please don't think I am applauding it. I'm just wondering if this is what was going on (or not).

We've discussed this before. I sincerely doubt it. I think the judge honestly thought the COA would uphold her decision based on what she told Bodney.

 

[Nali87]

Not only that, but AZL did not agree with the secret testimony decision or much of JSS's rulings, nor does she think there should be a fear of successful appeal when it's not even a valid appeal able issue, such as Jodi didn't get to testify in secret.

I feel that's an inaccurate take on what AZL has said.

It surely is! AZLawyer was itching to tear into JSS when it turned out the secret witness was actually JA. Especially since she had repeatedly defended JSS and said that JSS wouldn't allow that because it's so obviously just NOT DONE in a court law.

If I remember correctly only her need to remain professional kept her from calling out JSS that day. She asked us to do it for her LOL.

 

[MeeBee]

AZL disagreed with the secretTestimony but she did not think JSS was doing it "because she favors the killer or is trying to get the killer off" or any number of other intents assigned to this behavior by the judge. AZL agreed that the judge is scared of the future appeal and this fear has caused the judge to make questionable and strange rulings along the way. And that is the point. People are staying JSS is making rulings *specifically to favor the defendant*.

We talked about this too lol. That's obviously not why she is doing this but there's no use arguing it Madeleine. People will continue to believe what they want to believe. So IMO it's best to just let her actions speak for themselves. She'll rule against the DT Monday and people will still believe she's in their back pocket. I think that's ridiculous but it doesn't matter.

 

[nowayout]

BBM- it is precisely why we do not hold secret star chamber courts in this country. Our judicial system is constitutionally protected to be transparent for public and press to see. It is for this exact fact that you outlined that the public may not understand what's going on beneath the surface. In our country there is no surface in the judicial system, it is to be held in the most public manner possible so that the public doesn't have to look under veils of secrecy, we aren't supposed to guess what is going on under seal and in secret. This is a problem for every citizen who enjoys their constitutional freedoms. The way the entire trial had been conducted, which you agree is THE problem. If motions were able to be read, if testimony were able to be seen or at least heard then secret Stephens wouldn't be dealing with the theories we are seeing now. Every scrutiny she received, she earned when choosing to conduct Herr court room like she was in the KGB in cold war USSR

BBM, I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, well said.

 

[Madeleine74]

We talked about this too lol. That's obviously not why she is doing this but there's no use arguing it Madeleine. People will continue to believe what they want to believe. So IMO it's best to just let her actions speak for themselves. She'll rule against the DT Monday and people will still believe she's in their back pocket. I think that's ridiculous but it doesn't matter.

To you it doesn't matter. But it is a common and frequent topic of discussion on this case and comes up a lot, so whether it should or should not matter, it is a point of discussion for many here.

 

[Amster]

In theory yes. In practicality, there are always aspects of trials that the public doesn't know or doesn't find out until some future time. In-camera hearings, as one example, those happen in every case, or motions that get sealed. That too happens.

This trial really is an anomaly, with a defense team trying everything they can think of to get their client from getting a DP sentence, pulling stuff that other attorneys might never pull, and trying everything they can to set the killer up for her appeals later on. The judge is *so scared* the DT might get some of that spaghetti thrown to stick on the courtroom walls in the future, she is simply not taking any chances. All judges take some chances here and there. But in this case and with this judge the dynamics are such that this judge will not do anything that she feels might create a possible judicial error that the killer can later use, no matter how angry everyone gets and no matter how unfair it is to the public. And yes, I agree, it is totally unfair to the public, the media, and the interests of the public.

You left out the unfairness to the victim and his family....or, are they merely "the public"?

 

[Madeleine74]

The judge (any judge) is entirely within their right to keep cameras and video and live tweeting out of their courtroom, if they want. They are not entitled to block the media from attending or make courtroom proceedings secret. I don't believe we'll see this judge pull this again where no one is allowed to attend the courtroom proceedings.

 

[MeeBee]

To you it doesn't matter. But it is a common and frequent topic of discussion on this case and comes up a lot, so whether it should or should not matter, it is a point of discussion for many here.

It doesn't matter to me because have tried many times to appeal to logic. It doesn't work. So I've just decided to let it go. Who cares what other people think? It doesn't affect my life personally and the petty arguing could continue forever if someone doesn't decide to be the bigger person and walk away.

 

[5bigfish5]

Not answering your question, exactly, but I hold the unpopular view that JSS's extreme caution around appeal issues is a good thing. I think she knows exactly what she's doing. Hopefully because of JSS's comprehensive approach, the Alexander family will know, once this is over, that JA will die in prison with no hope of ever getting out.

Not good enough for me. I don't want her to just die in prison. I want her to be in hell before she finally dies.

Isolated and as alone as Travis was in that shower for FIVE days, while Jodi ground her way back to CA, sent him voice mails and gloated over beating the brat.

 

[geevee]

With all of the change of attorneys and judge in '09/'10 I was wondering if there just was confusion about the hard drive's mirror image, but I see that Nurmi was the attorney of record, along with V. Washington, when Judge Sally Duncan ordered the prosecution to turn over that mirror image. Maybe Nurmi is betting JSS isn't aware of that since she wasn't the judge on the case yet, but it's very clear Nurmi was not only aware of the mirror image's existence but apparently it was turned over to him. Defense also filed a renewed request for any and all electronic media to be turned over but after Melendez testified at that hearing the motion was denied. But all of this was handled by Judge Duncan and not Judge Stephens.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112009/m3971765.pdf

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012010/m4047279.pdf

 

[Madeleine74]

You left out the unfairness to the victim and his family....or, are they merely "the public"?

Believe it or not, the case is not owned by "the family," the case is owned by the State of Arizona on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction. The state takes the family's thoughts and feelings into consideration, and the state of AZ has specific victim's rights laws, but "unfairness" to the family is not a factor of the legal rulings. All burden to prove the charges shifts to the state. However, while the media & public were barred from seeing secretTestimony, the victim's family got to stay. The victim's family also gets to go to judge's chambers on secret hearings back there, and the victim's family is kept informed by the state of all kinds of things that the public and media are not, along the way.

 

[geevee]

I completely disagree that "little of what AZLawyer informs seems to be believed". Perhaps forgotten at times, or never read - new and old memebrs alike haven't necessarily read each and every post. And I'm sure others will agree that AZLawyer adds a very special dimension to WS.

What's more, JSS' decisions typically relate to new and different issues, often raising fresh new concerns about her motivations. Regardless of whether or not these concerns are valid, they have great value. They are the starting point of a search for answers which (in this case in particular) sheds valuable light on particular laws, technicalities, processes, etc., which adds up to great learning process.

In other words, it doesn't really matter why people question her decisions. What matters is that they do question them, and that everyone can benefit from the explanations. Most notably those provided by AZLawyer.

Simply trusting that there's a "good reason" for everything, doesn't accomplish this.

Very well stated!

 

[Amster]

Believe it or not, the case is not owned by "the family," the case is owned by the State of Arizona on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction. The state takes the family's thoughts and feelings into consideration, and the state of AZ has specific victim's rights laws, but "unfairness" to the family is not a factor of the legal rulings. All burden to prove the charges shifts to the state. However, while the media & public were barred from seeing secretTestimony, the victim's family got to stay. The victim's family also gets to go to judge's chambers on secret hearings back there, and the victim's family is kept informed by the state of all kinds of things that the public and media are not, along the way.

Too bad this judge doesn't take the thoughts and feelings of the victims and the jury into consideration while doing backflips to appease the killer. <modsnip>

 

[5bigfish5]

JSS's job is not to "con" anyone. She is the judge in this case. Judges normally don't play games as you suggest, and it would be highly illegal if she did. You are suggesting she knew ahead of time that once she ruled, the media would take it to court, then COA would deny it, then it would be taken to the AZSC. NO judge would play such games, even JSS.

I think the keyword, is "Normally". IMO, Sherry knew FULL well the media wouldn't take this lying down. She knew they would appeal. She KNEW it would be reversed! She knew Jodi didn't have a leg to stand on.

Sherry just didn't want to be the one to say 'NO" to Arias.

That's my Opinion and I am sticking to it.

 

[MeeBee]

Too bad this judge doesn't take the thoughts and feelings of the victims and the jury into consideration while doing backflips to appease the killer. But, that's just my opinion which will be soundly ridiculed. Enjoy....:seeya:

Good thing too. She's following the law. Her main concern should be Jodi's rights.