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

[daisydomino]

If I were on the jury I'd be wondering how much longer will I be able to resist just taking a little bitty peek at Facebook?

 

[LambChop]

What I wonder is what type of questions will this jury has Mr. Smith? lol

 

[lewcch3]

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.

I can't help but wonder: is it precisely because JSS knows so much more about JA and all that she has done and is capable of, if this is the reason JSS is so careful; she really does not want JA to walk or have any chance of winning ANY appeal for ANY reason. Is is perhaps because she knows just how devious JA is?

 

[knt42]

So many excuses reasons for JSS to have allowed JA to testify in secret, for the transcripts to be held for weeks despite the COA ruling and a reassuring opinion stated that (now that two higher courts have ruled or issued a stay against her) JSS won't do this again. Yet, as we speak, we have a witness testifying as an expert anonymously, no camera allowed, and without credentials that normally qualify one as an expert. This witness was the subject of several attempts by the state to interview which the court left unaddressed. The mention of prosecutorial misconduct was allowed to be mentioned in front of the jury via this expert, yet while mention by the state of any questionable conduct by these defense experts on the work drives wasn't precluded, the judge did tell the defense she'd rule on objections on a case by case basis. Anyone think JM is free to question this witness completely as to his background or his actual work in this case?

Nurmi is claiming 14 witnesses won't testify in open court, yet JM had to fight tooth and nail to even get their names, and later was not allowed to contact them directly or know their addresses, etc. He was told to go through the defense to access them. Assuming of course, that these 14 witnesses are all the same names given to JM, I'm guessing he has not interviewed them because they mention affadavits. Apparently JM has not even been given some of their affidavits, so who knows who these people are? And, let's not forget, the mentally ill little girl hasn't decided whether or not she'll continue to testify, but if he doesn't like JSS's ruling Nurmi may go back to the COA. Am I reassured? Um, that would be a big no.


btw, <modsnip> the Supreme Court's ruling hasn't been made, so it's not a smack down yet. They have expedited times for responses to the 16th, but that gives the defense a whole week to file a new batch of motions to keep the state busy. As for <modsnip> comment about people having opinions of this process without having a dog in this fight, as a citizen, my "dog" is the US Constitution and the rules of the court. As the COA said in it's decision:

Thank you, great post.

 

[geevee]

Like most of you, if I were a juror I'd be wondering where is the mitigation for the murder she committed?

 

[bsk]

Well, either I did not explain it clearly the first and second time....or I'm on ignore. :loveyou:

Wait - did you say something?

:happydance: :loveyou: :cheers:

 

[bsk]

Like most of you, if I were a juror I'd be wondering where is the mitigation for the murder she committed?

By now that might have been overtaken by "Who is causing all these stupid delays? I wanted to be done before Christmas!"

 

[Madeleine74]

btw, <modsnip> the Supreme Court's ruling hasn't been made, so it's not a smack down yet. They have expedited times for responses to the 16th, but that gives the defense a whole week to file a new batch of motions to keep the state busy. As for <modsnip> comment about people having opinions of this process without having a dog in this fight, as a citizen, my "dog" is the US Constitution and the rules of the court. As the COA said in it's decision:

I believe the SC will smack down the defense because it is unconstitutional to block the public and media from a public trial.

My comment about "dog in this fight" was about the attorneys mydirtysecret was mentioning, opining about JSS's intent, which they couldn't really know. Those attorneys are not involved in this case, thus "no dog in this fight."

 

[ohreally]

Is There anyone that believes there would NOT be an immediate mistrial IF the transcripts were released and the the ASC sided with Jodi and said her constitutional rights were violated by releasing the transcripts?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Excellent article. Thank you for posting the link.

Yes, it was a very good article.

At least it shows we (in general) are not alone in our opinions. This man was a Federal Prosecutor for 17 years and no doubt has been in front of many Judges.

I imagine he isn't the only one in this profession who has an adverse opinion. I have seen several lawyers in the media who have basically said the same thing.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

What I wonder is what type of questions will this jury has Mr. Smith? lol

Maybe they too....like Juan.......will ask him for his real name.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

By now that might have been overtaken by "Who is causing all these stupid delays? I wanted to be done before Christmas!"

Since the jurors know they are now in the defense part of the case I think they are more likely to blame them for the delays. And they sure would be right!

 

[bsk]

Since the jurors know they are now in the defense part of the case I think they are more likely to blame them for the delays. And they sure would be right!

The judge is careful not to give any hint of blame when telling the jury about delays, but certainly they can see the time spent by the defense vs the state and even more clearly the number of objections by the other side. The DT takes 5x as long as Juan even though half of Juan's time is wasted on objections and sidebars.

 

[MeeBee]

Is There anyone that believes there would NOT be an immediate mistrial IF the transcripts were released and the the ASC sided with Jodi and said her constitutional rights were violated by releasing the transcripts?

There wouldn't be. She was within her rights to release them as soon as the COA ordered her to, whether Nurmi would have appealed to the SC or not. The only reason she sat on them is because she knew it wasn't over, which isn't really a good reason for ignoring the order. And Nurmi should have filed his appeal ASAP. He Waited until the very last minute on purpose.

 

[LambChop]

Is There anyone that believes there would NOT be an immediate mistrial IF the transcripts were released and the the ASC sided with Jodi and said her constitutional rights were violated by releasing the transcripts?

Her fear is testifying before the cameras/media. That she will not be able to think clearly. This is testimony already given. There is no danger to what she has already testified to, unless as JM stated in court....she lied. jmo

 

[Sweet Fox]

Maybe they too....like Juan.......will ask him for his real name.

LOL. I can see it now, objection, objection, sidebar. What I don't understand is why a "so called" expert is allowed to testify in disguise and give a phony name. On what legal premise could this be allowed.

 

[bsk]

Maybe they too....like Juan.......will ask him for his real name.

It's pretty funny if you think about it. A question like that or "What is the name of the company you own?" would never make it through, but I bet they would make the DT break out in a sweat. The only sort of thing that might have a chance is something like "How many people does your company employ?" but I suspect the DT would object to that and the judge would not ask it. If it made it through, I'd imagine Juan would be ready to jump all over it if he lies.

That reminds me of something I've always wondered about. In a case like this where jurors can ask questions, I wonder why they don't ask jurors to write *something* on any subject (What's your favorite color?) on question forms and turn them in just so that no one can tell who is really asking questions.

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

The problem with the approach of being a questioning consumer of this trial as it relates to the judge, IMHO, is that we don't have all the facts. The judge does, however. While a lawyer might be able to evaluate procedure, none of us can stand in the shoes of the judge, since she is privy to facts and situations that we know nothing about. It is fruitless (and sometimes dangerous), IMHO, to take a position or make an argument without knowing and evaluating the facts. So, a certain amount of trust is in order here.

Given that we don't have the facts, I'm wondering why the posts here are going around and around poking slights at JSS. Wasn't it suggested by a moderator that we back away from that topic? Or I'm being obtuse?

 

[Madeleine74]

Someone way upstream made a comment that JSS is allowing Arias to stay in her posh cell instead of going to prison.

Here's JA's actual cell. Posh is not a word I would use to describe living in this cell.

(And before anyone makes the comment, yes I know it's bigger and better than what Travis has to be in.)

 

[ohreally]

There wouldn't be. She was within her rights to release them as soon as the COA ordered her to, whether Nurmi would have appealed to the SC or not. The only reason she sat on them is because she knew it wasn't over, which isn't really a good reason for ignoring the order. And Nurmi should have filed his appeal ASAP. He Waited until the very last minute on purpose.

I agree with what you are saying. She was within her right to release them. I also believe that Nurmi waited till the last minute on purpose. I just wonder that IF the ASC had ruled in Jodi's favor it would mean a mistrial because it would mean that the court believed Jodi had the constitutional right to secret testimony with the terms of them not being released until after trial. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she had the right to testify in secret. I just wonder the what IF and could we then be looking at a mistrial because the court believes her rights were violated.