Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't he spill water and burp? That was such a joke! She had buffoons for expert witnesses!
 
Where is the trial "chatter"thread? Is it on another website ?
Thx
 
twomanywords said:
Didn't he spill water and burp? That was such a joke! She had buffoons for expert witnesses!
Click to expand...


yes, he said I was doing so good.


Our History

IVAT was founded in July 2005, when the nationally acclaimed Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute (FVSAI) joined Alliant International University.

The Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute, which is now one of the centers within IVAT, was founded in 1984 in Texas by Robert Geffner, Ph.D. FVSAI was established to address the need for a national resource and training center that focused directly on family violence issues.

He's and Alyce go hand and hand,

we do have a websleuther that was a student of his.... I think here in Texas.
 
geevee said:
Is this the link?

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/RESIDUALDOUBTINNOCENCE.aspx

ETA: LOL, Ricki got in ahead of me, now off to read it. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Gryphon and geevee, but I don't understand how she can take a sentencing phase and turn it into an appeal for a retrial or appeal of her conviction. This is so whacked. JMO. And I don't expect you to try to digest all that is in your link to explain it to me. I'm just disgusted that she can still jerk everyone around like this. I'm with the poster who said just drop the DP and force her to live in obscurity for the rest of her life.
 
LinasK said:
Thanks, but credit is due to a poster in the Martin McNeill thread. They designed it for him, I just figured it was appropriate for Jodi too!
Click to expand...

I wanted to give Jodi her own as well. She can wear the white one on odd weeks and the pink one on even weeks, LOL.



Oh, and she still gets the Nancy tongue-lashing, since she loves Nancy so much! :happydance:
 
renatae said:
I wanted to give Jodi her own as well. She can wear the white one on odd weeks and the pink one on even weeks, LOL.



Oh, and she still gets the Nancy tongue-lashing, since she loves Nancy so much! :happydance:
Click to expand...

I like the tee shirt. But I like the jail stripes much better. Makes her realize she isn't special and no one buys her abuse claims.
 
renatae said:
Thanks, Gryphon and geevee, but I don't understand how she can take a sentencing phase and turn it into an appeal for a retrial or appeal of her conviction. This is so whacked. JMO. And I don't expect you to try to digest all that is in your link to explain it to me. I'm just disgusted that she can still jerk everyone around like this. I'm with the poster who said just drop the DP and force her to live in obscurity for the rest of her life.
Click to expand...

She can't turn this penalty phase into a retrial of the guilt phase, and she won't be allowed to argue residual doubt, at least not overtly.

However JSS chooses to have the new jury caught up on previous phases, the focus will be kept on mitigation.

Working in CMJA's favor:

1.The jury will be instructed that mitigation can be found in ANY evidence presented in ANY part of the trial.
2. The jury is instructed that they must set aside the 1st degree murder verdict in their deliberations. All they are to consider is whether mitigation outweighs the especially cruel manner in which Travis was murdered.
3. Testimony stating that she is a victim of DV will most likely be permitted as it can be construed as relating to the"circumstances of the crime."

Working against her:

1. If her strategy is to essentially argue abuse as mitigator ( I think that's her intent) she must prove that it is more likely than not she was abused at all, much less to such an extent that this abuse was a factor in the premeditated murder of a victim she had to drive a 1,000 miles to slaughter.

Note: even the foreman of the last jury who was extremely sympathetic to her didn't believe she was physically abused ( tho he did believe she was "emotionally" and "mentally" abused.

2.JM will have a fresh jury, not one burdened by having to listen to months of explicit *advertiser censored* and whacky DT experts and the like, nor exhausted by having to deliberate guilt. They'll only have one focus, and the person they will be introduced to is a felon convicted of an especially cruel first degree murder.

3. If she represents herself throughout she will be outmanuevered by JM at every turn. IMO, her arrogance and hatred of Travis and the people who love him will be utterly transparent. I firmly believe that the odds are far greater that she'll alienate the jury rather than inspire sympathy .
 
Can someone enlighten me on how a sentencing trial might look? Will it be much like the first trial in that they will hear a chronological timeline of events, testimony of witnesses, listening to JA on the stand for days on end, all of the photos, the video with people in foil, etc? Will they see exerpts from previous witness testimony (including JA's)? I am kinda at a loss as to how this will be handled.
 
The last 'public' minute entry has the Capital Case Management Conference scheduled at 8:30 AZ time this morning, anybody know if that's still on? I don't see any references to it on twitter.
 
Ok so I don't know all that much about this case but what blew my mind was that JA went to hook-up and sleep with another guy just hours after she slept with Travis and murdered him? Is that correct?
 
cindymac said:
Unfortunately, Dr. Horn's typo - that the dura mater is "intact" instead of "not intact" - is rarely viewed in context.

Dr. Horn makes it clear, earlier in the autopsy report, that the dura mater is not intact by stating that a gunshot wound "perforates the anterior frontal skull" - it is not possible for a bullet (or anything else) to perforate the skull without also perforating the dura mater, which is not only attached to the skull but extremely thin.

Which is why, of course, defense did not introduce any rebuttal witnesses to say that the dura mater was intact. In light of the hole in Travis' skull, it's simply not possible to say so, and no more than an obvious typo, plain and simple.

P.S. This is my first post - just joined after years of reading all your wonderful comments! - so please give me the benefit of the doubt if I seem a bit rough round the edges on my first foray! I hope to add to the civilized discussion!
Click to expand...

Great first post, Cindymac and welcome.
 
Arias has vacillated before, notably in stating she preferred death to life in prison but also in her mountain of lies. Do you wonder if she will reconsider cameras? I do. Not that any other of her assertions is true but it is hard to see how cameras damaged her trial, as she protests.
 
wenwe4 said:
Can someone enlighten me on how a sentencing trial might look? Will it be much like the first trial in that they will hear a chronological timeline of events, testimony of witnesses, listening to JA on the stand for days on end, all of the photos, the video with people in foil, etc? Will they see exerpts from previous witness testimony (including JA's)? I am kinda at a loss as to how this will be handled.
Click to expand...


This is a good article that describes retrials of just penalty phase. It was written for a slightly different reason but the article talks specifically about retrials of just the penalty phase. The way I understand it is the defendent can basically try to bring in whatever they want to bring in and it will be up to the judge how much she allows and if it is admissable.

From the article, it will cover....
"there are two specific doctrinally
interesting admissibility issues: 1) to what extent may a defendant offer evidence
designed to undermine the new jury’s confidence in the prior jury’s verdict of
guilt; and 2) the same question with regard to the prior jury’s finding of an
aggravating circumstance."

There are parts that refer to exactly what we are all wondering and well worth reading through these certain parts like this below:

"
Prosecutor Williams: Of course, the defense is not supposed to be able to make a
residual doubt argument—but they do. For example, they cross-examine witnesses
to point out weaknesses, bias—all the things they would try to do in the guilt stage
of the trial. It all depends on the judge how much of this is permitted. For
example, in one of my penalty-phase-only retrials, the judge permitted the defense
to make basically the same guilt/innocence argument it had lost at the original trial,
that is, the defendant’s contention that a guy named Bobby (surname unknown) did
the crime while the defendant only watched. It was very difficult for the jury to
reconcile this argument with the instructions given that they were to accept the
guilty verdict as a given. I had to argue that the defendant had presented the same
theory to the first jury, and they had rejected it."

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/files/2012/05/McCord-PDF-11-29-04.pdf
 
JenniferTx said:
Ok so I don't know all that much about this case but what blew my mind was that JA went to hook-up and sleep with another guy just hours after she slept with Travis and murdered him? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

O/T Jennifer, I just today rewatched the Ellen show where Gladys was on from Texas and said the line of what you have below your name. lol

[video=youtube;wGZccD6A_KQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGZccD6A_KQ[/video]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 112 more.
Total: 313 (members: 113, guests: 200)

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
200
Total visitors
313
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,642
Messages
18,242,898
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top