Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZlawyer. I appreciate you being on the thread with us. I am not a lawyer, nor am I that knowledgeable about JSS but it seemed to me that she was very much in the favor of the defense. And we don't know yet what went on in those MANY ex parte hearings. Just guessing. Thanks you for your expertise.

I know you're frustrated and don't blame you. I just want to make sure we don't stray too far from the truth. A review of JSS's minute entries in this case shows the following rulings, in reverse order:

5/27/14 [JA's] Motion to Reconsider and Re-Urge Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to State’s Preclusion of Mitigation Specialist: denied.

3/21/14 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to State’s Preclusion of Mitigation Specialist: denied.

2/5/14 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Death: Cruel and Unusual Punishment: denied.

12/5/13 [JA's] Motion to Reconsider Change of Venue and Request for Individualized Voir Dire: denied.

12/3/13 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Juror Twitter Accounts: denied.

11/14/13 Defendant’s Motion to Preclude or Limit Live Media Coverage of Sentencing Phase Retrial: granted (later modified to allow video coverage as well as still photos, but with no release to public until after verdict).

11/14/13 Defendant’s Renewed Request to Sequester Her Jury: denied.

11/14/13 Ms. Arias’ Renewed Request For Individualized Voir Dire By Counsel: denied.

11/13/13 [JA's] Motion for Change of Venue: denied.

11/1/13 [JA's] Motion to Change Counsel: denied.

8/9/13 [JA's] Motion to Vacate Aggravation Phase Verdict: denied.

5/22/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

5/22/13 Defendant’s Motion to re-argue the omitted RAJI [jury instruction]: granted.

5/20/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

5/20/13 [JA's] Motion to Stay: denied.

5/14/13 [JA's] Request that Victim Impact Evidence be Presented via Videotape: denied.

5/14/13 Defendant’s Motion for Discovery of Victim Impact Evidence: denied.

5/9/13 [JA's] Motion to dismiss death penalty: denied.

4/30/13 [JA's] Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty: Speedy Trial and Effective Assistance of Counsel: denied.

4/25/13 Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial due to Attorney Misconduct: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial for Witness Intimidation: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion to allow testimony re: victim's cornea: denied.

2/13/13 Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial and request for sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct: denied.

2/7/13 State's Motion in Limine: denied.

1/30/13 [JA's] Motion to Sequester the Jury: denied.

1/30/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

1/17/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

1/17/13 [JA's] Motion for Judgment of Acquittal: denied.

1/14/13 Defendant’s Motion for Stay: denied.

1/10/13 Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial: denied.

1/10/13 Defendant's Motion for New Probable Cause Hearing (re: cruelty): denied.

1/2/13 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration: denied.

12/20/12 Defendant's Batson Motion: denied.

12/19/12 [JA's] Motion to Preclude State from Admitting or Publishing Ms. Arias’ Prior Interviews: denied.

12/19/12 Defendant’s Motion to Preclude State from Presenting Evidence Related to the Theft of a Gun that Occurred in Yreka on May 28, 2008: denied.

12/12/12 Defendant’s request for further computer hard drive data: denied.

12/7/12 Defendant’s Motion for Procedures to Ensure that Ms. Arias is Tried by a Fair and Impartial Jury: denied.

12/4/12 [JA's] Motion for an ex parte sealed hearing regarding the computer hard drive: granted.

12/4/12 Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Jury selection: denied.

11/19/12 Defendant's Motion to Compel [hard drive] and motion to continue trial (related?): granted.

11/19/12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: denied.

10/25/12 State’s Motion for Unredacted Copy of Expert’s Notes: granted in part.

9/25/12 Defendant’s Motion to Seal Defense Team Billing Logs: denied.

9/25/12 Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the State from Arguing Lack of Remorse During any Potential Sentencing Phase: denied.

8/27/12 Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the State from Arguing Lack of Remorse During any Potential Sentencing Phase: deferred until trial.

8/2/12 Defendant's Motion to Continue (1 mo.): granted.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Motion to Allow Jury to Consider Polygraph Results During Sentencing Phase: denied.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Request That an Interpreter be Provided for Spanish Only Speaking Jurors: denied.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure Deadline; Forensic Testing Conducted by State Upon Evidence Item Number 402873: denied.

6/19/12 [JA's] Request for Order to Assist Mitigation Investigation (apparently unopposed): granted.

5/18/12 [JA's] Motion for Independent Testing of Computer Evidence: granted.

3/12/12 [JA's] Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty; Speedy Trial and Effective Assistance of Counsel: denied.

3/12/12 [JA's] Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Mr. Alexander as the “Victim”: denied.

1/3/12 [JA's] Motion to Continue: granted.

12/15/11 Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Protective Order: denied.

12/6/11 Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order: denied.

11/4/11 State’s Motion to Preclude the Introduction of Hearsay Statements (Google Mail and Instant Messaging): granted as to opening arguments (deferred to trial as to other references).

11/4/11 [JA's] Motion to Continue: granted.

9/9/11 [JA's] Motion to Continue due to expert health issue requiring new expert: granted.

8/16/11 State's Motion in Limine Regarding Argument Relating to Weight of Mitigation Evidence: granted.

8/15/11 State’s Motion to Preclude the Letters: granted.

8/15/11 Defense Motion to Sequester Jury: denied.

8/15/11 Defense Motion for Individual Voir Dire: denied.

8/15/11 State’s Motion to Preclude Defense Experts from Testifying regarding Premeditation: granted.

8/15/11 State’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense Experts from Testifying regarding Victims Sexual Indiscretion: granted.

8/15/11 State’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Lingering Doubt as a Mitigation Factor: granted.

8/15/11 [JA's] Motion to Preclude the State from arguing the Defendant’s Pro Per Status: no opposition so granted.

8/10/11 Defendant’s Motion for Specific Discovery: denied.

8/10/11 Defendant’s Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing: denied.

8/10/11 Defendant’s Motion in Limine re: Nude Photo: denied.

8/10/11 Defense Counsel Motion in Limine, “Testimonial Statements”: denied.

8/10/11 Defense Motion to Continue: unopposed and granted.

8/8/11 Defense Motion to Continue/Stay hearing (due to JA decision to represent herself): denied.


I'm sure I missed a few, but you can see the pattern.


One of the 7/12/12 rulings contains the following language that may be of interest with respect to recent speculation on this thread:

"In Harrod, the defendant sought to present the results of a polygraph examination and
make statements of innocence during the penalty phase. The Supreme Court deemed this
evidence, which it characterized as residual doubt evidence, to not be mitigation because it did
not relate to the circumstances of the crime. The Court stated that “because the penalty phase
does not determine whether a defendant is guilty, the ‘circumstances of the offense’ language in
§13-7[51](G) does not authorize a defendant to present residual doubt evidence. Rather this
language relates to such factors, among others, as to how a defendant committed first degree
murder.” 218 Ariz. at ¶43. The Court held that the defendant in Harrod did not have a
constitutional or statutory right to present residual doubt evidence at his penalty phase
proceeding and therefore the trial court properly excluded the results of a polygraph examination.
Id. at ¶46.

Although the defendant does not explain exactly what her polygraph evidence will
purport to show, the Court believes its purpose will be the same as that asserted in Harrod - to
express her innocence of the crime. Such evidence is irrelevant in the penalty phase of a capital
case."

 

[Love Never Fails]

I know you're frustrated and don't blame you. I just want to make sure we don't stray too far from the truth. A review of JSS's minute entries in this case shows the following rulings, in reverse order:

5/27/14 [JA's] Motion to Reconsider and Re-Urge Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to State’s Preclusion of Mitigation Specialist: denied.

3/21/14 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to State’s Preclusion of Mitigation Specialist: denied.

2/5/14 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Death: Cruel and Unusual Punishment: denied.

12/5/13 [JA's] Motion to Reconsider Change of Venue and Request for Individualized Voir Dire: denied.

12/3/13 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Juror Twitter Accounts: denied.

11/14/13 Defendant’s Motion to Preclude or Limit Live Media Coverage of Sentencing Phase Retrial: granted (later modified to allow video coverage as well as still photos, but with no release to public until after verdict).

11/14/13 Defendant’s Renewed Request to Sequester Her Jury: denied.

11/14/13 Ms. Arias’ Renewed Request For Individualized Voir Dire By Counsel: denied.

11/13/13 [JA's] Motion for Change of Venue: denied.

11/1/13 [JA's] Motion to Change Counsel: denied.

8/9/13 [JA's] Motion to Vacate Aggravation Phase Verdict: denied.

5/22/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

5/22/13 Defendant’s Motion to re-argue the omitted RAJI [jury instruction]: granted.

5/20/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

5/20/13 [JA's] Motion to Stay: denied.

5/14/13 [JA's] Request that Victim Impact Evidence be Presented via Videotape: denied.

5/14/13 Defendant’s Motion for Discovery of Victim Impact Evidence: denied.

5/9/13 [JA's] Motion to dismiss death penalty: denied.

4/30/13 [JA's] Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty: Speedy Trial and Effective Assistance of Counsel: denied.

4/25/13 Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial due to Attorney Misconduct: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial for Witness Intimidation: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion to allow testimony re: victim's cornea: denied.

2/13/13 Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial and request for sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct: denied.

2/7/13 State's Motion in Limine: denied.

1/30/13 [JA's] Motion to Sequester the Jury: denied.

1/30/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

1/17/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial: denied.

1/17/13 [JA's] Motion for Judgment of Acquittal: denied.

1/14/13 Defendant’s Motion for Stay: denied.

1/10/13 Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial: denied.

1/10/13 Defendant's Motion for New Probable Cause Hearing (re: cruelty): denied.

1/2/13 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration: denied.

12/20/12 Defendant's Batson Motion: denied.

12/19/12 [JA's] Motion to Preclude State from Admitting or Publishing Ms. Arias’ Prior Interviews: denied.

12/19/12 Defendant’s Motion to Preclude State from Presenting Evidence Related to the Theft of a Gun that Occurred in Yreka on May 28, 2008: denied.

12/12/12 Defendant’s request for further computer hard drive data: denied.

12/7/12 Defendant’s Motion for Procedures to Ensure that Ms. Arias is Tried by a Fair and Impartial Jury: denied.

12/4/12 [JA's] Motion for an ex parte sealed hearing regarding the computer hard drive: granted.

12/4/12 Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Jury selection: denied.

11/19/12 Defendant's Motion to Compel [hard drive] and motion to continue trial (related?): granted.

11/19/12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: denied.

10/25/12 State’s Motion for Unredacted Copy of Expert’s Notes: granted in part.

9/25/12 Defendant’s Motion to Seal Defense Team Billing Logs: denied.

9/25/12 Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the State from Arguing Lack of Remorse During any Potential Sentencing Phase: denied.

8/27/12 Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the State from Arguing Lack of Remorse During any Potential Sentencing Phase: deferred until trial.

8/2/12 Defendant's Motion to Continue (1 mo.): granted.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Motion to Allow Jury to Consider Polygraph Results During Sentencing Phase: denied.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Request That an Interpreter be Provided for Spanish Only Speaking Jurors: denied.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure Deadline; Forensic Testing Conducted by State Upon Evidence Item Number 402873: denied.

6/19/12 [JA's] Request for Order to Assist Mitigation Investigation (apparently unopposed): granted.

5/18/12 [JA's] Motion for Independent Testing of Computer Evidence: granted.

3/12/12 [JA's] Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty; Speedy Trial and Effective Assistance of Counsel: denied.

3/12/12 [JA's] Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Mr. Alexander as the “Victim”: denied.

1/3/12 [JA's] Motion to Continue: granted.

12/15/11 Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Protective Order: denied.

12/6/11 Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order: denied.

11/4/11 State’s Motion to Preclude the Introduction of Hearsay Statements (Google Mail and Instant Messaging): granted as to opening arguments (deferred to trial as to other references).

11/4/11 [JA's] Motion to Continue: granted.

9/9/11 [JA's] Motion to Continue due to expert health issue requiring new expert: granted.

8/16/11 State's Motion in Limine Regarding Argument Relating to Weight of Mitigation Evidence: granted.

8/15/11 State’s Motion to Preclude the Letters: granted.

8/15/11 Defense Motion to Sequester Jury: denied.

8/15/11 Defense Motion for Individual Voir Dire: denied.

8/15/11 State’s Motion to Preclude Defense Experts from Testifying regarding Premeditation: granted.

8/15/11 State’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense Experts from Testifying regarding Victims Sexual Indiscretion: granted.

8/15/11 State’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Lingering Doubt as a Mitigation Factor: granted.

8/15/11 [JA's] Motion to Preclude the State from arguing the Defendant’s Pro Per Status: no opposition so granted.

8/10/11 Defendant’s Motion for Specific Discovery: denied.

8/10/11 Defendant’s Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing: denied.

8/10/11 Defendant’s Motion in Limine re: Nude Photo: denied.

8/10/11 Defense Counsel Motion in Limine, “Testimonial Statements”: denied.

8/10/11 Defense Motion to Continue: unopposed and granted.

8/8/11 Defense Motion to Continue/Stay hearing (due to JA decision to represent herself): denied.


I'm sure I missed a few, but you can see the pattern.


One of the 7/12/12 rulings contains the following language that may be of interest with respect to recent speculation on this thread:

"In Harrod, the defendant sought to present the results of a polygraph examination and
make statements of innocence during the penalty phase. The Supreme Court deemed this
evidence, which it characterized as residual doubt evidence, to not be mitigation because it did
not relate to the circumstances of the crime. The Court stated that “because the penalty phase
does not determine whether a defendant is guilty, the ‘circumstances of the offense’ language in
§13-7[51](G) does not authorize a defendant to present residual doubt evidence. Rather this
language relates to such factors, among others, as to how a defendant committed first degree
murder.” 218 Ariz. at ¶43. The Court held that the defendant in Harrod did not have a
constitutional or statutory right to present residual doubt evidence at his penalty phase
proceeding and therefore the trial court properly excluded the results of a polygraph examination.
Id. at ¶46.

Although the defendant does not explain exactly what her polygraph evidence will
purport to show, the Court believes its purpose will be the same as that asserted in Harrod - to
express her innocence of the crime. Such evidence is irrelevant in the penalty phase of a capital
case."

AZlawyer, thank you for the awesome research of the rulings. Well done!

 

[Worry Wart]

Gaahhh this is from MSM but I am not sure it's allowed??!! If not please remove but don't chastise me too much. It boggles my brain, she is defending herself and has time to manage her fans collecting money.


Just as I thought so I self edited. https://twitter.com/troyhaydenfox10 Just a hint at what poor Travis had to deal with.

Troy Hayden@troyhaydenfox10 · 5h

In jail phone call #JodiArias asks group to stop using her name to collect money. First time we've heard her voice since first trial.

 

[LinTX]

JM's motion was about residual doubt as a mitigating factor IIRC. I know someone posted a link to that page on the AZ Supreme Court website trying to say that residual doubt is about guilt vs. innocence and lingering doubt is about doubt as to the balance between mitigation and aggravation, but I remember reading this motion a long time ago and my recollection was that it was about doubt as to guilt vs. innocence.

And I would take with a grain of salt any legal analysis on the AZ Supreme Court pages about capital sentencing--looks like it's out of date as well as somewhat "tilted" in its presentation due to the author's opinion. My personal guess would be that this was written by one of the temporary law clerks. I'm not knocking them--I was one myself--I'm just saying that the fact that something appears somewhere in the depths of the AZ Supreme Court website doesn't mean that the AZ Supreme Court would actually rule consistently with what that page says.

The motion was about lingering doubt, not residual:

The Court has received and reviewed State’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Lingering
Doubt as a Mitigation Factor, Defense Response and for the reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED granting the State’s Motion to Preclude

IMO, this issue is going to cause some problems if JSS doesn't make a firm decision with clear instructions to both sides, especially since this jury is only hearing this phase.
I do agree about the "tilted' opinions on that site, btw.

 

[LinTX]

Gaahhh this is from MSM but I am not sure it's allowed??!! If not please remove but don't chastise me too much. It boggles my brain, she is defending herself and has time to manage her fans collecting money.


Just as I thought so I self edited. https://twitter.com/troyhaydenfox10 Just a hint at what poor Travis had to deal with.

Troy Hayden@troyhaydenfox10 · 5h

In jail phone call #JodiArias asks group to stop using her name to collect money. First time we've heard her voice since first trial.

I saw some of that on twitter. She made that phone call yesterday at about 10:30am - wasn't she in court then? Sure sounds like MariaDLR is her go to on a lot of things, doesn't it? Taxpayers paying for her 'help'...:thinking: Wonder what the rules are on phone calls made outside the jail?

 

[renatae]

Wonder what the rules are on phone calls made outside the jail?

If you mean who pays for them, inmates have to pay for their own phone calls.

 

[LinTX]

No, I was actually thinking that a prisoner's access is supposed to be controlled and monitored. If this call was made at the courthouse, they need to find out who, what and why. And then do something.

 

[salberg7]

Don't worry nor be embarrassed, Miss Tuba, about watching JVM. If that's all we have, I will take it! But I think the media will win with a one day delay of trial footage. I believe the public have a right to see court proceedings as they are public information. And also because the killer doesn't want it (this week, anyway-thinking she may change her mind).

 

[T-4-2]

... the killer doesn't want it (this week, anyway-thinking she may change her mind).

Or at least pretend to change her mind.

I have no doubt that she's fully aware how infuriating her incessant up-down-yes-no-good-bad-life-death-fact-fiction-truth-lie-weak-strong-victim-survivor-glasses-no glasses-pouty-smiley-scared-brave-giggly-snively NONSENSE is to the unlucky humans who happen to cross her path. Travis' texts probably expressed the anger most people felt towards her... at least the people who weren't afraid of her. Had she graduated from high school, she would have been voted "Most Likely To Be The Worst Thing That Ever Happens To You."

Every time a little bit more "genuine Jodi" oozes out, it's just always more toxic and manipulative (or even deadly) than any normal person could ever expect or fathom... and Jodi absolutely uses this against the "normals." Like the old Monty Python line "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition," well, nobody expects totally bat-sh** homicidal rage, either.

I wonder if Jodi ever has a spontaneous moment, or is every word/action calculated for a specific effect. I guess murdering Travis didn't go exactly according to plan and she was forced to improvise a little before leaving his house. That didn't work out very well for her.

 

[Tuba]

:jail:I think the killer feels a lot of inner panic as No Exit neons flash on all sides. There is no escape from her circumstances, even in sleep. She has also, through a long process, convinced herself that she is an innocent victim and that the jury & the world would have seen that, if not for Nurmi and Martinez. The present panic is fueled in part by the awareness that Nurmi will represent her again, if she falters in representing her mitigation. She has to know that so far, she is not meeting court requirements. Her refusal to provide her witnesses was a glaring effort to obstruct the process, a juvenile plan to spring them on an unprepared prosecution. I already posted at length that her lack of respect will shock the court and ruin her representation. Speaking in a tiny voice does nothing to disguise her intentions and her warped, self pitying assessments. There sits one of her two villains, a professional ordered to move in to replace her as she gets this whole proceeding wrapped around her neck. No Exit.

 

[geevee]

Don't worry nor be embarrassed, Miss Tuba, about watching JVM. If that's all we have, I will take it! But I think the media will win with a one day delay of trial footage. I believe the public have a right to see court proceedings as they are public information. And also because the killer doesn't want it (this week, anyway-thinking she may change her mind).

I think her objection is only to hopefully give herself another appeal issue, I think more than anything she wants The Jodi Show to be live and on everyone's screen, all day long in court and all night long on HLN.

Just mooo

 

[T-4-2]

Yep, Nurmi and Martinez are tag-teaming her straight to the death chamber... or so Jodi thinks. They themselves would be appalled to find themselves on the same side of ANY issue EVER.

eta: Oops, I totally take that back. However acrimonious their relationship may be in court, I suspect that -- as rational human beings -- they agree that a world without Jodi would be a much better place. (Clearly Nurmi's "nine days out of ten" claim was a major exaggeration.)

 

[krkrjx]

I think Nurmi's claim to dislike Jodi "nine days out of ten" was his way of showing empathy for the jurors because he knew most, if not all, did not like her.

I think he actually dislikes her ten days out of ten.

 

[T-4-2]

Thanks for compiling this list. Never one to let ignorance (in this case, of legal matters) prevent me from stating an opinion, here are some of my favorites:

4/30/13 [JA's] Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty: Speedy Trial and Effective Assistance of Counsel: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion for Mistrial for Witness Intimidation: denied.

4/15/13 [JA's] Motion to allow testimony re: victim's cornea: denied.

12/19/12 [JA's] Motion to Preclude State from Admitting or Publishing Ms. Arias’ Prior Interviews: denied.

7/12/12 Defendant’s Request That an Interpreter be Provided for Spanish Only Speaking Jurors: denied.

3/12/12 [JA's] Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Mr. Alexander as the “Victim”: denied.

12/6/11 Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order: denied.

8/15/11 State’s Motion to Preclude the Letters: granted.

It could have been a much speedier trial if the defendant weren't so completely antagonistic about absolutely everything at every single point along the way. (The whole $2 million plus change debacle could have been avoided altogether if the defendant had plead guilty... as if.) Ridiculing witnesses isn't the same as officially intimidating them (can't stand heat/get out of kitchen). Victim's cornea: oh please. Motion to Preclude State from Admitting or Publishing Ms. Arias’ Prior Interviews: maybe she shouldn't have given any interviews, prior or otherwise. Defendant's request that interpreters be provided for non-English speaking jurors (Spanish or otherwise) because the Maricopa County jury pool is as linguistically diverse as the UN. I don't know what the legal particulars are, but the photos alone left no doubt that Travis was a victim. Jodi, you don't need a protective order in jail because, really, you're just not that special.

Last but not least, State’s Motion to Preclude the Letters: granted! The first lesson on the first day of law school, Ms. Arias, is that you can't enter make-believe evidence (or if you try, you need to do a much better job. What worked in junior high won't quite cut it at this level.)

 

[neesaki]

I think Nurmi's claim to dislike Jodi "nine days out of ten" was his way of showing empathy for the jurors because he knew most, if not all, did not like her.

I think he actually dislikes her ten days out of ten.

Totally agree, who on earth could really "like" that psycho.

 

[T-4-2]

Lucky for his tires Jodi is locked up. Poor Jodi, she just doesn't handle rejection very well, despite having had a ton of practice. Other people who've tried to give her the heave-ho get a quick lesson in psychopathy.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Lucky for his tires Jodi is locked up. Poor Jodi, she just doesn't handle rejection very well, despite having had a ton of practice. Other people who've tried to give her the heave-ho get a quick lesson in psychopathy.

Would not doubt her planning to get even (in her vivid imagination) of Nurmi and Juan when this is over. That is likely why she is hanging onto those crazy friends of hers outside who aren't yet locked up. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said "friends" because she has none. They are more like psychos-in-waiting.

 

[Hatfield]

The thing we have to remember is it is already known that JA attempts to break rules and she has no respect for court rules. She has shown us this time and time again. Some small things but some were also fairly serious like allegedly taking pills in court handed to her from someone else. Allegedly trying to get things out of her cell and into the public and visa-versa like the pen/pencil shenanigans.

She has not given us any reason to believe that she will abide by the judge's instructions or rulings this time around.

This is why it is so important to have a firm judge and a good prosecuting attorney that can keep her in check. I have faith in Juan to raise the appropriate objections when necessary, but I do not have much faith that the judge will be able to control JA's attempts at skirting/skewing the rules, nor do I have much faith that she will be able to keep to her planned schedule.

I hope I am pleasantly surprised this time around. I just have not seen anything yet to give me any confidence. I am honestly afraid we are going to get more of the same we saw last time around.
I'm just waiting for the 1st delay and the 1st sidebar.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

JA is an animal who is cornered. She does not care about any rules or people or things. She lives to manipulate and to make sure people know how smart she is.

I still don't think they are going to get the dp. I just think with her doing so much unless she really shows her nasty side, She is going to sway at least one of them .

 

[Hope4More]

JA is an animal who is cornered. She does not care about any rules or people or things. She lives to manipulate and to make sure people know how smart she is.

I still don't think they are going to get the dp. I just think with her doing so much unless she really shows her nasty side, She is going to sway at least one of them .

I think she's going to get the DP, that the only reason she didn't the first time around was because of the jury foreman .

Reviewing AZ DP cases.....from 2002-2005, juries in 14 of 18 DP cases voted for the DP. Since then Arizonians as a whole have become MORE conservative, and haven't waivered a bit about the DP, unlike in many other states.

Looking back at the Ariano DP jury. When the deliberations began, only 3 out of 12 voted DP; 4 voted life, the others were undecided. ONE juror gave a strong speech for the DP. Afterwards the vote shifted to 11-1 in favor. The one left just didn't want to give the DP. The 11 convinced him otherwise, by weighing mitigators against the cruelty of the murder, something I don't believe CMJA's 1st jury did.