AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
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."