Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/3/14 Hearing - Part 2

[Tuba]

Can't stop chewing on what little information is available to us. I suspect the defense "case" is grandiose. Nurmi characterizes it as Arias litigating her issues rather than Arias mitigating her moral culpability. There is that, plus the amount of time she has all along planned to be in front of the jury. Factor in the evident stand-off between the two, counsel & client, circa October 20, when she wanted to free herself from him once again. Someone was in favor of the recent legal lunge for power and control, and someone wanted to sit this out with Willmott. There is balance, equity and prudence, and then there is what we seem to have with this over reach as October became November. Nurmi may have provided assurances regarding his strategy going forward but dealt with an obstreperous client not about to be convinced of the worth of anything but what she had in mind. If they arrived at this pass with a shared plan, she would not have pulled away from him just days before. Therefore, she seems to have won, only to lose.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Trying to find out if she's seen the motion, or where she got this info re: what the joinder motion is about:

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
@SuzanneFleming9 @starknightz They are joining with others facing DP to ask it to be dropped due to State not giving proper notice

AZLawyer, what 'proper notice' do they have to give?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, what 'proper notice' do they have to give?

I've been thinking about this, and I suspect it might have something to do with the theory I've heard "floated" that "absence of sufficient mitigation" should be included in the charging papers. I doubt, with this many cases involved, that there is an allegation of actual failure to file the notice of intent to seek the death penalty at the proper time.

 

[josie1986]

So fill me in with this motion,I know nurmi says JM didn't give them enough time or something when filing for the DP but what's the ins and outs of this.

Surely he could have pulled this one out the bag long ago.....he's had nearly six years now to complain about this.....somehow I can't see JM not doing everything by the book,all the i's dotted and t'S crossed

 

[MeeBee]

Did Daryl Brewer and/or Patricia Womack ever say to the media that they did not testify on behalf of JA last year because they were afraid for their lives?

I'm sure they did receive lots of harassment and even death threats. I have no doubt about that. However, I can't find any direct quotes from them that they did not testify because they were genuinely afraid for their lives.

I'm only finding Nurmi's words. Nurmi and Wilmott wanted JSS to tell the jury "Ms. Arias had intended to present the testimony of Ms. Womack to you. Ms. Womack would have testified regarding the abusive environment Ms. Arias grew up in as well as the abuse she suffered as an adult. However, Ms. Arias will no longer be able to present the testimony of Ms. Womack because her life has been threatened merely because she seeks to testify on Ms. Arias' behalf." JSS did not tell the jury that. She said "...we can only speculate."

Juan Martinez had a number of other reasons Ms. Womack did not testify, but I'm not sure I believe all of those either. She is not on trial, anyway.

I found an actual quote here:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...as-pulls-out-citing-threats-and-inner-turmoil


Last month Troy Hayden reported that Daryl Brewer will testify on JA's behalf this year.
https://twitter.com/troyhaydenfox10/status/524623376585732096
Last year, Daryl Brewer did a TV interview the very same day Patricia Womack did not testify in court:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/articles/20130520jodi-arias-darryl-brewer-interview.html

Just as it was last year, I think the whole "our witnesses will only testify in secret" argument is just smoke again this year; a delay tactic, and nothing more.

MOO

Oh, I totally believe Juan's reasons. Patti was ready to testify but she needed to be interviewed by Juan first. So she went back, he asked some questions about her drug use and possible welfare fraud, Willmott pulled her back, Patti came back and she pleaded the fifth and that was it for Patti. If it had anything to so with anything else, she would have refused to testify when Nurmi called her or pulled out earlier. She would not have done so in the middle of her interview with Juan.

 

[hindsight2020]

IMO he's just going for maximum delay time. I'm not sure there is anything to hide—other than all the reasons his client deserves the death penalty and the lack of any reason for the jury to be lenient.

^^^I agree, he is subsequently creating as many appellate issues in the interim within the legal parameters he is afforded therein, or cause a mistrial, nothing to lose. This is all so confusing, wondering how this will all play out. . . .to be continued. pffffft

 

[Nosey Parker]

I have to give Nurmi his due - he's very good at juggling! How many legal balls does he have in the air presently? Perhaps, dare I say hopefully, one will drop on his client's head!

 

[Tuba]

Yes, Josie, he has pulled this out of the bag before, many times. Ruling went against him every time. At the beginning of October, he and Willmott filed again on this but they added many more allegations, against both the prosecutor and law enforcement. Now, joining an action, timely & appropriate notice is the issue for six other signatories.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Is that because all his "balls" are full of hot air?

 

[Tuba]

What's happened to Gerard?

 

[Nosey Parker]

Is that because all his "balls" are full of hot air?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[ShadyLady]

I've been thinking about this, and I suspect it might have something to do with the theory I've heard "floated" that "absence of sufficient mitigation" should be included in the charging papers. I doubt, with this many cases involved, that there is an allegation of actual failure to file the notice of intent to seek the death penalty at the proper time.

Wasn't Jodi's mother at one time going to speak? You would think at least one relative would defend her.

 

[gcharlie]

Wasn't Jodi's mother at one time going to speak? You would think at least one relative would defend her.

Doesn't sound like the DT has them lined up as witnesses, because they were not mentioned the other day. There may be the option of having statements made to the jury, like the defense did in the Bryan Hulsey case.

Honestly, I don't understand or agree with the strategy of the defense in this case. Looks like they are going for a re-run of the first trial, only turning up the dial on abuse and perhaps the sexual deviancy of the victim.

 

[LinTX]

I've been thinking about this, and I suspect it might have something to do with the theory I've heard "floated" that "absence of sufficient mitigation" should be included in the charging papers. I doubt, with this many cases involved, that there is an allegation of actual failure to file the notice of intent to seek the death penalty at the proper time.

There is another joined motion in Maricopa County on the constitutionality of the death penalty, saying the sentencing scheme is overbroad and defendants eligibility for it should be narrowed. Case # CR2010-007912 now shows 6 defendants. Here's the memorandum from the motion:

MEMORANDUM

I. The Issue:

To be constitutional, a capital statute must genuinely narrow the class of
defendants eligible for death and justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on
the defendant compared to others convicted of first degree murder. Narrowing may be
accomplished by severely restricting the definition of first degree murder or by
requiring additional proof of an aggravating factor that distinguishes a defendant as
above the norm for first degree murderers. Arizona's capital murder statute broadly
defines first degree murder and evidence shows that virtually every first degree murder
case has an aggravating factor. Is Arizona's capital murder statute constitutional?

II. Short Answer:

No. Arizona has adopted a sentencing scheme that broadly defines the definition of
first degree murder to include all felony murders and premeditated murder and uses
aggravating factors to narrow a defendant's eligibility for the death penalty. The
aggravating factors are designed to identify those cases where the manner in which the
crime was committed or the background of the defendant raise it above the norm for
first degree murders. If virtually every first degree murder case has at least one
aggravating factor, the statute has no method of meaningfully distinguishing the few
cases in which death is deserved from the many cases in which it is not.

eta: Cathy(courtchatter) says she didn't order the original motion JA is joining because it was over 200 pages, but didn't say if she read it or how she found out what it was about.

 

[janx]

Sorry to interrupt this sort of class action motion discussion, but I wonder if the State is going to get into the motive for this crime during the penalty retrial. The woman Travis was supposed to be going to Cancun with was somewhat of a draw, but to me, the real catalyst for JA's revenge was the fact that Travis would not come up to her part of the country. This trip (that Travis no doubt had no intention of taking) comes up in 1.) the recorded phone conversation; 2.) day #2 of the interrogation of JA by Flores (in which she mentions Travis's second "cancellation" of the trip; 3.) the conversation Det. Flores has with Bill Arias, who says that it was his understanding that Travis was coming to the NW and that JA was "going to marry this guy"; 4.) and very tellingly, the voice mail JA left on Travis's phone after his death; and 5.) also very obviously, the email JA sent to Travis's computer after his death.

Were there any other references to this trip? This seems to be more than anything else the real reason for her anger, the indicator that yes, the relationship was over; Travis gave her the heave-ho, and that trip was out of the question.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I have to give Nurmi his due - he's very good at juggling! How many legal balls does he have in the air presently? Perhaps, dare I say hopefully, one will drop on his client's head!

Nurmi gets paid for all the time he delays things for everybody else. He waste everybody's time and he still gets paid.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Sorry to interrupt this sort of class action motion discussion, but I wonder if the State is going to get into the motive for this crime during the penalty retrial. The woman Travis was supposed to be going to Cancun with was somewhat of a draw, but to me, the real catalyst for JA's revenge was the fact that Travis would not come up to her part of the country. This trip (that Travis no doubt had no intention of taking) comes up in 1.) the recorded phone conversation; 2.) day #2 of the interrogation of JA by Flores (in which she mentions Travis's second "cancellation" of the trip; 3.) the conversation Det. Flores has with Bill Arias, who says that it was his understanding that Travis was coming to the NW and that JA was "going to marry this guy"; 4.) and very tellingly, the voice mail JA left on Travis's phone after his death; and 5.) also very obviously, the email JA sent to Travis's computer after his death.

Were there any other references to this trip? This seems to be more than anything else the real reason for her anger, the indicator that yes, the relationship was over; Travis gave her the heave-ho, and that trip was out of the question.

There was something going around during the trial that Jodi was to go on the Cancun trip and Travis changed it to Mimi. He asked Mimi to go with him as a friend, and she was be going to be staying with another family. Jodi likes to call her the babysitter. She told Flores that she was fine with it.

 

[Renee110]

IMO he's just going for maximum delay time. I'm not sure there is anything to hide—other than all the reasons his client deserves the death penalty and the lack of any reason for the jury to be lenient.

The thing I keep coming back to though, is that JSS agreed the courtroom should be sealed. Surely she wouldn't have done this if it's just a delay tactic. I also don't believe she would think the courtroom needed to be sealed for yet a different story and I don't think DP is hiding anything. I really think JA just threw a fit and refused to testify if media is there and JSS is afraid they will say she wasn't given the chance to mitigate. I don't think JSS sealed the courtroom with the plan of COA reversing it. I think she has just sealed and sealed and sealed and has become so used to the secrecy to this point and JA's request for a closed courtroom seemed logical to her at that time. Maybe the accepted fact that hearings are always in secret without media and public and then sealed made her feel that this was ok. Crazy to us I know, but I do think she just went too far, and I also think she knows it. Now what the hell Nurmi is thinking after COA granting the stay, I don't know, but it could be that he IS using this as a delay tactic NOW. I hope I made sense. JMO of course like always.

 

[cindymac]

Sorry to interrupt this sort of class action motion discussion, but I wonder if the State is going to get into the motive for this crime during the penalty retrial. The woman Travis was supposed to be going to Cancun with was somewhat of a draw, but to me, the real catalyst for JA's revenge was the fact that Travis would not come up to her part of the country. This trip (that Travis no doubt had no intention of taking) comes up in 1.) the recorded phone conversation; 2.) day #2 of the interrogation of JA by Flores (in which she mentions Travis's second "cancellation" of the trip; 3.) the conversation Det. Flores has with Bill Arias, who says that it was his understanding that Travis was coming to the NW and that JA was "going to marry this guy"; 4.) and very tellingly, the voice mail JA left on Travis's phone after his death; and 5.) also very obviously, the email JA sent to Travis's computer after his death.

Were there any other references to this trip? This seems to be more than anything else the real reason for her anger, the indicator that yes, the relationship was over; Travis gave her the heave-ho, and that trip was out of the question.

In my opinion, Travis had no intention of visiting Arias in CA. It's (yet another) fairytale - a ruse to make it look like (a) they were on friendly terms, and that (b) she had no reason to go to Mesa, because Travis was coming to CA.

On the other hand, there's a heap of evidence showing that Arias was obsessed with Travis, hated his other girlfriends and was determined to marry him, and killed him because, in the end, he realized what she was really like, and cut her off. And in the most humiliating way possible, from Arias' perspective at least.

Not only was he going to turn up in Cancun without her - signalling to the entire world that she was history - but he was going to be with another woman. I think the public nature of his decision to completely cut her out of his life made her realize how firm that decision was - that she really was out of his life, for good. And it's this that made her decide to kill him.

To my mind, it wasn't a case of "if I can't have him, no one can" but rather that she couldn't live with the feelings of rejection - that she knew she would never get over them; that it would haunt her forever knowing that Travis was out there, somewhere, without her. Most likely successful, loved, popular - all those things that she had hoped to get a share of. She hated Travis for "making" her feel that way, and "stealing" the life she'd planned. By killing him, she would cut off the source of those feelings - you can't feel rejected by a dead person - and of course, get to vent her hate in the process.

 

[mydirtysecret]

Sorry to interrupt this sort of class action motion discussion, but I wonder if the State is going to get into the motive for this crime during the penalty retrial. The woman Travis was supposed to be going to Cancun with was somewhat of a draw, but to me, the real catalyst for JA's revenge was the fact that Travis would not come up to her part of the country. This trip (that Travis no doubt had no intention of taking) comes up in 1.) the recorded phone conversation; 2.) day #2 of the interrogation of JA by Flores (in which she mentions Travis's second "cancellation" of the trip; 3.) the conversation Det. Flores has with Bill Arias, who says that it was his understanding that Travis was coming to the NW and that JA was "going to marry this guy"; 4.) and very tellingly, the voice mail JA left on Travis's phone after his death; and 5.) also very obviously, the email JA sent to Travis's computer after his death.

Were there any other references to this trip? This seems to be more than anything else the real reason for her anger, the indicator that yes, the relationship was over; Travis gave her the heave-ho, and that trip was out of the question.

I'm not sure they will delve into motive, since she's been convicted of first degree murder in a cruel manner. They will focus on the actual premeditated killing. The why is a moot point at this penalty phase.