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

[bznbear]

Yeah, pretty much.
Here is where we are now, in Déjà vu Tube videos of sentencing phase 2013

http://youtu.be/4VCvpWyF-uA

http://youtu.be/oDXopWnFUqA

http://youtu.be/sxmpCSptl9s

Just as Ms. Womack was never really going to speak to the jury on behalf of CMJA, there are no mitigation witnesses with busy unshuffleable schedules who will testify after the Court of Appeals orders the court to allow the media back.

A question for our Lawyers please: When the DT say their witnesses have conflicting, unshuffleable (love that!) schedules, can the judge ask for proof of said conflicts? TIA!

 

[LinTX]

New Motion showing up.

11/6/2014 029 - ME: Status Conference - Party (001) 11/6/2014
11/6/2014 029 - ME: Status Conference - Party (001) 11/6/2014
11/6/2014 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 11/6/2014
11/5/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/6/2014
NOTE: MOTION FOR JOINDER AND FOR OMNIBUS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH PENALTY

 

[daisydomino]

Yes, I was using a figure of speech, because, I do agree she is too weak to take control of the attorneys. IMO, she is focusing too much on appeasing both parties, instead of just saying a big fat NO to the DT's frivolous antics.

I was just watching some of the unsealed sidebar FTR tapes that the Arizona Republic and AZ Central released last year. 04009margaret posted them earlier (thanks again!) http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130620jodi-arias-sidebars-exclusive.html
It's pretty interesting to hear what JSS was actually saying to the attorneys during those sidebars. JSS was not a spineless jellyfish at all!

What I'm trying to say is, because of the "sizzlebars" and so much of everything under seal, we don't see the full picture or hear the full story. We really cannot evaluate what the judge is doing.

 

[Frigga]

Here is a 20 + minute interview of JA that I had not seen in it's entirety.
This was after she was arrested. She's UPSET that her freedom had been taken away, for something she didn't do :furious:
I swear I have never seen anything like this woman in all my life. She is absolutely cray cray.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJmaW6YxuE

Wow! Its been a long time since I have watched this video.

She is one smooth liar. Very Ted Bundy.

She lies with conviction and genuine sincerity. Frightening.

She could make me believe almost anything.

She is DANGEROUS.

Mentally ill? NO!

 

[Hatfield]

If one of the roles of a mitigation specialist is to help JA not freak out because she is facing the DP then I do have to give her some credit that she has done well in that area.

Instead of a defendent who is scared and concerned, JA has been seen laughing and carrying on like its a day in the park. Of course she only does this outside the presence of the jury. When they come back, JA flips a switch and pretends things are serious again.

Not sure if JA needed any help though. JA seems to have these skills all by herself.

 

[krkrjx]

Don't forget, he also blamed the state and then the media. It is a lot to expect, that a defense attorney arguing for who knows what can't cite a case. I don't even know exactly what he was arguing for or against. The CT granted the stay of JS's secrecy order. Now this, to a normal atty, would signal they have a losing argument.

So, that would mean he would come to court the next day understanding that the trial must go on and he can't have a secret witness. To me, a "normal attorney" would then try for the lesser restrictions mentioned by the CT to try and get something. But this pre-supposes good faith. And this is really my issue with the DT. I sense a certain lack of good faith. It seemed pretty clear that KN couldn't cite any AZ precedent for what he was requesting and the CT of Appeals granted the stay, indicating a likelihood of success for the media position. So, what type of good faith basis could he have for refusing to go forward with the mitigation proceeding? I'm not really seeing any. Course, how can we possibly know since, as you noted, they then went into a secret discussion, again.

I went and listened to todays proceedings again to try and figure out KN's actual argument and I am even more incredulous. Juan gets up and makes perfect sense so no need to discuss.

KN gets up and starts with his statement, that he doesn't remember the case but the holding is that the state is presumed to know the law. And that means state should know defendants rights are superior to victims. Notes this is not about sabotage. He goes on about how he does want to go forward and would be happy to do so just as JS agreed to last week. (OK, that is a total bad faith argument as JS's secret witness order was stayed-she can't allow it) He continues about how Rule 19 isn't important here. Rights of JA are and JS herself found going ahead not in secret would be "problematic"-uses her word "problematic" numerous times. From that he states as fact that what JS found as "problematic" is of constitutional significance, that JA has the right to litigate issues and he's happy to go forward as JS said he could in secrecy. Then he gets into the media causing this and Juan not arguing against media so it's his fault too and so the media can cause a mistrial. He ends with acting all confused about why the judge is changing her position, why she would try to make them go forward without the promised secrecy, since she said it was problematic, like he completely forgot JS's order got slapped down by the appeals ct.

His "argument" is, well, lame and disengenuous, unless he has actual amnesia and forgot he went to the court of appeals. Whatever JS thought was "problematic", she simply can't let DT go forward in secrecy because the higher ct said she can't. Yet he is still arguing for that. He's got to know it isn't even possible. Of course he's using JS's words against her but even that is fairly lame, so she agreed it was "problematic" to go forward without the secrecy, when she agreed to the secrecy, of course she did, she needed to state some plausible reason to cave in to a ridiculous request. Just because something is problematic doesn't mean it affects JA's constitutional rights. "Problematic" is just about the lamest excuse for defying the constitution I've come across lately. That pesky 1st Amendment is just so "problematic" we should just do away with it for JA.

But then, JS speaks and actually starts to put her foot down and lay it on the table (mixed methaphors but I took some NYQUIL too). There she is, strong and decisive: the court stayed my order. You have to decide about proceeding out of order and not in preferred manner. you have other witnesses.....then it goes downhill-she starts caving...well, I know you have to file papers by Friday so I will limit the time you have to spend here. Juan says all DT has is 2 experts and one other witness from CA and the rest are affidavits. Then, you guessed it, she calls for secrecy because they're discussing witnesses and of course they need to be secret even though the court pretty much said they couldn't be and so it ends as always with wishy washy caving in and cancelling court and preserving the secrecy of the witnesses for another day.

Wow. I can only wonder how you do when you haven't taken NYQUIL.

You should submit this for publication.

 

[Brattinella]

Motion to DISMISS DEATH PENALTY?!

 

[Ricki]

New Motion showing up.

Any one know what motion of jonder is?? At work and I can't look it up. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

Any one know what motion of jonder is?? At work and I can't look it up. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is "joinder", and Joinder refers to the uniting of claims or parties in a single lawsuit or single action/request/whatever.

They are trying to combine 2 or more things together.

 

[Brattinella]

As I understand Motion for Joinder, it is to join either PEOPLE or Charges. She is the only person; and there is only one item for discussion, penalty AFTER conviction, right? There are no current charges, right?

 

[Hatfield]

Motion to DISMISS DEATH PENALTY?!

Yeah. LOL

Nurmi throws that in about once a week.

 

[LinTX]

Just a guess on my part, but maybe he's joining all his motions about dismissing the death penalty due to prosecutorial misconduct into one?

 

[LambChop]

As I understand Motion for Joinder, it is to join either PEOPLE or Charges. She is the only person; and there is only one item for discussion, penalty AFTER conviction, right? There are no current charges, right?

Not unless someone is planning on bringing perjury charges. This is witness testimonies. Who filed the motion, the State or the defense?

 

[Brattinella]

Cool. So that would be the last time then, right?

 

[krkrjx]

Here I thought she was a Convicted Felon!

Nurmi sounds like she is an innocent librarian. Does Jodi write what comes out of his mouth now?

Nope. According to AZl on the legal thread, she has not been convicted as she has not been sentenced. (Post #14 on legal thread)

:waitasec:

 

[LinTX]

Not unless someone is planning on bringing perjury charges. This is witness testimonies. Who filed the motion, the State or the defense?

Must be defense, since it references the motion to dismiss the death penalty. I do think it's about bringing all his motions into one, but I'm curious about the request for an "Omnibus hearing" too. So far, what I've found on that so far all relates to pretrial hearings.

 

[Tiger09]

I can't believe this. I don't know if this is smart defense lawyering or really dumb defense. It's like in football when the QB just throws the ball out of bounds to buy time, but you know the kicker will miss the field goal. I'm like.....baffled.

This cannot be real. This is a really bad story on a soap opera, right? I will say that JA is nothing like Ted Bundy. That guy went to college and spoke Chinese. People actually were charmed by him. I don't think many people care for Jodi.

 

[luvmygarden]

First, I meant to thank AZLawyer yesterday for correcting the info re: mitigation specialists and attorney/client privilege.

Next, it may just be that for some reason a big old tinfoil hat made it's way to my head overnight, but something is bothering me - please feel free to tell me I'm paranoid, way too cynical, and I'm overthinking this!

I think we were all pleasantly surprised, maybe shocked is a better description, to see that court video posted and rushed to watch it, etc. Several observations about JA & MDLR's little gab fest followed, because we've seen shots of JA talking at her table a lot, but this was different. The camera zoomed into their conversation longer, much closer and more clear than we've seen in the past. I remember being irritated about it because the trial twitter media had said the sidebar got heated and I wanted to see that. But instead we watched MDLR's conversation w/JA and comments were posted all over the internet about it. Nurmi had a fit. I mistakenly thought that camera guy had to know the rules and that the rule didn't cover her, so I just assumed Nurmi was overreacting (again).

One question I'm wondering about has to do with the video being released - we've been having to make do with trial by twitter forever. Why did we suddenly get video? I know originally JSS said video could be played at the end of the day, but thought she changed that and video was not going to be available until after sentencing? Was it because it did not involve testimony? Hopefully that is the reason, but I haven't seen anyone questioning that or any explanations given. Maybe I missed it?

OK, so for whatever reason we get video and it's slapped up on azcentral's website. It causes a lot of buzz, quite a bit about the MDLR section, because unlike other trial videos we really got a good, long look at MDLR talking to JA. I even read a few comments about the fact that MDLR seemed to be aware of the camera and looked right into it, arguing that it must not have been a violation of that rule. Cue paranoia here: we get that video just at the exact time that Nurmi needs reasons to show the COA why the courtroom needs to be sealed? He's even given time off so he can write his response to the media's appeal. Guess the guy is just very lucky, my tinfoil hat needs to be retired and I need to find something other than this to occupy my time? Am I the only one that thinks this incident will be mentioned in Nurmi's response to COA?

eta: Just remembered this part. We knew ahead of time that the day would be basically JSS dismissing the jury, but JA shows up anyway. I think I posted questioning about why she'd do that earlier, but figured she just wanted to get out of her cell.

Just read your post my first thought was is someone helping KN have issues to use. I noticed too how long camera was on JA and Mitigation lady. Thought oh no someone is going to be in trouble.

 

[Amster]

During the trial, the camera was often on Maria & JA. And, wasn't there some problem with Maria and the jail?

 

[Hope4More]

Just a guess on my part, but maybe he's joining all his motions about dismissing the death penalty due to prosecutorial misconduct into one?

Hmm..I wonder if the mystery motion that CMJA attempted to introduce is part of this?

Maybe Nurmi's plan is not about going after JM yet again, but going after JSS? Accusing her of bias , or of denying him the ability to put on an adequate mitigation case? As another tactic to force a mistrial?

Maybe that's what all this bizarre game of past weeks has been leading to?

Force JSS in a corner by making secrecy demands until the media steps in and takes it to AC. Which not only delays proceedings, but gives him the opportunity to cry foul about being forced to change order of witnesses, etc

Therefore his seizing on JSS's wording that changing witness order is "problematic, " and his explicit demand that she put her reasoning for her "reversal" on the record.

( IIRC, her response was essentially that the AC had forced her into the position of demanding Nurmi change the order.)

I'm increasingly convinced none of what's been going on is accidental or unexpected. Nurmi is playing chess. He's planned 4 moves ahead for a mistrial, his only way to win.

I'm trying to find precedent for a DT taking such a step, mid-trial in a DP case. It's happened at least once, in FL, during sentencing phase, but at the State's Atty instigation. Grounds there were that the judge was biased towards the defendant. Judge recused himself and was replaced.

Adding....where would Nurmi go if he did want JSS removed? The same Appeals Court? Where he's going next week?