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

[dog.gone.cute]

The impression I got was that it's all about the money and making sure it goes to the right place...them!
Wrongful conviction, my a$$!!!

:seeya:

BBM: When I saw this yesterday, I immediately thought of the Anthony's ... blood money $ !

 

[AZlawyer]

How many times has KN asked to be taken off this case? How many times has JA requested he be dismissed as her atty.? Why was this never granted? In the question of appeals, seems to me a defendant facing the DP should be able to fire an atty. they have no confidence in. For whatever nefarious reasons that JA wanted KN gone, it should have been granted.

Ironically, the requests were denied to avoid further delay.

From Jeff Gold:

Jeffrey Evan Gold @jeffgoldesq · 4h 4 hours ago


Today #JodiArias lawyers go before judge 1:30pAZT.

Jury off.

Missed yesterday's Appellate slapdown?

Catch up here: http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-public-beats-arias …

So...why 1:30? Surely everyone who needed to be at this hearing was available at 8:30 am? I mean, I assume none of them had other plans since the trial was scheduled. Again we've lost a 1/2 day for no apparent reason.

 

[MeeBee]

Well then I'm very sad that the killer has managed to ruin all their lives, which is what they said in their VIS. That is not what Travis would ever want for any of them, I'm sure of it. He seemed to be a very loving person who wanted the best for his friends and family. Having the rest of their lives ruined and the entire family gutted is a tragedy because the killer should not have that kind of power, ever. (IMO).

I dpmt think the killer holds any kind of power over their lives. The residual depression, anxiety and PTSD as a result of the murder of a loved one is not so easy to switch on and off. They should and have every right to let the jury know exactly what the killer's actions have caused them and those around her. It makes me very sad that this tragedy has affected them so deeply. But I don't imagine how it couldn't have. It should never have happened. But it did. Jodi did savagely murder their loved one. I can't imagine the torment.

 

[wenwe4]

AZ what is your best guess about how JSS will handle the rest of the proceedings? Have you had a case where a COA decision has come in mid-trial that changed the environment in the courtroom? Do you know anyone who has?

 

[daisydomino]

JVM and Beth Karas discuss yesterday's events
[video=youtube;YzGUwakXlBU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzGUwakXlBU[/video]

I know I'm an oddball, but I really like JVM

 

[wenwe4]

It seems that there is a pattern of behavior with JSS that I have not seen in other trials. She doesn't rule on anything right away very easily. She always seems to make rulings at a much later date or time. I understand the need to do some research on case law and take some time to reflect on the decision, but it feels to be excessive to me. (maybe I'm just whining)

 

[runningwater]

Has Jenny gained a wee bit around the tummy?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ what is your best guess about how JSS will handle the rest of the proceedings? Have you had a case where a COA decision has come in mid-trial that changed the environment in the courtroom? Do you know anyone who has?

I think she will be more wary of secrecy requests moving forward but is unlikely to take the time to reconsider her prior secrecy rulings (including "all sidebars to be sealed") unless someone pushes the issue.

Yes, I've had a special action order change a case in midstream. Normally the judges go out of their way to seem extra-special fair afterward, to make sure no one thinks they resent having whatever the ruling was reversed.

 

[Amster]

Well then I'm very sad that the killer has managed to ruin all their lives, which is what they said in their VIS. That is not what Travis would ever want for any of them, I'm sure of it. He seemed to be a very loving person who wanted the best for his friends and family. Having the rest of their lives ruined and the entire family gutted is a tragedy because the killer should not have that kind of power, ever. (IMO).

Criticism of the VIS? :facepalm:

 

[atthelake]

Ironically, the requests were denied to avoid further delay.



So...why 1:30? Surely everyone who needed to be at this hearing was available at 8:30 am? I mean, I assume none of them had other plans since the trial was scheduled. Again we've lost a 1/2 day for no apparent reason.

For Judge to have time to find out what the COA was meaning in their decision? ullhair: She is lacking the same parts as the dog lying next to me

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Oh, I see.

I agree!

But at this point I think sending them to the media room is a good compromise and, if the judge decides to keep witness identities secret, it's probably the best way to do that.

I thought the media could see the witness testifying in the media room.

I really don't want a precedence set where witnesses identities are a secret unless it is a rape victim in a rape trial or a minor child who has to testify. And in cases that I have seen minor children testified on the witness stand in front of the jury and at other times behind a screen although there has been some defense whining about that since the defendant has a right to face his/her accuser.

I remember years ago watching a case where a little girl testified. She was 5 when she was raped and her throat cut by the perp and her mother was raped and murdered. She was 7-8 when she took the stand. They did pixel out her images but her little voice could be heard and she very courageously testified to what had happened to her mom and herself. Also 8 year old Patricia Winkler got up in front of everyone and testified that her daddy had never been abusive to her mother or his girls. And Shasta Greone had every intentions of testifying in open court against JED and the only reason she didn't have to is he stipulated he did not need to cross examine her since he was representing himself. So why should these grown adults have this right in this one case? Anything said should be said in the open and light of day and not in some secretive star chamber atmosphere. IMO

If small children can do this then expert hired guns should not have the right to be secretive about their paid opinions and there isn't any case law that says when a defendant testifies that it must be done in secret.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I'm aggravated by the delay. Again, Travis' family is there with tremendous expenses. They will be there for him regardless, as would I if Travis were my adored brother. I will never forget this family, their torn apart lives, and the grace with which they endure.

I blame JSS, the defense team, and Jodie herself for all of the delays. Time is money, literally. JSS has a boss. Who is he/she? I really would like to know.

The pic of Jodie as the media went back into the courtroom is priceless. She looked so incredibly different, IMO, and I know why. Pure strategy. The one thing Jodie cannot change are those cold eyes, devoid of all human feeling. She wanted to look and dress young to tell her lies, IMO, and she just couldn't pull it off. This jury is not stupid. They can see the difference. I'm convinced she was the secret witness.

It's only a matter of time before Jodie hears that door slam shut behind her at Perryville. I simply cannot wait!

MOO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Ironically, the requests were denied to avoid further delay.

So...why 1:30? Surely everyone who needed to be at this hearing was available at 8:30 am?
I mean, I assume none of them had other plans since the trial was scheduled. Again we've lost a 1/2 day for no apparent reason.

BBM: Exactly !

AZL,

Have you ever thought of running for Judge

You definitely should think about it

:seeya:

 

[LinTX]

The optimistic headlines are a little misleading with regard to what the ruling actually was yesterday. The stay was granted. The closed portion of the trial must stop until the Court of Appeals can address the special action. THEN they will most likely rule that the judge can't shut out media (or the public.)

They didn't just grant a stay, they also gave a pretty clear indication of their opinion of media's arguments by the addition of the order saying that lesser restrictions to public access were permitted. Why this judge needs several hours to figure out what it means, is the mystery, IMO.

 

[Hope4More]

I bet TA would be sad about the destruction of his family. And furious as well.

Saying TA's family is choosing to be tormented is like saying cancer patients are responsible for being ill because they're not thinking positive enough thoughts.

They can't move on until this trial is over, and the years long delays are NOT their fault.

 

[Tuba]

We know that CNN & HLN are broker than busted. This trial was a great boost for HLN's ratings but on the ground coverage was expensive. However, the speed with which they got out of Dodge told me they were under scrutiny & criticism from the defendant for undue and sensational influence that poisoned the public atmosphere, interfering with her rights. Did that accusation have merit? Not in my thinking but we know how she casts blame and that she would target JVM, had targeted NG and now had Dr. Drew in her sights. The killer's supporters keep her informed. Suddenly there was no mention of a notorious trial and Dr. Drew was absent from his own show for the two nights following HLN's physical retreat. None of these t.v. personages had pity for Arias. If I were a pilgrim, I would make my pilgrimage on behalf of her victim, Travis. How is it possible to hold in ones heart a cause for Arias? I do think HLN's coverage was honest and I do realize that is a quality with which Arias is unfamiliar. She has managed to damage a network struggling for survival. (She is whispering, "I've stamped this too with my personal M.O.")

 

[MeeBee]

I thought the media could see the witness testifying in the media room.

I really don't want a precedence set where witnesses identities are a secret unless it is a rape victim in a rape trial or a minor child who has to testify. And in cases that I have seen minor children testified on the witness stand in front of the jury and at other times behind a screen although there has been some defense whining about that since the defendant has a right to face his/her accuser.

I remember years ago watching a case where a little girl testified. She was 5 when she was raped and her throat cut by the perp and her mother was raped and murdered. She was 7-8 when she took the stand. They did pixel out her images but her little voice could be heard and she very courageously testified to what had happened to her mom and herself. Also 8 year old Patricia Winkler got up in front of everyone and testified that her daddy had never been abusive to her mother or his girls. And Shasta Greone had every intentions of testifying in open court against JED and the only reason she didn't have to is he stipulated he did not need to cross examiner her since he was representing himself. So why should these grown adults have this right in this one case? Anything said should be said in the open and light of day and not in some secretive star chamber atmosphere. IMO

If small children can do this then expert hired guns should not have the right to be secretive about their paid opinions and there isn't any case law that says when a defendant testifies that it must be done in secret.

Geevee made a good point earlier that the COA has yet to rule on the matter of the identities of witnesses. It is an odd thing, ocb. I find it pretty unnecessary and a huge overreaction by the DT and the judge. But I'm ok with it, myself if we still get to know what the testimony is. I can understand it's a daunting and upsetting thing to know the ire that awaits you should you testify. I would be nervous about it and how people will react, receiving letters in the mail, having my past dug up by the internet. I understand the judge is trying to balance everything and I feel she didn't know quite how to handle the situation when Nurmi is telling her he has witnesses who refuse to testify unless this and this happens.

But I also think compromises can be made. If blocking their identifies is how this will move forward then so be it. As long as we know what they're saying, because there is just no reason why we shouldn't.

BUT having the experts' identities blocked seems weird.

 

[wenwe4]

For Judge to have time to find out what the COA was meaning in their decision? ullhair: She is lacking the same parts as the dog lying next to me

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

"Bollocks"?

 

[Nosey Parker]

AZlawyer: How do you think JSS would have explained all this to the jury?

 

[LambChop]

I thought the media could see the witness testifying in the media room.

I really don't want a precedence set where witnesses identities are a secret unless it is a rape victim in a rape trial or a minor child who has to testify. And in cases that I have seen minor children testified on the witness stand in front of the jury and at other times behind a screen although there has been some defense whining about that since the defendant has a right to face his/her accuser.

I remember years ago watching a case where a little girl testified. She was 5 when she was raped and her throat cut by the perp and her mother was raped and murdered. She was 7-8 when she took the stand. They did pixel out her images but her little voice could be heard and she very courageously testified to what had happened to her mom and herself. Also 8 year old Patricia Winkler got up in front of everyone and testified that her daddy had never been abusive to her mother or his girls. And Shasta Greone had every intentions of testifying in open court against JED and the only reason she didn't have to is he stipulated he did not need to cross examine her since he was representing himself. So why should these grown adults have this right in this one case? Anything said should be said in the open and light of day and not in some secretive star chamber atmosphere. IMO

If small children can do this then expert hired guns should not have the right to be secretive about their paid opinions and there isn't any case law that says when a defendant testifies that it must be done in secret.

I could be wrong but I believe what they would see is whatever was on the camera. Those in the room could hear testimony just not see the person unless the camera was pointed at that witness. If the witness just wants their identity covered the media will probably end up in the video overflow room. If the witness is Jodi there would be no need to send the media out. jmo