Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/04 In recess Computer Exp Hearing

[garthmax]

Am I the only one who thinks something may be wrong with the judge's health? Fanning legal papers at the bench, she looks so frazzled, I am just worried about her health and making it to the end of this trial through hell.

Probably, not. I read where it was HOT in there today. I can't stand it hot and I am constantly fanning myself. She JMO could be taking a medication that does make her feel warmer.

 

[Amster]

I was reading over on BK's site and she actually thought JM was badgering the witness!

My instinct was correct....so glad I didn't "join"....

 

[Val1]

I don't think she saw it when she said she did.

I don't think she watched the same version either.

 

[atthelake]

From WAT:

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 24s 24 seconds ago


Juan requests that the Judge require him to turn it over.

Judge says yes.

BN says it's encrypted so he won't be able to open it. #jodiarias


OFGS !!!

STOP POSTING please. I'm at 5:47 trying to catch up!! :floorlaugh:

 

[LinasK]

William Pitts ‏@william_pitts · 2m2 minutes ago
N: "If soeone doesn't look through the registry they're missing the forest for the trees." #JodiArias

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 1m1 minute ago
Neumeister says Spybot hides the *advertiser censored* on your history so your spouse can't see it, but it does not take it out of the registry. #JodiArias

William Pitts ‏@william_pitts · 1m1 minute ago
so, pro tip: check your registry if you want to get rid of anything on your laptop. #themoreyouknow

BBM. I'm no computer expert, and even I know this is wrong! Spybot will attempt to get it out of the registry, not hide it from your spouse! But it wasn't designed to get rid of *advertiser censored*. Hubby agrees.

 

[elementary]

but here? Usually you can add a witness for a sound reason that couldn't have been anticipated or something like that. But to add 14? I can't even imagine an attorney asking for that. Orders are issued setting dates by which disclosures to the other party and court must be made so the other side can interview witnesses, examine evidence etc. In this case an order was issued:



And of course even that was filled with drama. The state couldn't have the witnesses addresses, couldn't contact them directly-have to go through defense blah blah blah. All that's said about state witnesses is that they're on the record. And the defense tried to exclude some state witness(es). And everything was "under seal" secret secret.



I am really starting to believe this penalty trial will not be successfully completed because of the willful acts of the defense which have been permitted and enabled by JSS. This crime occured in 2008. That alone makes this a travesty of justice. Did anyone see the TX case this week where a capital trial for 3 murders finished in under a week and the crimes happened in March 2013? This is truly becoming just a complete theatre of the absurd.

I think that says it all.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, I see you are here. What do you think? Why doesn't JSS just tell BN to turn it over to State? I am with Hope. Walking away for a bit.

I was in court. Just catching up on breaks. It was delightful. Everyone was respectful, time limits were enforced...just a lovely experience.

does the state of AZ have no procedural rules parties are bound by? I don't even get this hearing today. It's supposed to be about misconduct-period. Yet the only allegation is incompetence (as if) of all computer experts expert for the new non-computer expert. Why are they getting into the contents on their own merits-that's an evidentiary issue that should be dealt with on appeal. I thought you had to accept the guilt phase during this phase?

And how can 14 witnesses be added now? That is a huge difference from what they were proceeding on when setting the matter for trial and during voir dire. Normally there are orders issued with mandatory states for disclosure of witnesses. You can't just get into the trial and keep adding witneses so thetrial doesn't ever end. I really think this is the plan. Just keep delaying until all the jurors flee or die.

Maybe AZL can explain these unique AZ processes.

Yeah, sure I can. Um. No.

A little more info from Beth. JM's computer guy is Perry Smith, who is the Computer Forensic Examiner at City of Mesa (for about 6 years). Maybe this is who replaced Melendez? He has been with Mesa PD since 2000.
KN says 3 witnesses that will file affidavits are those who don't want to testify. Wonder how that works in terms of cross? Or are we just supposed to take their word for whatever, just as BN seems to think is appropriate?

Affidavits can be accepted in mitigation if they have "indicia of reliability."

Lawyer question, can JM move to have the witness list unsealed? TIA

Sure.

Aside from this case, how much time does it typically take to complete this phase of a trial in AZ?

It varies depending on the case. But not usually more than a couple of weeks.

I have two random thoughts...Actually one thought and one question.

My thought: I am listening to the TV talking about Charles Manson marrying some strange young woman. It struck me that case would probably not led to convictions if tried today in what appears to be a rapidly increasing legal landscape replete with a Big Top, circus music, clowns, sideshows and second rate magicians.

My Question for the Legal Minds on the Board: Isn't there some sort of limit as to how long a trial can go on? Even in a DP case? And isn't there a limit to the amount of money that can be spent on the state dime? And who decides which case gets these high level resources? What about the other folks on trial for murder? Using the "fairness" model, shouldn't every DP case take months to try and millions to cover it? How come I see case after case after case tried in a handful of weeks with sentences passed quickly thereafter? I don't get it. Is there some new standard that says if you can kill someone and get news coverage afterwards and get enough people talking about it..it then becomes "high profile" and you are then afforded more rights and resources than the "average" killer? Please educate me because this question is driving me slowly into quiet madness.

There is no limit to time or money except that the judge is supposed to keep it reasonable.

 

[Truth Detector]

Hope, thanks for telling us your husbands comments. After awhile I start thinking I am in the twilight zone. . It is very depressing. And when someone comments this is all Jodi. So what? That is why there is a judge in the room. Or so I thought. Jodi can only do so much without help from the judge.

BBM

Well, SKS is in the room alright, but she doesn't appear to be an actual judge.

 

[atthelake]

You've got to be kidding me. JSS allowed him to go collude with the DT????

I thought AZL once told us that a witness could not confer during testimony... :thinking: AZL... you here? Gitana??? Legal person???

 

[Val1]

The patent on the technology was issued on November 2, 2004.

Neumeister probably doesn't know the difference between hardware and software write blockers.

Or how to get phone records without a sim card...

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm on the judge's side. I like her, and I think she's a good judge, I usually always defend her. But she has got to be a JUDGE sometimes. This needs to be BN's last chance.

BBM

At least until the next one, anyway.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I just don't get it, color me stupid but how in the hell can the DT add mitigation witnesses? Hopefully AZL can answer this. Wouldn't they have to be deposed by the State? That would only add more delay. It appears the DT is just doing anything they can to stall, in hopes of more jurors not being able to continue. Can't any of these stall tactics be dealt with by JSS?

 

[Frigga]

I was reading over on BK's site and she actually thought JM was badgering the witness!

Gee, I can't imagine why that might have been? Maybe because Neumeister called Juan Martinez a liar and slimy? Maybe because this is the umpteenth time the defense has accused prosecutorial misconduct. Maybe because all of the DT witnesses have been rude and unprofessional.

 

[AZlawyer]

OK, so maybe I was reading too fast. I understand the computer stuff. I even understand what BN was saying about Juan not getting the difference between a clone and an image, and Juan not understanding that he was asking for a picture of a picture. (Obviously I don't get why BN had to say those things like a petulant child and disrespect the court.)

But was there any testimony about anything important today? E.g.,

1. Was there child *advertiser censored* accessed on the laptop according to BN (not virus-*advertiser censored* but actually intentionally accessed *advertiser censored*)?

2. Was BN saying that the child *advertiser censored* or the evidence that it had been accessed was deleted? Or even that any *advertiser censored*/tracks of *advertiser censored* at all had been deleted?

Were the Twitterers just out to lunch or did no one ask any relevant questions?

 

[Reagan]

So is there any news about the latest juror that was dismissed? I read earlier that she was gonna do an interview, but haven't had much time to catch up here or on twitter.

 

[franquerolane]

My instinct was correct....so glad I didn't "join"....

I just renewed,
yesterday, and now I'm regretting it.

 

[Truth Detector]

But she ruled in an instant to turn over demartes notes to defense, by monday.

Moreover, does anyone truly doubt that Dr. DeMarte will comply? (Probably early)

 

[Truth Detector]

Thats what Azlawyer said a few threads back. That's why JA doesn't weat her stripes in front of the jury. She has not been convicted, just found guilty. Who knew law could be so difficult?

BBM

If she's sentenced to lethal injection she'll wet her stripes, alright.

 

[LinasK]

When JSS allows the *advertiser censored* in...wonder who is going to testify about it?

Darryl Brewer???

 

[AZlawyer]

I thought AZL once told us that a witness could not confer during testimony... :thinking: AZL... you here? Gitana??? Legal person???

In this case, BN wasn't really being questioned about facts he knew, but rather about whether it made any sense to turn over an image of the hard drive and, if so, what issues needed to be addressed to get that done. I don't think it's any big deal to call a break to let him confer with defense counsel.

I just don't get it, color me stupid but how in the hell can the DT add mitigation witnesses? Hopefully AZL can answer this. Wouldn't they have to be deposed by the State? That would only add more delay. It appears the DT is just doing anything they can to stall, in hopes of more jurors not being able to continue. Can't any of these stall tactics be dealt with by JSS?

It seems insane. No, they wouldn't have to be deposed, but the State ought to be given a chance to interview them.

Unless there's some super-awesome excuse for the late disclosure, JSS can tell them to forget it. But she doesn't want JA saying in a post-conviction relief petition that Nurmi provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not disclosing these witnesses on time....so it's a tough call.