Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/09-11

[JSR]

Trial court judges in AZ do not have law clerks.



There will be several different types of appeals to different courts, but no, you can't just appeal one issue at a time. It will still take years, though.

They don't?? In CA they do. And almost all Federal Court Judges use them as well. In one of my cases a Judge joked that he had to "cut down" some of his clerks opinion on our MSJ motion. The final opinion was 55 PAGES (and that was after Otero's cuts)!! It ended up being published as well.

 

[Hez]

No way. My understanding is that she's going to hire someone super-awesome, though. Much more awesomer than I.

BBM - I'm going to act like a defense expert and take one of Travis' emails out of context here to say "No such thing".

 

[JSR]

Here's the Milke opinion to keep you all busy until Monday:

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2014/SA 14-0108.pdf

I might be the only person who reads opinions for FUN. But considering my days are now filled with feeding, changing and otherwise taking care of a small infant I gotta do what I can to keep my brain from turning into mush.

 

[Hope4More]

About why *advertiser censored* found now not back then. I don't think either side delivered a knock out punch on that in closings. They seem to be talking past each other.

JM emphasized in closing the difference between registry and browser history. He says history matters more than registry.

Nurm just kept repeating, *advertiser censored* was always there and your guy didn't find it so he was incompetent and the testimony was a lie and so therefore CMJA should go free.

Not much middle ground there, and no clear answers.

 

[Nali87]

About why *advertiser censored* found now not back then. I don't think either side delivered a knock out punch on that in closings. They seem to be talking past each other.

JM emphasized in closing the difference between registry and browser history. He says history matters more than registry.

Nurm just kept repeating, *advertiser censored* was always there and your guy didn't find it so he was incompetent and the testimony was a lie and so therefore CMJA should go free.

Not much middle ground there, and no clear answers.

I don't think they really understand the computer stuff. That makes it harder for them to exlplain. I hope that JSS gets it. I hope JM explains it all clearly in report/motion (if he submitted one??).

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

About why *advertiser censored* found now not back then. I don't think either side delivered a knock out punch on that. They seem to be talking past each other.

JM emphasized in closing the difference between registry and browser history. He says history matters more than registry.

Nurm just kept repeating, *advertiser censored* was always there and your guy didn't find it so he was incompetent and the testimony was a lie and so therefore CMJA should go free.

Not much middle ground there, and no clear answers.

But the defense's guy didn't find any *advertiser censored* either so??? and the fact remains that regardless of that SHE STILL MURDERED TRAVIS and she has to pay for that, hopefully with her life.

 

[Val1]

About why *advertiser censored* found now not back then. I don't think either side delivered a knock out punch on that in closings. They seem to be talking past each other.

JM emphasized in closing the difference between registry and browser history. He says history matters more than registry.

Nurm just kept repeating, *advertiser censored* was always there and your guy didn't find it so he was incompetent and the testimony was a lie and so therefore CMJA should go free.

Not much middle ground there, and no clear answers.

I'm pretty sure someone posted JM's response to that was by saying that Dworkin hadn't found any either.

 

[Dmacky]

You know what I thought was hilarious, Maria S bringin her boss along to show the judge she's speaking the truth."I'm not lying - my boss is here!" Someone show me the purpose of that little exchange between MS and JW.

WAT tweeted they walked into the courtroom together.

Ps ~ Michael Kiefer was probably right between them.

 

[Softail]

I'm pretty sure someone posted JM's response to that was by saying that Dworkin hadn't found any either.

Right. In the 1st trial, neither the defense nor the prosecution found any. That is why I don't buy it. I do agree with Juan that BN is "shady". :towcents:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I've always wanted to ask what your speciality was. :happydance:

Well IMO, the specialty is the times spent answering our countless questions, and might I add NO FEES. Now there is an attorney I would want representing me.:loveyou: AZL, you are much appreciated.

 

[Val1]

I don't think they really undertand th computer stuff. That makes it harder for them to exlplain. I hope that JSS gets it. I hope JM explains it all clearly in report/motion (if he submitted on??).

I would like clarification on that one site that the PT expert testified to, was that from the original 2008 HD image or the 2009 one that BN was supposedly working from, as well as proof that it was TA's and not JA's, just because there's been so much confusion about which HD had what.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I'm pretty sure someone posted JM's response to that was by saying that Dworkin hadn't found any either.

I'm thinking the DT is claiming *advertiser censored* redirects from a virus were in the registry, I believe TAs cleaners/malware had found them prior to his death and auto deleted or blocked the *advertiser censored* from his PC. Would you consider that finding *advertiser censored* on a comp if you were asked to look for it? I'm guessing the answer is no, you'd say there wasn't any *advertiser censored*. Viruses and *advertiser censored* redirects are fairly common and are on an untold number of PCs. It's semantics at this point what the DEFINITION of *advertiser censored* is

 

[Val1]

WAT tweeted they walked into the courtroom together.

Ps ~ Michael Kiefer was probably right between them.

Probably because she's already been sanctioned or whatever for possible misconduct in this case(re previous comments on what her duties actually are), this may have been her 3rd strike chance so he came along to see for himself whether this was it or not.

 

[geevee]

Here's the Milke opinion to keep you all busy until Monday:

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2014/SA 14-0108.pdf

Thank you so much AZL, going to post the link on her thread.

 

[Nali87]

I would like clarification on that one site that the PT expert testified to, was that from the original 2008 HD image or the 2009 one that BN was supposedly working from, as well as proof that it was TA's and not JA's, just because there's been so much confusion about which HD had what.

Do you mean YouPorn? We don't know. But that site has no childporn on it. I checked. :drumroll:

 

[Val1]

I'm thinking the DT is claiming *advertiser censored* redirects from a virus were in the registry, I believe TAs cleaners/malware had found them prior to his death and auto deleted or blocked the *advertiser censored* from his PC. Would you consider that finding *advertiser censored* on a comp if you were asked to look for it? I'm guessing the answer is no, you'd say there wasn't any *advertiser censored*. Viruses and *advertiser censored* redirects are fairly common and are on an untold number of PCs. It's semantics at this point what the DEFINITION of *advertiser censored* is

Yes, iirc I believe this is what Dworkin had basically said too, that there were links that BN had shown him but actual *advertiser censored* pics, no.

 

[Val1]

Do you mean YouPorn? We don't know. But that site has no childporn on it. I checked. :drumroll:

I'm just wondering, I was checking for the letter that I had referred to in one of my posts the other day and clicked on a link that Google had brought up with JA's name etc on it and guess what opened on my pc ... I wouldn't be surprised if the same had happened to TA at least once or twice, especially if he was in the habit of following links to music videos.

 

[AZlawyer]

They don't?? In CA they do. And almost all Federal Court Judges use them as well. In one of my cases a Judge joked that he had to "cut down" some of his clerks opinion on our MSJ motion. The final opinion was 55 PAGES (and that was after Otero's cuts)!! It ended up being published as well.

Yes, all the federal court judges in AZ have clerks, and all the appellate court judges as well. But not at the trial level in state court.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I've got blockers on my pc, every now and again I'll get a popup from my malaware/virus cleaner saying it blocked an infectious link ,popup ad, or actual virus from hitting my computer and quarantined it. I've never not once looked at *advertiser censored*, even having an unprotected wifi can get you some serious *advertiser censored* viruses. Even in 2008 this was super common

 

[Hope4More]

I might be the only person who reads opinions for FUN. But considering my days are now filled with feeding, changing and otherwise taking care of a small infant I gotta do what I can to keep my brain from turning into mush.

It gets better, and most typically, your brain bounces back more quickly than your belly.

Ps- I see no evidence of your brain being mushy in any case.