Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/20 thru 2/23 - Break

[LinasK]

The Hughes e mails were private. They were written BEFORE TA was murdered and they had absolutely no way of knowing that private correspondence between friends would ever, in their wildest dreams, feature in a death penalty case. How does that damage their credibility? :dunno:

I don't know the Hughes and did not know Travis Alexander. I have no idea who would want what now.

It doesn't paint a flattering picture of their being his friend. There's no way I'd ever use them for a character reference!!!:snooty:
It shows them as judgmental and siding with a girl (the defendant) whom they barely knew over their long-time "friend".

 

[Nali87]

And before that, JM said (pg. 8):

"It is not an issue of the media here. It is an issue of the public.

Certainly if the request is made and you make that determination, you can certainly indicate to the media that they cannot take pictures or do that sort of thing, but this is more broad than that. This is excluding the public: and that if we do that, I think—well, it is my belief that if we do that just because the Defendant is nervous, that this would be overturned on appeal."

Look at JM being tactful while internally going: "JSS have you lost your damn mind?". Lol.

 

[AZlawyer]

I should have been clearer, AZL--not sure that I was. I was referring to her decision to close the court room. She seemed to err on the side of caution to an extreme degree because she didn't want to give JA a reason for appeal later on. I find this part of the transcript interesting (pp.29-30):

"Well, I acknowledge that I believe this is a manipulative tactic: and I have concerns about the genuine reason for the request to close the proceedings; however, my concern is that if I don't close the proceedings, the Defendant will be precluded from testifying or will refuse: and I'm not sure that under these circumstances an Appellate Court will find that it is a voluntary waiver of her right to present mitigation. So I'm going to close the proceedings..."

RBBM. I've thought so all along.

I think we are all talking about her decision to close the courtroom to the media and the public. And I agree she didn't want to give JA an appeal issue. But if she truly thought the appeal issue would never work in the Ct App or AZ Supreme Court, then she wouldn't have worried about whether JA had one more appeal issue on her list. The appeal is inevitable, as is the fact that it will include dozens of issues.

Yes I suppose it is. I don't believe that, at all.

She knew it was a manipulation but was concerned that the COA would see it differently and that her refusal to testify even though she hadn't waived her right to would be seen as having prevented her from presenting mitigation. I didn't see anything in her words to suggest she had any other reason. She expressly said that was her reasoning. She was being cautious.

But....as everyone from AZL to the COA has said, that reasoning was seriously flawed and entirely unfounded legally. JSS is a judge, and by all local accounts and standards, way better than average at understanding and interpreting the law. Given that, I give her more credit than to think she was "just" worried about an appeal on the issue. I think she misread the situation, which led to making a bad legal ruling.

I think she misread the situation because of the unrelenting anti-media pressure put on her by the DT, which had already caused her to cede ground to them, inch by inch over many of their media-related demands. Had she called BS from the very beginning I believe her thinking would have been clearer that day.

I can't figure out where you two think you're in disagreement. Don't you agree that she was worried about an appeal BECAUSE her thinking had been muddled on the secrecy issues?

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

ITA Hope. It is just my opinion of course, but what I took away from the transcripts of that hearing was just who how truly Narcissistic JA really is and how determined she is to savage Travis and his family at any cost. This little display proves to me that she is eaten up with intense anger and brimming with a vile, all consuming drive to exact revenge and control the narrative.

I agree and I had to laugh at her telling the judge that she is concerned about people having knowledge of what she is saying EVER! She seriously thought that she could have her record and the record of her witnesses sealed FOREVER so that none of us would EVER even know that she testified. WOW! I think she is above Ted Bundy in Narcissism. Oh and I also found it VERY interesting that they say she has not only PTSD but BPD as well. It's right there now in writing but previously she never wanted any sort of mental illness associated with herself.

 

[Nali87]

Has there been a decision on the jury questions meant for JA?

 

[janx]

Look at JM being tactful while internally going: "JSS have you lost your damn mind?". Lol.

Yes, but my point is (and Juan brought it up more than once) that the judge at the very least considered this and probably guessed it was going to happen--and soon.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not so sure it was just bad juries...i'd believe a combination of everything.

CA- had a jury that was ridiculous..although the judge allowed a lady that said she can and would never judge anyone!
Also allowed Baez to fabricate complete lies with no testimony to back it up.

To be fair, Perry had to allow Baez to say that in his opening statement--it was Baez's ethical responsibility to ensure that he truly believed testimony would come in to support that statement.

And now we're off topic and better not talk about it any more lol.

 

[DebinGA]

I should have been clearer, AZL--not sure that I was. I was referring to her decision to close the court room. She seemed to err on the side of caution to an extreme degree because she didn't want to give JA a reason for appeal later on. I find this part of the transcript interesting (pp.29-30):

"Well, I acknowledge that I believe this is a manipulative tactic: and I have concerns about the genuine reason for the request to close the proceedings; however, my concern is that if I don't close the proceedings, the Defendant will be precluded from testifying or will refuse: and I'm not sure that under these circumstances an Appellate Court will find that it is a voluntary waiver of her right to present mitigation. So I'm going to close the proceedings..."

That doesn't sound like someone like JSS with almost 20+ yrs. prosecuting lying fraudsters while in the AZ Attorney General's office and a decade as a Superior Court judge imo. Someone with that much experience would have access to many competent legal advisors/peers she could consult to help her make wise decisions ... if asked. That passage reads imo as if written by an insecure, inexperienced judge trying her first major case and having to make a quick ruling with no opportunity for reflection or research, which wasn't the case.

 

[MeeBee]

I think we are all talking about her decision to close the courtroom to the media and the public. And I agree she didn't want to give JA an appeal issue. But if she truly thought the appeal issue would never work in the Ct App or AZ Supreme Court, then she wouldn't have worried about whether JA had one more appeal issue on her list. The appeal is inevitable, as is the fact that it will include dozens of issues.





I can't figure out where you two think you're in disagreement. Don't you agree that she was worried about an appeal BECAUSE her thinking had been muddled on the secrecy issues?

Lol no I'm not really in agreement there...if I'm undetstsnding correctly. I don't think that.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think we are all talking about her decision to close the courtroom to the media and the public. And I agree she didn't want to give JA an appeal issue. But if she truly thought the appeal issue would never work in the Ct App or AZ Supreme Court, then she wouldn't have worried about whether JA had one more appeal issue on her list. The appeal is inevitable, as is the fact that it will include dozens of issues.





I can't figure out where you two think you're in disagreement. Don't you agree that she was worried about an appeal BECAUSE her thinking had been muddled on the secrecy issues?

Thanks AZlawyer. I just finished reading the entire transcript of the closed in chambers meeting of October 30th. My opinion remains the same. JSS just caved to the defense. And no, I am not bashing this judge. It is what it is.

 

[AZlawyer]

Has there been a decision on the jury questions meant for JA?

I believe JA refused to answer them in open court. There was a minute entry that said they would not be asked and would be filed with the clerk. Not sure if they would be available to the public until after the verdict, though.

 

[Hope4More]

.
I can't figure out where you two think you're in disagreement. Don't you agree that she was worried about an appeal BECAUSE her thinking had been muddled on the secrecy issues?

Yes. That's one of us. Do I hear two? .................... Sometimes the hair-splitting exercise gets the better of me.... .

 

[AZlawyer]

Lol no I'm not really in agreement there...if I'm undetstsnding correctly. I don't think that.

Then why would she have been worried about an appeal?

Thanks AZlawyer. I just finished reading the entire transcript of the closed in chambers meeting of October 30th. My opinion remains the same. JSS just caved to the defense. And no, I am not bashing this judge. It is what it is.

I agree. She caved to the defense because she was worried about an appeal because her thinking about the secrecy issues had gotten muddled.

Now it seems I agree with almost everyone lol. :floorlaugh:

 

[Hope4More]

Lol no I'm not really in agreement there...if I'm undetstsnding correctly. I don't think that.

Foiled.

But.....I know you know you're one of my favorite people here to disagree with.

 

[MeeBee]

:maddening: Yeah, the Hughes were so close to Travis that it did not take very much effort on JA's part for them to turn against Travis just when he needed their support and understanding the most. It wasn't enough that JA was turning the guilty screws against Travis, the Hughes had to start turning those screws as well in trying to make him feel guilty for not wanting a serious relationship with JA; and, in fact, (JMO) Travis was starting to sense the truths about JA, enough to become afraid of her motives. The good ole Hughes were right there to assist JA in making Travis feel guilty for wanting to get away from JA.

BBM: I don't think that was true at that time. Travis still liked Jodi and wanted to be with her and was mad at them for potentially sabotaging the budding relationship with her.

 

[LinasK]

Thanks AZlawyer. I just finished reading the entire transcript of the closed in chambers meeting of October 30th. My opinion remains the same. JSS just caved to the defense. And no, I am not bashing this judge. It is what it is.

She did cave in to the defense, but not for the reasons you previously stated- I don't think she was out to violate the constitution. I think she did it to minimize their appeals.

 

[5bigfish5]

So, she used the COA to get the defense off her back.....and, she's being applauded for that? She knew what she was doing was unconstitutional but went ahead and did it anyway. Seems to me a competent judge would rather risk an appeal than to do something against the law! But, then, to me this isn't a game. I have a feeling the Alexander family feel the same way.

Exactly!

She is sitting where she is, to make decisions and uphold the law. Not to placate the DT with a ruling she knows the COA will overturn.

What if every Judge ran their courtroom this way? Seems the backlog is bad enough as it is. MOO

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

MR. MARTINEZ: Is the Defendant indicating that she is going to be untruthful on the witness stand depending on the composition of the courtroom? That causes me concern because the truth is whatever it is irrespective of who is in the courtroom, and I believe that's what the Defendant is indicating; that depending on the composition, she would change her answers.


He sure hit the nail on the head with that statement. I also found it interesting that her family was not precluded from the courtroom during her super secret special testimony, yet they didn't attend anyway. :thinking: Probably because they knew the 'composition' of her testimony this time around would consist primarily of bovine ordure. :shame:

Or maybe they were told to leave to make the appearance that they too, had been kicked out when indeed that was not the truth.

 

[MeeBee]

Then why would she have been worried about an appeal?



I agree. She caved to the defense because she was worried about an appeal because her thinking about the secrecy issues had gotten muddled.

Now it seems I agree with almost everyone lol. :floorlaugh:

Well, I thought it was because Jodi hasn't waived her right to testify and was refusing to do so with them present and was worried about appeals court would find she wasn't able to present full mitigation and did every to accommodate her. I do think she has gotten sucked into the defense's thinking with regard to the media presence (perhaps more on her own after she herself grew ucomfortable with how big the trial has become) which is why she is the one who calls the morning sidebars and such. But I didn't think it wen I I this decision.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Nali87]

Yes, but my point is (and Juan brought it up more than once) that the judge at the very least considered this and probably guessed it was going to happen--and soon.

Yes. That's the main thing she considered. But she thought that the COA would side with her. I don't think we can say that JSS was JUST being cautious...

If she was being extremely cautious, like you said, why not grant the stay? If all she wanted was "a second opinion" of sort, why not be extremely cautious again and wait for the COA ruling?

I don't think she was extremely cautious on this because (I keep repeating myself sorry lol) she would've displayed some more extremely cautious behavior and would've granted the stay. Why risk disturbing your trial otherwise?

So yeah, to me, her denying the stay makes me think JSS thought she was right on this one and made a bad ruling.

Remember the transcript of the sidebars that were made public? In which JM and JSS in essence say; "WELL we all know what the COA granting the stay means! They'll overrule me.". The same applies to JSS. We all know what her denying the media's stay meant; the COA will so support me in this, JSS thought. She was confident in that.