Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #3

[zoey]

I remember drooling over TexMex's food. Sorry to be o/t.

Me too!!!!!!

 

[zoey]

What can I fix ya?

After my month a lemon drop and keep them coming ...

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, or any other lawyers or anyone who knows about these things:

Ok…I've been watching the Jeff Gold Spreecast, which you can see here http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-arias-retrial

Around the 3:00 minute mark, he talks about JSS dismissing jurors. Here is what he said….

"Because the questions that are being asked about fairness, the same questions that you would ask in any trial, Can you be fair? And it's a little different, this is a very unusual case. This is a case where, the issue of guilt is over with. It has been decided that Jodi Arias is a convicted murderer. So that's not before this jury. And yet, at least half of the jurors were excluded in my opinion, for what's called CAUSE, meaning the judge can allow out any number of jurors without it ever getting to the parties to make objections; those are called preemptories, they can make them for any reason as well other than race, but they never got to that yet. We are not at that point yet. The only thing that's happening now is that jurors are being excused for CAUSE, because the judge recognizes that they can't be fair, or that they can't be there because they have to be somewhere else."

To me that sounds like Juan CAN'T object yet. Is that right?

No, he can object to for-cause dismissals. If there were any bench conferences yesterday, that's probably what was happening. Either side can ask for a for-cause dismissal, or the judge can suggest it on her own, but either way the parties can object.

It goes like this (usually):

1. Dismissals for cause and for inability to serve for one reason or another (objections allowed);

2. Peremptory strikes, once a panel is accepted as being able and qualified to serve (no objections allowed except, e.g., for apparently racially motivated strikes).

So if you are trying to end up with, let's say, 12 jurors plus 3 alternates, you do the for-cause dismissals then take the first 35 people remaining on the list. Then the parties take the list, plus a ruler and a pen, and pass it back and forth crossing out names until only 15 people are left, and that's your jury.

Hi everyone,

It's good to be back to WS and read all your thoughts. While I'm busy mixing your fancy drinks (dang! I just ran out of those little paper parasols), can I please share some of my thoughts about today's posts on this thread? I really, really don't intend to criticize anyone, but I'm troubled by all the criticism of Judge Stephens, in particular, and the justice system in general.

The judge has frequently been criticized as too lenient and/or too cautious. And the judicial process has been criticized as too slow. And some have even suggested Judge Stephens is therefore incompetent. But I think she's being very careful to foreclose any future appeals from the DT. In other words, she wants this trial to be concluded with no grounds for appeal. And that necessarily means a lengthy trial with drawn out and tedious processes. Shouldn't we respect that? And shouldn't we also applaud her efforts to see that JA has no grounds for appeal?

I was also troubled by the eye-rolls today about the judge's scheduling. Some here seem to assume that the JA trial is her only trial and therefore assume that she must devote all of her time to it. Others, who recognize that she is busy with other trials as well as JA's, seem angry that she "quits" at 4:00 and does nothing on Fridays. C'mon. As AZLawyer has repeatedly pointed out, much of her work is done in chambers. That is, just because she is not sitting at her official judicial bench, in her judicial robes, doesn't mean she's not working or that the legal process has the day off. In fact, I suspect she works well beyond a "regular" 40-hour week (or even a 60-hour week).

In other words, Judge Stephens strikes me as a very competent judge who knows the law and knows the legal system. She deserves our respect, not our scorn.

I didn't intend this as a pro-JSS post, but I get very troubled when citizens vacate their civic duty by not pausing to think.

Thanks--I have made this point many times. As I've also said, I think the judge has trouble with managing her courtroom (too many sidebars, allowing JA testimony to drag on well beyond the bounds of all reason, etc.), but she isn't "pro-defense" or anything like that, and I'm sure she works many hours off the bench.

Here are my questions/opinions/pea-brained thoughts.

“Can you be impartial?” is, IMO, a perfectly logical ‘weeding’ question. That’s all. Given the publicity of the conviction trial and given the requests for change of venue … I’m a fool (and not a lawyer), but this “first blush” questioning seems judicially sound.

One (ME!) wouldn’t want Nurmi to claim ‘prejudicial’ questions arising during the first phase of jury selection.

The following weeks will tell the real tale, as the UNdismissed jurors fill out their (not-to-be-revealed-to-the-public) questionnaires.

Peace out.

Yes, it's a perfectly good question as long as they understand it's OK for them to be impartial about the guilt and cruelty issues because those have already been decided.

ETA: I mean OK for them to be partial.

 

[zoey]

View attachment 60334

Cheeseburgers tonight Kensie

And a cold beer ��

Yummmmmmm

 

[blefuscu]

Sorry for asking but what does "CMJA" stand for? I'm presuming the JA is Jodi Arias but the CM?

 

[LinasK]

Sorry for asking but what does "CMJA" stand for? I'm presuming the JA is Jodi Arias but the CM?

Convicted Murderer

 

[Truth Detector]

:seeya: Thanks ... I just added it.

BBM: It will be an absolute OUTRAGE IF -- IF -- JSS sentences her to life WITH the parole eligibility ...

JMO and MOO but I just do NOT -- NOT -- trust JSS to impose the CORRECT SENTENCE for CMJA !

:moo: :moo: and :moo:

With good reason, my friend.

 

[Truth Detector]

Nurmi basically blackmailed the judge into banning live cameras because he promised these witnesses that there wouldn't be cameras and that's why they agreed to testily for the convict.

Snipped by me.

I see what you did there.

'Witlesses' are bound to 'testi-lie', wherein they offer 'testiphony'.

 

[Zuri]

Why is #Heinous CMJA in street clothes? She has already been adjudicated guilty. What am I missing?

 

[Truth Detector]

No, he can object to for-cause dismissals. If there were any bench conferences yesterday, that's probably what was happening. Either side can ask for a for-cause dismissal, or the judge can suggest it on her own, but either way the parties can object.

It goes like this (usually):

1. Dismissals for cause and for inability to serve for one reason or another (objections allowed);

2. Peremptory strikes, once a panel is accepted as being able and qualified to serve (no objections allowed except, e.g., for apparently racially motivated strikes).

So if you are trying to end up with, let's say, 12 jurors plus 3 alternates, you do the for-cause dismissals then take the first 35 people remaining on the list. Then the parties take the list, plus a ruler and a pen, and pass it back and forth crossing out names until only 15 people are left, and that's your jury.



Thanks--I have made this point many times. As I've also said, I think the judge has trouble with managing her courtroom (too many sidebars, allowing JA testimony to drag on well beyond the bounds of all reason, etc.), but she isn't "pro-defense" or anything like that, and I'm sure she works many hours off the bench.



Yes, it's a perfectly good question as long as they understand it's OK for them to be impartial about the guilt and cruelty issues because those have already been decided.

ETA: I mean OK for them to be partial.

I'm not a barrister, but I am a barista of sorts, and I don't play an attorney or a judge on youtube.

But I think I would be rather judicious in my voir dire objections.

Do you really want a juror on the case who fought you over it?

Let's say he doesn't want to be there, and he sees you as the one who barred his way out.

No, strong-arming is little more than a way to alienate grudge-holding jurors.

Who among us believes for an instant that Jodi's man (Zervakos) set aside his personal feelings about JM?

 

[Chelly]

Why is #Heinous CMJA in street clothes? She has already been adjudicated guilty. What am I missing?

It's about defendants' rights and jury prejudice. All defendants have the right to wear "street clothes" at their trials. It's a Constitutional thang.

 

[franquerolane]

It's about defendants' rights and jury prejudice. All defendants have the right to wear "street clothes" at their trials. It's a Constitutional thang.

Then why do we see so many defendants on tv with their
orange jump juits?

 

[gitana1]

Hi everyone,

It's good to be back to WS and read all your thoughts. While I'm busy mixing your fancy drinks (dang! I just ran out of those little paper parasols), can I please share some of my thoughts about today's posts on this thread? I really, really don't intend to criticize anyone, but I'm troubled by all the criticism of Judge Stephens, in particular, and the justice system in general.

The judge has frequently been criticized as too lenient and/or too cautious. And the judicial process has been criticized as too slow. And some have even suggested Judge Stephens is therefore incompetent. But I think she's being very careful to foreclose any future appeals from the DT. In other words, she wants this trial to be concluded with no grounds for appeal. And that necessarily means a lengthy trial with drawn out and tedious processes. Shouldn't we respect that? And shouldn't we also applaud her efforts to see that JA has no grounds for appeal?

I was also troubled by the eye-rolls today about the judge's scheduling. Some here seem to assume that the JA trial is her only trial and therefore assume that she must devote all of her time to it. Others, who recognize that she is busy with other trials as well as JA's, seem angry that she "quits" at 4:00 and does nothing on Fridays. C'mon. As AZLawyer has repeatedly pointed out, much of her work is done in chambers. That is, just because she is not sitting at her official judicial bench, in her judicial robes, doesn't mean she's not working or that the legal process has the day off. In fact, I suspect she works well beyond a "regular" 40-hour week (or even a 60-hour week).

In other words, Judge Stephens strikes me as a very competent judge who knows the law and knows the legal system. She deserves our respect, not our scorn.

I didn't intend this as a pro-JSS post, but I get very troubled when citizens vacate their civic duty by not pausing to think.

Becky, I 100% agree.

"..."Based off the evidence I've seen and what I've heard on TV," said Maestas. "I followed this case very closely. I could not be able to make a clear, honest decision based off of evidence presented in that court because of things I've heard. Clearly, a decision has been made on my part."

"After she was sentenced, I was shocked that the first jury didn't give her the death penalty," said Mueller. "It was pretty clear cut that she butchered her boyfriend. She needs to die."..."

http://www.kpho.com/story/26658603/d...e-needs-to-die

Ya think she sees the writing on the wall now? Little Miss Einstein had better opt out of penalty by jury and throw herself on the mercy of the court, praying that Judge Stephens doesn't have the stomach to pronounce death.

A logical, intelligent potential juror. And so it goes, weeding out the ones with a brain. I can only hope they find some who don;t kbnow much about the case but have a sound intellect.

 

[cindymac]

Then why do we see so many defendants on tv with their
orange jump juits?

That would usually be because there's no jury present at that particular time. Many parts of a trial are conducted without the presence of a jury.

In some states, the jury will see the defendent in orange (or whatever) for the sentencing - after they've pronounced them guilty, when the trial is essentially over. That's not the case with the Arias trial because, in Arizona, sentencing is like a seperate mini trial. A jury has to weigh mitigating factors against aggravating factors, and it's considered prejudicial if the defendent has to be dressed like a criminal at that time. (Even though, of course, that's what they are).

 

[Hez]

Becky, I 100% agree.



A logical, intelligent potential juror. And so it goes, weeding out the ones with a brain. I can only hope they find some who don;t kbnow much about the case but have a sound intellect.

A well functioning BS detector is in order too.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I had posted these articles in the Sidebar this past Summer, written by a former prosecutor, about JSS's performance in the courtroom and thought I'd post this here today since there is talk of JSS ( he opened my eyes a bit):

The Jodi Arias Trial: Justice Run Amok

"Forgive me, as a former federal prosecutor for 17 years, it is hard to watch the Jodi Arias trial, not because she is guilty and deserves the death penalty but because of the incredibly poor performance by Judge Sherry Stephens...."

http://corruptioncrimecompliance.com/2013/05/the-jodi-arias-trial-justice-run-amok/

Respectfully Snipped:


:seeya: Thank You, YorN for posting these here !


WOW !


Here's a snipped from the above link:

Judge Stephens should have finished this trial in one month – no more, no less. If she had the intellectual capacity and judicial temperament to control a trial, she would have made sure the trial was over. Instead, she granted numerous delays, requests for more time and other stalling tactics, all of which just allowed the defense to control the pace of the trial. That is inconsistent with any concept of justice or fairness.
----------


I totally agree ... JSS NEVER had control of that courtroom IMO, the murderer did ... and I have no doubt, that CMJA is going to control that courtroom again during this Re-Trial Phase.

:thinking: No wonder JSS did NOT want CAMERAS in the courtroom ... she did not want the world to see her incompetence.

JMO and :moo:

 

[Truth Detector]

Respectfully Snipped:


:seeya: Thank You, YorN for posting these here !


WOW !


Here's a snipped from the above link:

Judge Stephens should have finished this trial in one month – no more, no less. If she had the intellectual capacity and judicial temperament to control a trial, she would have made sure the trial was over. Instead, she granted numerous delays, requests for more time and other stalling tactics, all of which just allowed the defense to control the pace of the trial. That is inconsistent with any concept of justice or fairness.
----------


I totally agree ... JSS NEVER had control of that courtroom IMO, the murderer did ... and I have no doubt, that CMJA is going to control that courtroom again during this Re-Trial Phase.

:thinking: No wonder JSS did NOT want CAMERAS in the courtroom ... she did not want the world to see her incompetence.

JMO and :moo:

BBM

Ah, but this time we won't see the Lance Ito impression until well after the fact.

 

[TartLemon]

What time does it start?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not a barrister, but I am a barista of sorts, and I don't play an attorney or a judge on youtube.

But I think I would be rather judicious in my voir dire objections.

Do you really want a juror on the case who fought you over it?

Let's say he doesn't want to be there, and he sees you as the one who barred his way out.

No, strong-arming is little more than a way to alienate grudge-holding jurors.

Who among us believes for an instant that Jodi's man (Zervakos) set aside his personal feelings about JM?

Yeah, that's why these objections are not discussed in front of the jury. No one wants the jurors to know who wanted them in and who wanted them out.

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully Snipped:


:seeya: Thank You, YorN for posting these here !


WOW !


Here's a snipped from the above link:

Judge Stephens should have finished this trial in one month – no more, no less. If she had the intellectual capacity and judicial temperament to control a trial, she would have made sure the trial was over. Instead, she granted numerous delays, requests for more time and other stalling tactics, all of which just allowed the defense to control the pace of the trial. That is inconsistent with any concept of justice or fairness.
----------


I totally agree ... JSS NEVER had control of that courtroom IMO, the murderer did ... and I have no doubt, that CMJA is going to control that courtroom again during this Re-Trial Phase.

:thinking: No wonder JSS did NOT want CAMERAS in the courtroom ... she did not want the world to see her incompetence.

JMO and :moo:

Oh my gosh. I can't say I agree with everything Judge Stephens has done here, and many I disagreed with strongly, but man there is no way she's anywhere close to incompetent. If you guys could only see the nonsense some of us have to deal with, with actual, crazy judges. It's rare but there are some real lemons. I watched Stephens during the entire trial and have a lot of respect for her. Calm, not driven by ego, trying to make sure there are no grounds for appeal. I liked her a lot.