Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #4

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Thank You all for the updates and tweets !

JMO but I do think that the tweets from the courtroom were much better than previously.

And I do think they read the requests here . . . lol !

 

[LinasK]

She did enter a guilty plea. Second degree murder in turn for not trashing Travis. The state refused. This is why she says she tried so hard to avoid trial. It is hot air though.

Technically, I don't think she was able to enter it, but she offered.

 

[Kensie]

Absolutely! She tried to pitch a deal to Juan to something ridiculous like 2nd degree murder, which of course Juan rejected because it was so clearly premeditated 1st degree. She threatened him that if he took her to trial, she'd drag Travis's name through the mud and she held to her word. Kinda like, I didn't wanna have to do this, but you made me.

As we all know, nothing is the killer's fault. Barf.

 

[janx]

I am just catching up. Thanks for all of these tweets! The only thing I saw via twitter today was that JA starting talking out of turn about a motion...? And that some other judge was supposed to deal with it? Twitter is exasperating.

AZLawyer was right. Jury selection seems to be fascinating, even from the limited info. we're getting via tweets. Damn but some of these twitter reporters need to be more careful. When words are limited, each word counts that much more. Vague pronouns, misspellings, etc. are important.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

If I was Juan I would be worried about any of the jurors with past domestic violence. I only worry because I fear they may transpose their situation on top of Jodi's situation and sympathise with her. I fear some people that did not watch the first trial would not realize it was totally unsubstantiated allegations with not 1 bit of evidence to support it.

I totally agree, Hatfield !

BBM: Exactly what I was thinking when I first read the tweets regarding potential jurors who have been victims of DV.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From KPHO:

A number of potential jurors questioned by attorneys told the court that they had been victims of domestic violence.

However, most of them said that despite what they've experienced, they could be fair and impartial if chosen to sit on the jury.


More at Link, with a statement from Jen @ Trial Diaries:


http://www.kpho.com/story/26730281/several-arias-potential-jurors-were-victims-of-domestic-violence

 

[Becky Sharp]

About JA's tweet about her "regrets." Yeah, I have regrets about things like last week impulse-buying a pair of shoes I don't need, but I feel remorse for some of the mean things I said in the past to my parents. Kinda different feelings, sweetheart.

 

[cindymac]

Yes, psychologists try to get inside people's heads whenever they can. But it is possible that one might in a case like this, get inside the head of the victim. Most psych docs with an open mind are able to accept that sometimes domestic violence is committed by a woman against a man. Actually, more often than most citizens realize. The problem as I see it is knowing if the psychologist in question is open minded or not.

Personally, I'd think a bigger problem would be that a "psych docs" is more likely to see themselves as a healer, or at least alleviater, rather than someone who dispenses - literally - with the psychologically disturbed.

 

[geevee]

Here is the 'plea deal' (or offer to plead to 2nd degree the week before the settlement conference):

http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf

 

[T-4-2]

I think Dave Erickson is doing a good job too. Usually serious, but he did make me laugh with this one:


View attachment 60799

Looks to me like a picture Jodi might have included in the portfolio she might have had as a "professional photographer." Are these people reacting to the gun, the knife, or the fact that the photographer is naked?

 

[janx]

Personally, I'd think a bigger problem would be that a "psych docs" is more likely to see themselves as a healer, or at least alleviater, rather than someone who dispenses - literally - with the psychologically disturbed.

Psychologists are as variable as people in other professions, the way I see it. Look at the difference between someone like Dr. Samuels, for example, and Dr. DeMarte. And given that JA's defense in the retrial of the penalty phase will surely involve her state of mind...wow, tough call, no?

 

[cindymac]

If I was Juan I would be worried about any of the jurors with past domestic violence. I only worry because I fear they may transpose their situation on top of Jodi's situation and sympathise with her. I fear some people that did not watch the first trial would not realize it was totally unsubstantiated allegations with not 1 bit of evidence to support it.

Evidence from the guilt phase will be in play, and I'm confident Juan will do an excellent (perhaps even better) job of showing the abuse claims for the total sham that they are. It may actually be much easier to do that, in this much shorter penalty phase, because Arias isn't going to have 18 days to whine on in the hopes that (lacking any actual evidence) just looking at her miserable face for that long would be enough to convince people she was abused. With everyone having to cut to the chase this time around, it will make it quite clear that Juan's the only one holding a full plate of meat and potatoes.

Also, it will take less than a minute for any juror familiar with domestic violence to realize that Arias is not familiar with it, by virtue of her complete and utter lack of emotion. And, once that red flag is raised, everything she says thereafter will be viewed with skepticism. And inevitably, total disbelief.

 

[cindymac]

Psychologists are as variable as people in other professions, the way I see it. Look at the difference between someone like Dr. Samuels, for example, and Dr. DeMarte. And given that JA's defense in the retrial of the penalty phase will surely involve her state of mind...wow, tough call, no?

Hmmm... good point. And yes, tough call. Risk/reward for both defense and state.

However, I still feel that the one (and only!) thing that Samuels and Demarte might have in common is a duty of care. Which makes me wonder if they have taken the hippocratic oath and if that comes into play with medical potential jurors, or is overridden by the legal system. Must go look...

 

[janx]

Hmmm... good point. And yes, tough call. Risk/reward for both defense and state.

However, I still feel that the one (and only!) thing that Samuels and Demarte might have in common is a duty of care. Which makes me wonder if they have taken the hippocratic oath and if that comes into play with medical potential jurors, or is overridden by the legal system. Must go look...

Good question. Psychologists are not M.D.s, so I doubt it, but there might be something similar.

 

[janx]

I have to say, after reviewing the tweets, that jury selection is progressing very smoothly. The process seems to be moving fast. Will they have 38 potentials after tomorrow?:thinking:

 

[janx]

This woman does not look like a diminutive waif to me. During the first trial, some people wondered how such a small woman could have "overpowered" Alexander. In the social media pics I've seen of them together (and she seemed very fond of those), she wasn't much shorter than he was. They were close to the same height. And her frame is hardly that of a wilting flower. ETA: Add the weapons.

 

[renatae]

So I'm getting ready for an appointment Tuesday afternoon, and I switch to HLN to hear commentary on the jury selection process. Bad commentary. About Twitter and how it could be a bad influence on the jury. Now I really have no clue what is going on on Twitter, so maybe they are right, but the examples they talked about are how people are so sure she is guilty, and how bad it would be to see some of the graphic photos that are "out there" etc. WTH? The CM has already been found guilty, and found guilty of aggravated cruelty besides. So what is new? Folks, this is not a trial about guilt; it is a trial about sentencing!! What difference does it make that online sites are sure she is guilty - or even when they think the death penalty is the right thing? A juror can't make up his/her own mind? Probably everyone on the face of the continent knows what she did and how cruel it was. Surely they aren't thinking they will find a jury that doesn't know much about this case.

Personally, I'd have to seek disqualification because I'm very biased against her. Yet, I don't really care what the sentence is - just get on with it! And don't expect me to be impartial to a cruel murderess.

I'm sure I've said a lot here that would disqualify me and I probably am missing some legal fine points here, but sheeshe!

 

[renatae]

From Jen:


Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 17s 18 seconds ago

A young female was in an abusive relationship from 18yrs old to 24. #jodiarias



-----------


Me: Bye-Bye !

However, many people with past abuse in their lives flat out realize Jodi has nothing in common with a genuinely abused person and are generally the first people to call her out on her lying.

 

[I Object!]

Here is the 'plea deal' (or offer to plead to 2nd degree the week before the settlement conference):

http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf

Seriously... my kids could draft better pleadings. How can he not be embarrassed by that tripe?

 

[janx]

So I'm getting ready for an appointment Tuesday afternoon, and I switch to HLN to hear commentary on the jury selection process. Bad commentary. About Twitter and how it could be a bad influence on the jury. Now I really have no clue what is going on on Twitter, so maybe they are right, but the examples they talked about are how people are so sure she is guilty, and how bad it would be to see some of the graphic photos that are "out there" etc. WTH? The CM has already been found guilty, and found guilty of aggravated cruelty besides. So what is new? Folks, this is not a trial about guilt; it is a trial about sentencing!! What difference does it make that online sites are sure she is guilty - or even when they think the death penalty is the right thing? A juror can't make up his/her own mind? Probably everyone on the face of the continent knows what she did and how cruel it was. Surely they aren't thinking they will find a jury that doesn't know much about this case.

Personally, I'd have to seek disqualification because I'm very biased against her. Yet, I don't really care what the sentence is - just get on with it! And don't expect me to be impartial to a cruel murderess.

I'm sure I've said a lot here that would disqualify me and I probably am missing some legal fine points here, but sheeshe!

HLN=infotainment tabloid junk. I've never cared for all of the noise--commercials, people talking over each other, yelling, etc.. BUT I have learned a lot about AZ law here on WS, and trials in particular. Watch for AZLawyer's posts if you have not seem them already. :seeya: