Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 19 - Shortest Court Day, EVER

[MeeBee]

Voir Dire would have delved into how someone knew about the case, and if they read about it and discussed it with others, etc, etc. Not just be aware of it, but case followers like those on WS who are talking about the trial day in and day out would be booted from juror consideration (and they should be, I don't have a beef with that). Since I've followed the case in detail and have formed opinions about the case and would disclose that during voir dire, I would not be a part of this jury even if I wanted to (which I wouldn't want to, but my desire to or not is neither here nor there).

I still think that's incorrect. There nothing in voir dire to prevent someone who followed the trial even as closely as here on web sleuths from serving. Even if they have an opinion on guilt or innocence. They are asked if they have formed an opinion and if they can be open minded. Though one side or another may not want that person on the jury. Just depends on what they say. I can see some posters here being qualified to serve.

 

[Dmacky]

He doesn't even have to blame JA. I think if regular *advertiser censored* was found, he won't bother disputing it. JA and TA were making their own *advertiser censored*. Who cares if he was looking at it online? If he feels the need to argue the *advertiser censored*, there's no way to prove who exactly accessed the *advertiser censored* on his PC. Could've been the roommates. Maybe Napoleon had a fetish. Who knows?

It's a whole nother story if child *advertiser censored* was found. (Which I doubt because we would have heard about it by now.)

Exactly Nali this is what I can't understand. Last year JA was ADAMANT the images were on paper, NOT the computer. Even ALV testified it was on the computer at first. Then on cross she said she just ASSUMED it was on the computer and they were not Jodi's words about the computer.
IF IT WERE TRUE back then, then what the heck is going on with her now?

NOW all of the sudden after JA's PI gets his paws on evidence,(while she is pro se) everything changes! What have they done?????

:laugh: Napoleon had a fetish

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL - how long will it take the Supreme Court to decide to hear (not sure if that is the right word) the arguments from the DT? Will it be like the CoA, where they set a date weeks later? Thanks...

As for the request for a stay on the order to release the transcript, that might be decided very quickly in a telephonic hearing. As for the rest of the case, I have had orders come down within 3 hours if they are denying review; otherwise, it could be a year or two.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think you're underestimating just how involved with the trial these jurors become and how consumed they become. I doubt it's as easy as you say and they are probably far, far more frustrated than us with these delays. From the jurors we've heard from, and jurors in other cases, they really do become cosumed and after its all done spend hours finding out all they can about the case. They find themselves thinking about it during the day. How can you not be deeply affected by something like this. It's a very naive idea that these jurors aren't just as frustrated if not more with how this trial is being handled. Juries are anxious for deliberations and can feel when they're being jerked around. And they have been told to avoid SM altogether. Some potential jurors actually declined to be on the jury because they couldn't not go on Facebook for a couple months.

Why are my words being changed and then strawman arguments made against what I didn't say?

I didn't say the jurors had no frustration or weren't involved with the trial or didn't take their jobs seriously or had no restrictions at all. I said they CAN work (if they want to and if their job allows them to) on days they are not at the courthouse. Do you disagree with that? I said the jurors were able to travel over the holidays if they wanted or need to, because the court was dark. That's a fact. Do you disagree they were able to do that? Jurors can go home and see their families and have all kinds of discussions and social outings and go to movies and dinner and sporting functions etc, as long as they don't discuss this case. Jurors can use the Internet and can use many tools as long as they don't read about/follow this case. They all have cell phones, and I bet most have smart phones. They weren't required to give those up. They're allowed to live their lives but not follow or discuss this case. These aren't people who sit on crime boards all day long and are going through withdrawal. They have restrictions to stay away from this case or discussions about this case.

 

[MeeBee]

Why are my words being changed and then strawman arguments made against what I didn't say?

I didn't say the jurors had no frustration or weren't involved with the trial or didn't take their jobs seriously or had no restrictions at all. I said they CAN work (if they want to and if their job allows them to) on days they are not at the courthouse. Do you disagree with that? I said the jurors were able to travel over the holidays if they wanted or need to, because the court was dark. That's a fact. Do you disagree they were able to do that? Jurors can go home and see their families and have all kinds of discussions and social outings and go to movies and dinner and sporting functions etc, as long as they don't discuss this case. Jurors can use the Internet and can use many tools as long as they don't read about/follow this case. They all have cell phones, and I bet most have smart phones. They weren't required to give those up.

I understand that and I understand that's what you're daying. I'm sure that makes it easier than sequestration. My one quibble was with the idea that they're getting along better with this than any of us obsessive WSers are. I highly doubt that. What makes it difficult is they cannot talk about the case. Jurors have reported that it's a lonely and very difficult thing. At least we can do that AND we can see our families and go to work. Jury duty can be a hard ship regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Madeleine74]

I understand that and I understand that's what you're daying. I'm sure that makes it easier than sequestration. My one quibble was with the idea that they're getting along better with this than any of us obsessive WSers are. I highly doubt that.

Apparently a is not something people understand so let me post it in English. I was joking about that! I winked at the end of that comment because it was a tongue-in-cheek comment and I was signaling it was not a serious comment. It was a joke. It was only a joke. Maybe not funny, but certainly not serious to me or to be taken seriously by anyone. Hence the icon immediately following that one sentence.

Ironic that I'm told not to take things so seriously when I'm making tongue-in-cheek comments and signalling them in addition.

 

[5bigfish5]

I fully expect her to retire and write a book.

I sincerely hope NO ONE buys it.

As a 60 something American Citizen, I take her behavior in charge of a Courtroom as a SERIOUS affront to justice.

Out of town on a rail. Don't let the screen door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

 

[Nali87]

Exactly Nali this is what I can't understand. Last year JA was ADAMANT the images were on paper, NOT the computer. Even ALV testified it was on the computer at first. Then on cross she said she just ASSUMED it was on the computer and they were not Jodi's words about the computer.
IF IT WERE TRUE back then, then what the heck is going on with her now?

NOW all of the sudden after JA's PI gets his paws on evidence,(while she is pro se) everything changes! What have they done?????

:laugh: Napoleon had a fetish

:sigh: You're right. I keep forgetting about that part. What are we even doing here then JSS? If there is *advertiser censored* found on the computer but JA didn't know about (otherwise she would have testified about it) then the *advertiser censored* on the computer had no effect what so ever on her state of mind when planning/committing the murder.

This is all starting to look like a huge waste of time. :sigh:

 

[Steely Dan]

Beth has posted Nurmis' Supreme court filings. Some good stuff in them...Alyce reappears!

For those of you unable to read these documents I'll summarize them for you. The summarization is done through the filter of my brain and is not in any way to be considered verbatim.

The defense team needs witness' to testify in closed court because the media made a circus of the last trial. Due to the trial being broadcast people were able to see exactly what we're up to and our hired gun experts were threatened for supporting outrageous lies and defamation of the victim. One witness in particular was threatened because she was obnoxious and refused to answer the simplest questions asked by the Prosecutor.

In summary, we've created a monster and are asking the court to protect us from our creation. By not allowing us to hide our tactics it has become very difficult to put on a good defense. By applying the same standards of all trials the court is subverting the defendants ability to have a fair trial.

 

[MeeBee]

Apparently a is not something people understand so let me post it in English. I was joking about that! I winked at the end of that comment because it was a tongue-in-cheek comment and I was signaling it was not a serious comment. It was a joke. It was only a joke. Maybe not funny, but certainly not serious to me or to be taken seriously by anyone. Hence the icon immediately following that one sentence.

Ok if that's the case. But you have made posts in the past that have suggesting your pre smiley sentence is not something that's too far off from what you really believe.

 

[ElleElle]

Jodi has a history of entering TA home without his permission. She told Flores TA does not lock his door. Deanna is a witness to this behavior. She caught Jodi on TA computer when he was out of town. If *advertiser censored* was brought in before JM crosses then Juan can do what he has done in the past. He asks the witness if they are aware of all of the above? If theres anything on the computer then Jodi is responsible for putting it there.

My question is, how long has she been trying to frame him? When did she decide she was going to plant *advertiser censored* of his laptop? No wonder why they are so persistent to expose this alleged *advertiser censored*.

I don't think there is any. This is just a huge stall tactic by Jodi et al. My new prediction is this is over in May - early June. The bittersweet irony would be so nice.

 

[Ruby]

As for the request for a stay on the order to release the transcript, that might be decided very quickly in a telephonic hearing. As for the rest of the case, I have had orders come down within 3 hours if they are denying review; otherwise, it could be a year or two.

So, technically, it could be a two year wait for part of this trial?
I'm confused on this - let me see if this is right, please correct me -

The stay could be decided quickly - so that means no holdup, they can release the transcript to the public.
But for the continuation of witness testimony (Jodi's only or everyone I'm still unsure on) can be held up for 2 years.

Is this right or HELP, I need more clarification!

 

[AZlawyer]

:sigh: You're right. I keep forgetting about that part. What are we even doing here then JSS? If there is *advertiser censored* found on the computer but JA didn't know about (otherwise she would have testified about it) then the *advertiser censored* on the computer had no effect what so ever on her state of mind when planning/committing the murder.

This is all starting to look like a huge waste of time. :sigh:

It has nothing to do with her state of mind. If there was child *advertiser censored* accessed on the computer, it would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that TA was looking at a picture of child *advertiser censored*, which in theory would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that her discovery of this fact caused their relationship to go into a downward spiral of physical abuse and ever-kinkier sex, which in theory mixed with JA's already-crazy brain chemistry to make her unable to see that murder was not the answer.

 

[Madeleine74]

I still think that's incorrect. There nothing in voir dire to prevent someone who followed the trial even as closely as here on web sleuths from serving. Even if they have an opinion on guilt or innocence. They are asked if they have formed an opinion and if they can be open minded. Though one side or another may not want that person on the jury. Just depends on what they say. I can see some posters here being qualified to serve.

I think it would be a rare WS'er who would be approved by both sides to sit on this or any polarizing case. Don't form an opinion? That's what people do here. And speculate, and write theories, and ponder how evil the murderer is and how badly they want the murderer get the DP and how much they want the murderer to suffer and contemplate what other crimes the murderer may have committed or wanted to commit. If potential jurors are being totally honest they will disclose what they really think and a good attorney will elicit all of that.

 

[AZlawyer]

So, technically, it could be a two year wait for part of this trial?
I'm confused on this - let me see if this is right, please correct me -

The stay could be decided quickly - so that means no holdup, they can release the transcript to the public.
But for the continuation of witness testimony (Jodi's only or everyone I'm still unsure on) can be held up for 2 years.

Is this right or HELP, I need more clarification!

As far as I know, no one has asked the AZ Supreme Court for a stay of the trial pending that court's decision.

At some point, I believe KN was asking for a stay, in effect, because he was asking that JA not be made to continue her testimony and that his other witnesses not be made to testify before JA was done. And I believe JSS said in open court (FOR A CHANGE) that she wouldn't grant such a stay.

 

[RR0004]

No, because Nurmi's initial appeal to the CoA involved JA only. He tried to reference other witnesses during his argument to them, but they reminded him that they had no info. about other witnesses and that his appeal did not address them.

Well, wouldn't it be just like Nurmi then to go witness by witness. I would imagine the media will step in soon and cry foul. JM must have agreed (in secret) to refer to this person by "Pseudo", but not sure why he would??

 

[ElleElle]

Good read over on Court Chatter:
http://www.courtchatter.com/

Why did the jury come in, then, if Neumeister was supposed to be to testify?

Did Nurmi just assume the interview Juan - BN would go well, and BN would have been in court today testifying to the jury about the *advertiser censored*?

 

[Nali87]

It has nothing to do with her state of mind. If there was child *advertiser censored* accessed on the computer, it would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that TA was looking at a picture of child *advertiser censored*, which in theory would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that her discovery of this fact caused their relationship to go into a downward spiral of physical abuse and ever-kinkier sex, which in theory mixed with JA's already-crazy brain chemistry to make her unable to see that murder was not the answer.

Yes that is exactly what I meant to said.

Lol. So basically it's all a game of if we can prove that there was *advertiser censored* then that gives us room to claim B and that gives us room to claim C even if there's no actual evidence to support C? Oh brother.

 

[MeeBee]

I think it would be a rare WS'er who would be approved by both sides to sit on this or any polarizing case. Don't form an opinion? That's what people do here. And speculate, and write theories, and ponder how evil the murderer is and how badly they want her to get the DP and contemplate what other crimes the murderer may have committed or wanted to commit.

And then there's the WSer who doesn't feel the death penalty is warranted, who is more open minded, typically those who rarely post. All a judge and the lawyers can go on is the person's word that they can be impartial despite what they may or may not have posted.

But that's beside the point. Again, the main point is you can have followed this case, watched the trial, etc and be quaified still to serve on the jury. You can even have an opinion as long as you can be open minded. You're right in that one side or the other would probably strike that person if they could. But they wouldn't be automatically disqualified in voir dire like you initially claimed unless they said it was impossible for them to be impartial.

 

[AZlawyer]

Well, wouldn't it be just like Nurmi then to go witness by witness. I would imagine the media will step in soon and cry foul. JM must have agreed (in secret) to refer to this person by "Pseudo", but not sure why he would??

Maybe he thinks it's hilarious. Also I'm sure he doesn't want to "upset the apple cart" until the judge has ruled on the defense team's request for this person to get the James Bond treatment.

Bond....hmmm.... :thinking: