Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 27

[Love Never Fails]

Ziggy, thanks for being there for all of us. Just read your notes from last night on thread 26. Thank you!

 

[bettybaby00]

And if not Travis, some other unsuspecting guy.

I truly believe this, and I truly believe she would have killed again.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Oh no Juan hasn't! He's just getting going. He's picking and choosing his battles carefully, not sweating the small stuff, and trying to be expedient to get this completed! Don't give up hope, the end is near.

Thanks Linas.

 

[Hope4More]

Ziggy, I wanted to thank you for your great work yesterday. Your summary was fantastic :tyou:

Ziggy....what a great day to be in court! Lucky you!! Please let us know how JA and the jury respond to Deanna especially...and Abe.....and the Bishop.

 

[Davia18]

I truly believe this, and I truly believe she would have killed again.

BBM : I agree, she is smarter than everyone. She believes if she says it then everyone will believe her. Sooooo wrong she is

 

[ShadyLady]

I truly believe this, and I truly believe she would have killed again.

I have always felt Jodi has a sadistic streak. She likes taking out her anger on whatever is convenient and helpless, i.e.....her pets, or her siblings, her parents...or now people that loved Travis.

She has not changed one bit, it is deep within her person. A true sadist, imo.

 

[bsk]

I'd say Abe hates LKN almost as much as Chris Hughes does. What I think would be really hilarious is - given the way the DT always oversteps everything - is if Juan asks him only a handful of questions and LKN in attacking him opens the door for Juan to redirect on something he wasn't allowed to ask originally.

And we know the DT will object on every single question. That will telegraph to the jury that he has something important to say that they are trying to hide. Juan is very careful on his objections, so when he objects it really catches the jury's attention.

AZL can say whether this is true or not, but I suspect that if you object too much then the jury either tunes it out or begins to hold it against you for wasting time. Picking your spots seems like it would be a pretty basic concept for trial lawyers. You want to a) stop the other side from doing something they shouldn't and/or b) make the jury suspicious of what the other side is doing.

 

[Boytwnmom]

I'm not a trial atty-I'm an in house corporate one and hire outside counsel to fight my battles in court! I feel competent to opine on certain things that are clear like the constitution. But evidentiary determinations are more complex and dependent on local rules and case law with which I'm not familiar. Additionally, normal rules of evidence don't apply on this proceeding so I'm way out of my element. There are always things about the defendant excluded because of prejudice, although it seems difficult to avoid prejudice with a defendant who's already had a verdict of especially cruel first degree murder.

But, yes it seems JA has made an issue of sexual experience, aggression etc in terms of her being at a disadvantage and TA being more experienced and aggressive. It seems to me to be relevant that such testimony wasn't true. But then, it always seems OK to make any allegations about the victim. The victim has no right to not have highly prejudicial evidence introduced against him. It's all about the defendant and making the trial fair for her. I do think this trial has exposed the unseemly side of those provisions to an extent perhaps not seen before. I think society and legislatures can address the issue of whether they should be any limitations on the introduction of unsupported hearsay, for example, at the penalty phase, when the only purpose is to accuse the victim of crimes for which he was never charged, as owning child *advertiser censored* is a crime, not just a moral failure or character flaw.

Boytwn- shouldnt Juan be able to have Abe talk about how sexual Jodi was with him, all while she was complaining about Travis flirting with other women and vilifying him for being sexual with other women? Isn't that exactly what Juan should be able to say???

 

[bsk]

Given the extended delay vs the original one hour, that should have given time for Nurmi to interview Abe about the thong too right? :waitasec:

 

[decemberbee45]

OT. I use a juicer but you can grate and squeeze out the juice by hand. I just had a straight shot of ginger juice but I normally use it in lemonade or some other mix.

I had a serious case of nausea but the ginger made me feel better in just seconds. I also feel good now that Juan will be up soon. :loveyou:

Noting for sentencing day. I will no doubt be queasy that day. Thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

I'd say Abe hates LKN almost as much as Chris Hughes does. What I think would be really hilarious is - given the way the DT always oversteps everything - is if Juan asks him only a handful of questions and LKN in attacking him opens the door for Juan to redirect on something he wasn't allowed to ask originally.

And we know the DT will object on every single question. That will telegraph to the jury that he has something important to say that they are trying to hide. Juan is very careful on his objections, so when he objects it really catches the jury's attention.

AZL can say whether this is true or not, but I suspect that if you object too much then the jury either tunes it out or begins to hold it against you for wasting time. Picking your spots seems like it would be a pretty basic concept for trial lawyers. You want to a) stop the other side from doing something they shouldn't and/or b) make the jury suspicious of what the other side is doing.

Absolutely. I mostly save objections for when the other side is seriously misleading the jury.

I'm not a trial atty-I'm an in house corporate one and hire outside counsel to fight my battles in court! I feel competent to opine on certain things that are clear like the constitution. But evidentiary determinations are more complex and dependent on local rules and case law with which I'm not familiar. Additionally, normal rules of evidence don't apply on this proceeding so I'm way out of my element. There are always things about the defendant excluded because of prejudice, although it seems difficult to avoid prejudice with a defendant who's already had a verdict of especially cruel first degree murder.

But, yes it seems JA has made an issue of sexual experience, aggression etc in terms of her being at a disadvantage and TA being more experienced and aggressive. It seems to me to be relevant that such testimony wasn't true. But then, it always seems OK to make any allegations about the victim. The victim has no right to not have highly prejudicial evidence introduced against him. It's all about the defendant and making the trial fair for her. I do think this trial has exposed the unseemly side of those provisions to an extent perhaps not seen before. I think society and legislatures can address the issue of whether they should be any limitations on the introduction of unsupported hearsay, for example, at the penalty phase, when the only purpose is to accuse the victim of crimes for which he was never charged, as owning child *advertiser censored* is a crime, not just a moral failure or character flaw.

I think Juan ought to be allowed to bring in the "magic underwear/dabbling in Mormonism" conversation with Abe to show that Jodi was manipulating Travis, not the other way around. And I do think Dr. F used Jodi's supposed sexual passiveness and inexperience in coming to her paid conclusions, so Juan ought to be allowed to rebut that.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Given the extended delay vs the original one hour, that should have given time for Nurmi to interview Abe about the thong too right? :waitasec:

Jumping off your post, I'm glad the defence didn't rest before Abe and lunch. Once again the jury will recognise that this delay is while the ball is in the DT's court.

 

[BritsKate]

Not every judge allows such latitude in smearing a victim or introducing an illusion of evidence they can't substantiate (like George killing Caylee). There have been other trials in which the judge involved has kept a much tighter leash on the defense teams involved. Now where their appeals landed, I couldn't say, just that no two judges are necessarily equal.

All JMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

that they truly believe the normal rules don't apply to this case. I'm always astounded that Nurmi and Wilmott are not mortified arguing the ridiculous things they do. But, no, not a hint of shame or embarrassment. Jodi seems to have quite the impact on people near her.

Why can't they just let the chips fall where they may? They're lawyers, what are they so afraid of?

 

[Meemaw12]

M ‏@EmsterChic
Juan just brought Deanna in the witness room. She look great. #jodiarias

 

[KPinMN]

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 2m 2 minutes ago
Lunch recess until 1:30pm MST #jodiarias #3tvarias

you've got to be kidding right?!

no doubt nurmi throwing his toys out the pram.
it will be xmas by the time we are finished

BBM, Can I just say I love the OG English! Throwing toys out the pram is so much funnier than throwing toys out of the stroller...just sayin'

 

[tsitra01]

I am in and out so much.....is Juan able to be in with his witness during Nurmi's questions?

 

[Davia18]

M ‏@EmsterChic
Juan just brought Deanna in the witness room. She look great. #jodiarias

Deanna is a beautiful person IMO and when she speaks it makes her even more beautiful.

 

[Hope4More]

Absolutely. I mostly save objections for when the other side is seriously misleading the jury.



I think Juan ought to be allowed to bring in the "magic underwear/dabbling in Mormonism" conversation with Abe to show that Jodi was manipulating Travis, not the other way around. And I do think Dr. F used Jodi's supposed sexual passiveness and inexperience in coming to her paid conclusions, so Juan ought to be allowed to rebut that.

_---------------------

AZL.......

JM ought to be allowed .....but do you think JSS actually will allow? My bet is he might ought, but will get naught....

 

[rose222]

Waiting for Juan's rebuttal is like waiting for beautiful sunshine after a long and bitter storm. Finally we will have the light of truth in the courtroom.