Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 31

[Bravo]

I am not sure about that. She even admitted to TA that she acts out physically. And she KNEW she was lying in her phony journal. She did not think that was normal. She knew it was deceitful. I think that people say that those with BPD often learn to mirror 'normal' emotional behavior by mimicing others. That would mean they KNOW they are not normal themselves, imo.

IMO she likely admits her "faults" as another manipulation. Yes she has learned to feign emotion etc. appropriate for the given situation. Jodi doesn't care how others measure her normal vs. abnormal. She doesn't entertain it herself. She is driven by what she wants and how she is going to get it. Then how to hang on to it. All by manipulation. Her former boyfriends were stepping stones. Then came Travis. He was everything. Until he wasn't. IMO

 

[grammieto5]

Thank you all for helping me understand the difference between a mental disorder and being mentally Ill. I sure hope this jury is not confused about the difference.

 

[Frigga]

Isn't aspirin a blood thinner too? Isn't that why they recommend a small dose for heart attack prevention? I think that is what Jodi was thinking? She's... not that smart.

 

[little ole me]

Ok you may have me there....however, I think it's obvious to these jurors that her intent to lie and manipulate has been a main objective from the start. Maybe they don't know about that specific threat, but her actions are obvious, and the hired experts come off as hired hacks. we do know that these jurors are not completely unaware of what transpired during the previous trial.

Maybe a convincing arguement can be made that her BPD means she can't control devaluing Travis, but as others have stated, having BPD doesn't preclude you from not feeling remorse or guilt after the fact. And from the first day of this phase there has been no attempt at showing remorse. It's been all about "he deserved it," and when that notion is based on lies and manipulation empathy goes out the window.

For me at least

My guess is that these jurors will want to know why the stories are as different as daylight to dark, and the DT can't deny any of it as Dr D used Jodi's own words to condemn her! That is one that you just can't get around. And my bet is that Juan still has the best saved for last! He is not near done yet!

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I mean she had the aspirin "to thin her blood." That would have been a lot less painful than the razor. The suicide attempt is drama. She doesn't want to die, she wants others to think she wants to die.

Besides, how much aspirin could she have accrued in the time she spent at the jail in Yreka? Inmates can purchase OTC meds from commissary, but it is limited to the 2 in a pack, and most of the time only 3 packs can be ordered. Do you recall how long she was there?

 

[AZlawyer]

The only reason JSS has allowed all the "bad stuff" about JA to come into this phase is that it rebuts all the "good stuff" the defense witnesses were saying in "mitigation." The jury gets to weigh aggravation vs. mitigation. Aggravation is ONLY the cruelty of the murder. If the jury decides that JM has sufficiently rebutted all the mitigation, then they won't weigh any mitigating factors against the cruelty. They will be instructed NOT to consider any of the "bad stuff" as additional aggravation.

Thank you, but this leaves me very confused. Why is it different in other states I wonder. And how in the world do you let something into evidence and then tell the jury not to consider it? That not only seems unfair to jurors but highly confusing.

All the other cases I have seen didn't even have to have good character evidence submitted by the DT for those things to be allowed into evidence by the state. After the conviction all the things that were deemed too prejudicial in the guilt phase were let in including any and all arrests and conviction records of past crimes. Also any other bad character flaws resulting in prior bad acts.

By this I interpret it to read the state can bring in the character of the defendant or ...propensities etc. It doesn't say it can only be done if the DT puts in character evidence first.

A.R.S. § 13-751(G). The trier of fact shall consider as mitigating circumstances any factors proffered by the defendant or the state that are relevant in determining whether to impose a sentence less than death, including any aspect of the defendant's character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense

I promise I am not being contrary. I really am trying to learn why it is different in AZ than from other cases I have seen in other states. And A.R.S 13-751(G) makes it even fuzzier for me to understand why.

I do believe other states are different, but I'm not sure where the line of unconstitutionality lies. Certainly the US Supreme Court has said there have to be standards about when a murder is "bad enough" to deserve the death penalty.

The jury is NOT told not to consider the rebuttal evidence presented by the State! They just consider it for what it is--rebuttal to mitigation--not for aggravation.

The AZ statutes do suggest that the state can bring in "bad stuff" even if it has nothing to do with the defense mitigating evidence. The courts have said the statute cannot be interpreted this way for constitutional reasons.

However, the part of the statute you quoted is just pointing out that the jury may consider ANY evidence raised that qualifies as mitigating evidence, even if the state rather than the defense raises it (like BPD).

Well of course I'm confused, so Borderline Personality is a mental illness, (I think) so I always believed the mentally Ill could not be put to death, or even be put on trial for whatever it is they have done. Could someone explain this to me. I think I understood Dr. DeMarte said the murderer has Borderline Personality, I could be mistaken

That is what she did say..........a disorder and she is not mentally ill.

If she truly was mentally ill by judicial standards they couldn't have asked for the death penalty.

Lots of inmates sit on death row with some type of personality disorder of some kind.

Lots of mentally ill people are on death row. INSANE people cannot be executed. Mentally retarded people cannot be executed. Mentally ill people are executed all the time.

Ummmm. AZL needs to weigh in here.

When I was a juror (New Mexico and yes that is one of our 50 .. lol), we were told in the Jury Instructions, that we could ignore/dismiss any testimony we thought was not factual ... from either side. We (the jury) could weigh more or less on the testimony of each witness to come to a conclusion. I cannot tell you how much "testimony" we dismissed/ignored from several witnesses... they LIED per the testimony that we believed ... all 12 of us! So be it.

So ... I disagree with your premise. JMO

It's not a premise.....more detailed is:

The DT has the burden in this phase to present mitigators and to prove that they could reasonably be true. The jury can decide that the DT hasn't met that standard for each or any of the mitigators. Those mitigators then wouldn't be weighed against the aggravator.

If the jury believes the DT has met the standard for each or any then yes, they very much are obligated to weigh that mitigation against the aggravator. That's how it works.

In theory, anyway. As AZL or any good article on the subject wil tell you, jurors are often confused by their instructions. They're most likely to arrive at their own conclusions their own way , then use the instructions to back up their decision.

ETA. The irony of course is that the State, not the DT, has proven her BPD mitigator beyond any reasonable doubt. Possibly the only subjective mitigator on the DT's list that will pass the jury's smell test.

Yes, the jury can reject evidence, and also, in the case of a supposed mitigating factor not listed in the statute, like BPD, can say "we accept she has BPD but reject the premise that her BPD calls for leniency in this case." If they decide that the BPD exists AND that it is a mitigating factor, they must weigh it against the aggravating factor of cruelty.

][/B]


BBM



i don't think the state can say no remorse. I don't understand why tho.

They can. They just couldn't say it until after the defense said she WAS remorseful.

Thank you all for helping me understand the difference between a mental disorder and being mentally Ill. I sure hope this jury is not confused about the difference.

It truly doesn't matter. Either one can be mitigating evidence. Neither one automatically gets you out of the death penalty.

 

[RickshawFan]

The irony of course is that the State, not the DT, has proven her BPD mitigator beyond any reasonable doubt. Possibly the only subjective mitigator on the DT's list that will pass the jury's smell test.

They've proved BPD, but they haven't proved it's a mitigator. They've argued it shouldn't be a mitigator.

 

[My-Future-Ex-Husband]

Is there anyone that JA didn't devalue -- besides herself, I mean?

"Matt would never betray me".

Of course this case is now pending...

 

[My-Future-Ex-Husband]

BK points out that it was exactly 2 years ago today that JA took the stand in first trial.

And for the detail oriented....it was in the very beginning of the Darryl -JA saga that he told her no commitment, but she harassed and emotionally bullied him until he relented. That was the beginning of their 5 year perfectly happy loving normal relationship.

Wasn't he one of the ones that thought she was bi polar during this blissful five years?

 

[Kamille]

I feel instantly nauseous thinking about Nurmi cross examining Dr. DeMarte tomorrow. I t w i l l b e s o s l o w s o o o s l o w !!!
Here is how I can imagine it might begin. And I would guess this much would take several hours, Nurmi style:


NURMI: Let me get this straight. So you’ve had this license of yours since WAY back in 2010, so a whole 4 years. Four years. (condescending tone) You know other professionals who have testified here in this proceeding have been licensed for more than 30 years. I think it’s fair to say they have CONSIDERABLY more experience than you, more than your FOUR years, RIGHT??

JD: I am aware of that.

NURMI: But regardless of these FOUR LONG YEARS of experience, you really want us to believe you have the experience to make this evaluation, IN A DEATH PENALTY TRIAL!! (Waving her CV around. Condescending laugh and righteous toss of her written CV onto the podium)

JD: I d….

NURMI: There are NO questions before you!

NURMI: So……… you have your 4 years of experience. Really just barely getting started in your little job then, huh! (Condescending chuckle, chuckle) Okay, so let’s say your FOUR years LEGALLY qualifies you to come into THIS COURT and make these startling generalizations about Jodi Arias. Can you honestly say that……..but first let’s back up here, you ARE being honest, aren’t you?

JD: I am, yes.

NURMI: Okay, so you say. And you’re saying you are going to CONTINUE this "honesty" of yours when it’s not Mr. Martinez feeding your answers………..excuse me, I mean ASKING you questions.

JD: Yes, I am honest and always will be.

NURMI: (Chuckle, Chuckle) But you DO know it is illegal to lie while under oath, don’t you? I mean that IS something you learned during your FOUR years of experience, or isn’t it?

JD: Absolutely. I am……….

NURMI: That’s all I asked you DOCTOR. Just a simple YES, or NO. Nothing else! Do you think you can do that?!

JD: Yes, of course I………

NURMI: Again, DOCTOR. Listen carefully to my question and answer ONLY what I ask. I didn’t ask for you to elaborate. Are you sure you are able to understand this?
(After no response from JD, Nurmi shouts at the judge to FORCE THIS WITNESS to answer the question!!)

NURMI: (Acting foolishly exasperated) So trying to move on here, finally, DOCTOR. Can you HONESTLY say to this court, this jury, that YOU are qualified to make these assertions? But before you answer that,…….you’re writing a book about this trial, aren’t you doctor? (An obvious innuendo he used with Detective Flores as well)

JD: No, I’m not.

NURMI: Right, so you say. Seems reasonable to assume that someone with so few years of limited experience………and not to mention ALL of your experience being in one city, certainly not state or nationwide as other professionals have, could CAPITALIZE PROFESSIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY testifying in this trial in order to boost your client numbers. (Obvious dig here to the innuendos made to Abe about testifying boosting his sales!) I mean someone with such limited exposure before this, and now you’ve had your face all over on TV, with the media showing you hours on end, your 15 minutes of fame as it is!! One doesn’t really have to WONDER if you’ve enjoyed a substantial boost in name recognition at the very least. (Condescending laugh and dirty look) Good way to get your name out there, isn’t it? Certainly cheaper than paying for advertising! As a matter of fact you told us last time that you advertised through a magazine to get clients. I would imagine this is working a LOT BETTER THAN that. In fact, tell us, has your client base increased since you started this case, YES OR NO?!?!?

JD: Yes it has. When I……….

NURMI: Objection, UNRESPONSIVE. Just answer the questions. Once again DOCTOR. Is this SO hard for you to understand? Maybe that’s something you didn’t learn in school or during your FOUR years of experience.

NURMI: Let’s go back, well let me ask you this first. Where did you go to high school………………………………………………………………………..but before we get to that, .............you know don't you that Mr. Alexander called Jodi Arias *&*&*&*^*&^*&^ and &@^%#&^@#%$.......

:floorlaugh:

Nailed it.

 

[Tillicum]

AZL since Demarte used statements made in interviews by previous boyfriends, family members, Skye etc., can the DT now try to discredit them?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL since Demarte used statements made in interviews by previous boyfriends, family members, Skye etc., can the DT now try to discredit them?

Sure, if they can....

 

[My-Future-Ex-Husband]

Need to put Bobby J in there first. Remember too, Matt M was Bobbys' roommate. Talk about not letting go.

Why are the two guys she got engaged to not in her timeline? I read upthread somewhere that Gus and Paul Stern were the culprits.

 

[deedee21]

Miss low self esteem also reached out to Donald Trump.

 

[Kamille]

Does anyone know what this means?

Performance club I believe. It was an incentive in PPL.

MOO

 

[bsk]

I do believe other states are different, but I'm not sure where the line of unconstitutionality lies. Certainly the US Supreme Court has said there have to be standards about when a murder is "bad enough" to deserve the death penalty.

The jury is NOT told not to consider the rebuttal evidence presented by the State! They just consider it for what it is--rebuttal to mitigation--not for aggravation.

The AZ statutes do suggest that the state can bring in "bad stuff" even if it has nothing to do with the defense mitigating evidence. The courts have said the statute cannot be interpreted this way for constitutional reasons.

However, the part of the statute you quoted is just pointing out that the jury may consider ANY evidence raised that qualifies as mitigating evidence, even if the state rather than the defense raises it (like BPD).
...

Lots of mentally ill people are on death row. INSANE people cannot be executed. Mentally retarded people cannot be executed. Mentally ill people are executed all the time.
...

Yes, the jury can reject evidence, and also, in the case of a supposed mitigating factor not listed in the statute, like BPD, can say "we accept she has BPD but reject the premise that her BPD calls for leniency in this case." If they decide that the BPD exists AND that it is a mitigating factor, they must weigh it against the aggravating factor of cruelty.
...

They can. They just couldn't say it until after the defense said she WAS remorseful.
...

It truly doesn't matter. Either one can be mitigating evidence. Neither one automatically gets you out of the death penalty.

AZL, has the defense introduced a "legal" diagnosis of PTSD? Samuels testified to it in the trial, but I don't know whether legally he could offer a "diagnosis" or just an "opinion". If there has been no "diagnosis" of PTSD, then could the judge strike it from the list of mitigating factors for the jury to consider?

This isn't like "she's young" where there are shades of cray --oops I mean gray involved - either she's diagnosed with it or she's not. If you could list it as a mitigating factor without a valid diagnosis, then hell why not list every entry in the DSM and let some juror pick one that he or she thinks fits?

 

[RickshawFan]

Performance club I believe. It was an incentive in PPL.

MOO

Lol. I thought PC meant "peace".

 

[Kamille]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AvKm9m4qWAQ

Thanks for that. Watching just that small exchange makes it so easy to vote for the DP for her. "Such a brat". Too bad JM didn't get the chance to repeat that show by getting to cross her this time. Still can't believe the first jury hung on the penalty phase.

MOO

 

[Bravo]

Still not a "blood thinner". Warfarin is a blood thinner.

LOL I think Goddess Jodi made a boo boo. Shocking as that is. Aspirin will thin the blood.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

The old court TV boards? And here I think? Westerfield needs to be taken off the planet asap.
The only thing almost as horrific as what that man did to that little girl was what his lawyer did to her family. Westerfield was literally in a room ready to sign a plea document. He'd tell where he dumped a little girl like she was garbage in exchange for a life sentence. Someone came in and alerted the DA that the body had just been discovered by hikers. His lawyer....knowing his client killed a girl and was only going to lead police to her body so her family could bury her if the State wouldn't seek the DP...this lawyer got into court and accused the parents of being "swingers" who smoked pot sometimes. Then he called a bug expert to discuss how his client couldn't have done it cause a certain kind of fly or bug that was eating away at the little girls corpse took x amount of days to hatch and Westerfield had an alibi. He knew that monster raped and murdered a six year old and then he put her family through even more hell. Unbelievable

All the bug experts in the world could never explain away her little hand print above the bed as he raped her or her blood in the RV

He knew he'd been caught red handed, during his first interrogation, he is heard to ask an officer to "leave your gun here for a few minutes" in a seeming suggestion that he would like to commit suicide.



Danielle was kidnapped, raped and murdered thirteen years ago on February 1-2 2002. The death penalty Westerfield was given had been put on hold due to to a 2006 moratorium on executions in California and and July 2014 ruling that the DP is unconstitutional. He might not have to face his sentence.


David Westerfield had thousand of images of violent child *advertiser censored* on his computer - tried to blame it on his son.