Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 33

[Hatfield]

What does any of it have to do with the murder of Travis really? This whole trial is supposed to be about mitigation and this jury is supposed to accept the prior verdict that she killed him in a cruel and heinous way. If she doesn't get the DP then no one should. What DOES a person have to do if not stab someone 29 times, almost decapitate them AND shoot them in the face to get the death penalty.

I really do think a daily reminder is needed from JSS to the Jury of what their job is for. They are their to decide her sentence and MUST accept the previous guilty verdict as it has already been decided by another jury of their peers.

If I was the judge I feel this would be important to state each day because with the sneaky DT it is easy to get fogged up.

 

[Amster]

<Wing Ding Snip>

This wasn't a juror question

 

[Val1]

I know I'm late but....

Ugh, Kiefer, not really a gotcha considering it's a lifelong thing

Haha, just like when he tweeted: Michael Kiefer &#8207;@michaelbkiefer 43s44 seconds ago
Nurmi gets DeMarte to acknowledge #jodiarias had no prior criminal record.

Oh really, that must've really been a shock to everyone.....:laughing:

 

[LinasK]

I think what is very confusing (for me, anyway) is that psychological disorder is basically the same as mental illness, one is just an more old fashioned way of saying it (like many other conditions, to avoid negative overtones) - but personality disorder isn't synonymous with a psychological disorder/mental illness.
I believe one is just the broader category, and the more modern term - at least that's how I understand it, but IMO, JMO,

Nurmi's just trying to exploit the confusion between the terms to make it sound like Jodi didn't know right from wrong when she killed him.

 

[Truth Detector]

But they should not of been diagnosing anyone, they were not qualified to diagnose (in Arizona)

Not certain how fine this line is.

I believe I read in the past couple of weeks that these self-proclaimed 'experts' can evaluate subjects but not treat them sans licensure.

Would dx fall under the evaluation rubric?

Any AZ medical and/or legal professionals available to weigh in?

 

[Mindmatters]

Think it is. But its not on point, which seems fairly typical for Nurmi. In the case cited, the State repeatedly misstated law to the jury...that was prosecutorial misconduct. The real thing. Unlike JM flailing his arms.

Are you kidding or are you serious Hope? FGS isn't there a minimum understanding of trial procedures and applicable case law that an attorney has to demonstrate/have in order to practice in the Criminal Courts!

 

[AngelWings444]

Yes, but the guy asked about a text from Travis to Jodi giving her all his passwords. I've never heard that.

I haven't caught up yet, but why would they ask this question if they thought the juror was tainted? I don't think they would? It might be a question that wasn't read? Although, there is nothing from Travis's mouth/fingers to suggest he gave any password to JA. She made that up.

 

[tlckgram]

I find it curious MeeBee. Because everyone has said all along and I agree with it that Travis was a good guy and wanted to see the good in everyone. They didn't need to be together for him to be wanting to help her. They were friendly.

I found the text disturbing. He's telling his friends that he thinks she's suicidal. They don't need to be in a relationship for him to want to do something to help instead of you know making kind of jokes in his e-mail exhanges (Say Hi to Jodi Reagen) if he really thinks she's so crazy and suicidal. That's the reason I agree with Nurmi that he might have been lying to his friends about that. I don't think he would treat someone who was suicidal like that.

If I really think someone I know is suicidal, I'd try to help and I think TA would to. Again, that's why I think Nurmi was right when he said TA told his friends things about JA that might not have been true.

I don't think he seriously considered that she was on the BRINK of suicide when he made the comment "hi Jodi". Most of us have had somebody in our lives that was a "woe is me, I'm gonna kill myself" kind of person. He wasn't being cruel, IMO, he was fed up with her reading his private convo's with others. Didn't matter anymore if he hurt her feelings, he was just tired of the BS and standing up to her on that particular day. I just don't think he did it soon enough or often enough. JMOO

 

[floridagld]

AZL...any idea why Nurmi would be citing Seacrest after meeting in chambers? Sounds like she asked him for a citation and he gave her one...but what is Seacrest about? Any idea?

I am behind as ususal therefore, this may have been answered. The only case I could find was Macay and Seacrest..it is an "interesting" ruling that was granted. I don't know if this is what Nurmi is referring to?

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

But they should not of been diagnosing anyone, they were not qualified to diagnose (in Arizona)

But I was responding to a comment about why these questions were not asked of the DT Dr.s.

 

[Diggin]

I hope its painted green, with green lights. Then we can say she's walking the 'green mile.' :jail:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

He is crazy... like seriously, he has lost his mind!

Seriously, look at any recent pics of him, and he looks like he is completely nuts. There is always a mean look on his face, I would hate like hell to walk around like that all the time. FFS, eat a damned snickers or something. :gaah:

 

[tlckgram]

Oh FGS! What now, Sherry?? How much torture of this family will you allow??

Trial be tweet again but it looks like JM was there. Keifer tweeted who came out (including JM) and then Nurmi started quoting case law.

 

[Truth Detector]

Nurmi's just trying to exploit the confusion between the terms to make it sound like Jodi didn't know right from wrong when she killed him.

They's a whole lotta conflation goin' on out they-uh.

 

[elementary]

Asking why all the sex between Travis & Jodi...as described by Jodi.... is believed if the only confirmation of it is Jodi? She's a pathological liar....why is she believed?

That's what I find so bewildering. SMH. And does anyone even remember Travis' autopsy photos? Seems that murdering someone because they deserved it is becoming the standard that some jurors might be buying.

 

[TexMex]

Think it is. But its not on point, which seems fairly typical for Nurmi. In the case cited, the State repeatedly misstated law to the jury...that was prosecutorial misconduct. The real thing. Unlike JM flailing his arms.

And in the case cited the defense Atty never objected when the State did misstate the law
We all know Nurmi and Willmott object if Juan sets his papers down too hard on the desk and everybody has to run up to sidebar

 

[Myvice]

Those were two of Jodi's "mitigating" factors, her age at the time of the crime. (She was a young girl of only 27) and no criminal history (too bad her pot growing, stalking, stealing, and animal abuse couldn't be brought in)

I have to laugh at this every time I read it. Jodi was very near 28 and only 2 years away from the deadly feared Adult Ward and remaining forever single. She's a couple years younger than TA.

Guess it only matters that the murderess was young? LOL

 

[AZlawyer]

I have always assumed that the reason why the State takes some juror questions while the DT takes others is because the questions have been determined to be either pro State or pro Defense. Now I am wondering if..well, you know..my assumptions are wrong. If so, does anyone know how it is determined who responds to what questions and why?

The witness responds to the questions. Then both sides get a chance to follow up with the witness on any or all of the questions.

N

AZL question, can JA change her mind at this point and testify? Dr. DM's testimony seems to unequivocally impeach any little bit of credibility she may have still held with the jury. I can see her wanting to get on the stand and "explain" all this.

Sure, she can still testify in the rebuttal case, and/or "allocute" at the end.

Anyone have any idea what this is about and why Nurmi is allowed without JM there?

Lara Martinez &#8207;@liebenlaramutti 1m1 minute ago Judge on bench, Nurmi is citing Seacrest case law...JM not there, nor is JA #jodiarias[/QUOTE

What was the seacrest trial about? AZL, anyone know?

I posted the opinion a while back. It's a death penalty case. There's some prosecutorial misconduct referenced, but if that's what Nurmi was citing the case for I don't get it. Also, wasn't there a decision that oral argument on the mistrial motion would be Feb. 17? Or not at all? But not today?

Never mind. It's ridiculous to try to guess what's happening in this twitter-trial.

Not certain how fine this line is.

I believe I read in the past couple of weeks that these self-proclaimed 'experts' can evaluate subjects but not treat them sans licensure.

Would dx fall under the evaluation rubric?

Any AZ medical and/or legal professionals available to weigh in?

I don't think you have to be licensed in the state to give an expert opinion on a forensic evaluation.

 

[shajon123]

But I was responding to a comment about why these questions were not asked of the DT Dr.s.

Sorry, I misunderstood. Good question.

 

[fillymj]

in her journal cmja speaks how her and travis decided to exchange 2 passwords to each other to build trust. for one of them it was the gmail and myspace, cant remember the others passwords. i could be wrong, but in the interrogation with dt. flores cmja tells flores that they decided to change their passwords and not share anymore because of trust issues.

All on JA's word & journals. Don't believe Travis ever gave her his passwords. 3/4 of this trial has been tried on the word of CMJA & her journals, don't believe anything that comes out her mouth or her journals.