Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 38

[bsk]

Try as I might, I really can't image what the DT is going to say in closing argument tomorrow. They can't argue snapped, they won't dare openly call Travis a pedophile, they can't talk about the murder itself.

What are they left with? That her mother hit her with a spoon, that a nameless fellow said he found adult *advertiser censored* on a computer, and that another nameless fellow called a Bishop a liar?

With that secret letter from the secret witness's secret mom coming in today, it seems pretty clear they're going to go all-in on child *advertiser censored* coupled with the Mormon conspiracy to try to sacrifice the true victim in all this.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Auntie Sue's involvement in the Helio goes without saying, but I'm chuckling at the thought of McGee's mother being coerced into her laffidavit.

"Mum, remember Bishop Parker?"
"Erm, is that the nice gentleman from New Zealand?"
"No, Mum. California. Remember just before my wedding you used to take tea there?"
"Oh, yes."
"Well remember the guy that used to bring you tea and biscuits?"
"You mean the Bishop's son?"
"No, Mum. Travis - remember Travis? Had the room across the hall from ... ?"
"Erm. I think so."
"Well, can you write a letter saying that? It's really important."
"If it's important to you, dear, although I can't really remember him myself. Send me an email on what you need me to say."

 

[Zinvestigator]

I don’t think she will get the DP. THIS jury hasn’t heard or seen all the really awful stuff, the autopsy report, Dr. Horn, anyl of De Marte’s previous testimony, etc. How many of the photographs of Travis’ body did they see?

THE FIRST jury saw and heard all of that and THEY COULDN’T GIVE HER THE DP!!!!!!!, so I doubt this group who has heard less, seen less, know less will be able to do it either.

Pity. I hope I have to eat my words.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Here's the part of the jury instruction I was talking about above:

You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating
circumstance you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the
mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. “Sufficiently substantial to call for
leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the
opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison.

Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are of the same
quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead
vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence
even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.

A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may
be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to
the assessment of the appropriate penalty. In other words, each of you must determine
whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it
warrants leniency in this case.

The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not
have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the
burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. It is for you, as jurors, to decide
what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.

In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and
appropriate, you must decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating
factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and
circumstances of the case. This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be
made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the
severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each
juror.

Paragraph two invalidates everything the prosecution has tried to accomplish. It just gave every juror the right to say Life, with no justification.

 

[LinasK]

I bought it but I know nothing compared to her jury. JA could never pull that off IMO. NEVER! lol

Haven't seen it, but heard they paraded MD's children in front of the court as a mitigating factor. Jodi doesn't and won't ever have that. In fact, she's never gonna have heterosexual sex ever again!!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh, so someone on Jodi's side sent some other BS now, like from Fibber McGee (like that one!) and is still trying to get it in. Will the judge ever unseal it and look at it after trial??

It could be something like that, yes. IMO she will never unseal it unless an appellate court wants to see it.

 

[Spellbound]

think she means recording with pen and paper.

I hope you are right, though a lot of what she puts up is by video.

 

[Nali87]

Here's the part of the jury instruction I was talking about above:

You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating
circumstance you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the
mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. “Sufficiently substantial to call for
leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the
opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison.

Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are of the same
quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead
vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence
even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.

A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may
be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to
the assessment of the appropriate penalty. In other words, each of you must determine
whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it
warrants leniency in this case.

The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not
have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the
burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. It is for you, as jurors, to decide
what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.

In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and
appropriate, you must decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating
factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and
circumstances of the case. This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be
made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the
severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each
juror.

1. BBM: I thought it was supposed to be: "If mitigating factors are of higher value than aggravating factors than you must vote for death.." But it seems to be "Even if the mitigating factors aren't higher than the aggravating factor - you can still decide they are enough to show mercy." Did I understood that right?
2. BBM: Can facts and circumstances of the case include trashing the victim after death?

 

[ButForFortune]

OH wait, the Jury was out when Arias pulled her hissy fit?

10 dollars says tomorrow Arias will say she took her meds and now wants to allocute

What a wasted day for her drama

I agree wholeheartedly. We are not going to get through tomorrow morning without more DRAMA from the Arias defense team.

 

[Hope4More]

I think they have no other choice but to stay with the PTSD.

I'm sure, but the problem for them is.....they can't connect that dot to anything else, even if they can convince jurors its real (which I doubt).

So, she has PTSD...and? They should spare her because she has it, end of story? That ain't a very compelling narrative.

 

[Nali87]

I don’t think she will get the DP. THIS jury hasn’t heard or seen all the really awful stuff, the autopsy report, Dr. Horn, anyl of De Marte’s previous testimony, etc. How many of the photographs of Travis’ body did they see?

THE FIRST jury saw and heard all of that and THEY COULDN’T GIVE HER THE DP!!!!!!!, so I doubt this group who has heard less, seen less, know less will be able to do it either.

Pity. I hope I have to eat my words.

They saw the pictures and they heard from Dr. Horn. It was a while back though.

 

[ilovewings]

I have NO faith that the Jury will decide on the death penalty. Most likely - hung again ....
I'm disheartened by the entire Jury selection process in death penalty cases. Why would you ever allow someone to serve on a Jury who states they don't believe in judging others AT ALL ( C.Anthony case) or in this case, someone who only believes in the death penalty for serial killers? IMO you have to select people who feel that the death penalty is an appropriate sentence for this crime, if proven.

I agree with you IMO they will hang again and all of this horror that is called a trial will have been for naught

 

[LinasK]

Sadly, I think you're right. I don't think she'll get the DP and they'll hang.:tantrum:

Not gonna happen, and even if it does, JSS will give her LWOP. No way will Jodi ever be a free woman again. She threw away her life along with Travis's.

 

[MeeBee]

I think if they follow the instructions, as I have come to understand them these past couple of days.. They should vote for DP. If you measure the cruel way Travis died against the mitigating factors presented, then none measure up. Including the Borderline Personality Disorder diagnosis. (And I've been overthinking the crap out of the BPD.)

Which is why I wonder, if the jurors can just "show mercy" even if the mitigating factors aren't sufficient. :thinking:

Jodi made a huge mistake with this defense. If she'd mounted a normal mitigation defense it might have been life or hung. She just couldn't do it. She says she doesn't want to do this, to expose Travis. But it doesn't come off that way at all. It comes off as excuses, excuses, excuses. I think even if there were a juror believing like #12, that killers like Jodi just don't deserve death, she should have played to them. Even someone who doesn't like Jodi very much might still think, but she doesn't deserve death.

But this relentless assault on her victim will be her undoing. It would be one thing if Travis WERE abusive. But he wasn't. And they choose to paint him as evil because he watched *advertiser censored*, had a nickname and flirted with women? Even that juror will be angry and floors that they are trying to concvince them Travis deserved to die. All they heard was Helio phone and computer testimony. It must be mind boggling. And then there the disgusting pedophile lie that no one believe. If that doesn't give her death I don't know what will. It's a 30th stab wound. It's conplerely remorseless. It undermines what she is trying to present. She's probably happy now that she got her way on so many things.

I hope it's some consolation to her when she gets death.

 

[Love Never Fails]

So the dt never brought back MF nor pseudonym nor others to prove JA worth to humanity? No sister or mom or dad to stand up for her? No supporters from her twitter or blog? Not even for herself!

I didn't believe Fonseca would come back. Why let JM prove once again what a liar and a failure she is, both as a hired gun and a human being.

 

[Nali87]

I agree with you IMO they will hang again and all of this horror that is called a trial will have been for naught

It couldn't be avoided. State of Arizona nor JA would have offered/accepted a deal. IMO.

 

[ShadyLady]

definition:
An ex parte motion asks for a court order before the other party has an opportunity to be heard ... A hearing will then be scheduled with notice to all parties.


So JW has THREE notices that need hearings???????? :no:

Written by Jodi herself. Genius wordsmith you know....

 

[hindsight2020]

Mark Henle ‏@HenleMark 29m29 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
#JodiArias looks toward family members during the sentencing phase of her retrial Monday.


Mark Henle ‏@HenleMark 19m19 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
Judge Sherry Stephens talks to the jury during the #JodiArias retrial Monday.


Mark Henle ‏@HenleMark 24m24 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
#JuanMartinez (center) and defense attorneys Kirk Nurmi (right) and Jennifer Willmott during the #JodiArias retrial.

 

[LinasK]

I don’t think she will get the DP. THIS jury hasn’t heard or seen all the really awful stuff, the autopsy report, Dr. Horn, anyl of De Marte’s previous testimony, etc. How many of the photographs of Travis’ body did they see?

THE FIRST jury saw and heard all of that and THEY COULDN’T GIVE HER THE DP!!!!!!!, so I doubt this group who has heard less, seen less, know less will be able to do it either.

Pity. I hope I have to eat my words.

Have faith. Juan is going to pull out all the gruesome autopsy photos in his closing. Zervakos isn't on this jury. They'll give her the DP, I'm sure of it.

 

[Hope4More]

With that secret letter from the secret witness's secret mom coming in today, it seems pretty clear they're going to go all-in on child *advertiser censored* coupled with the Mormon conspiracy to try to sacrifice the true victim in all this.

Oh, I hope so. That would speed up deliberations significantly.