Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 6

[aa9511]

The state can appeal things by special action before the end of the trial. And so can the media, if there's a freedom of press issue. Based on the tweets, it sounds like the media is moving forward with a special action right now.

Yeah , this is going too far, IMO. All the bench dialogue and the hearings are already closed. On top of that, JSS did not release the bench and other hearings AFTER the trial like she said she would.

 

[Hope4More]

WOW ... some more snippets from AZ Central :


A new low: judge locks public out of Jodi Arias trial


For those who wonder: Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure set out when a judge may lock the courtroom doors during a trial.

"All proceedings shall be open to the public, including representatives of the news media, unless the court finds, upon application of the defendant, that an open proceeding presents a clear and present danger to the defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury."

Stephens made no such findings in open court. In fact, she made no findings at all.


More at Link: http://www.azcentral.com/story/laur...dge-locks-public-out-of-arias-trial/18201641/

Great article!

 

[Love Never Fails]

Hmmm. I know there's some case law on this, but not sure how it's come out in AZ. During the trial, yes, of course she can, and they can't speak to the media anyway. After the trial, I think she would be on extremely shaky ground 1st Amendment-wise.

Assuming the 1st Amendment is still a thing.

Well, I think the first amendment was trashed today.

 

[blefuscu]

If it were the Bishop what can he really say? Wouldn't anything told to him then be hearsay? Or have I got that wrong?

 

[AZlawyer]

Could they be testifying via SKYPE?

OK, yes, maybe an out-of-COUNTRY witness not subject to the Court's jurisdiction...and you can't even get an out-of-state subpoena for them to testify by phone/Skype, so you have to accept their extortionate conditions to testify...yes. That could be.

ETA: To clarify, we would have to be talking about an out-of-country witness who is not sitting there in the courtroom but rather appearing from out of the country via phone/Skype as wenwe suggested.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Great article!

Thanks for the article. Clear and present danger to the defendants right to a fair trial my ---.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Mark Casey ‏@MarkCasey12News 22m22 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
Special action filed NOW at AZ Crt of Appeals by @12News keep #JodiArias open-"AZ..unequivocally guarantees public access to proceedings"

:happydance: Fantastic !


:seeya: And Thanks for this update !

 

[aa9511]

Mark Casey ‏@MarkCasey12News 22m22 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
Special action filed NOW at AZ Crt of Appeals by @12News keep #JodiArias open-"AZ..unequivocally guarantees public access to proceedings"

YAY! Good move.

 

[ShadyLady]

Wasn't there some friend that was supposed to testify for her in the first trial who bailed out of fear?

I keep thinking it was some co-worker that has been promised some sort of financial gain. The "bruises".

 

[AZlawyer]

If it were the Bishop what can he really say? Wouldn't anything told to him then be hearsay? Or have I got that wrong?

Lots of things would not be hearsay for reasons too complicated to list here. But in any event hearsay is allowed in the mitigation phase.

 

[aa9511]

Mark Casey ‏@MarkCasey12News 22m22 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
Special action filed NOW at AZ Crt of Appeals by @12News keep #JodiArias open-"AZ..unequivocally guarantees public access to proceedings"

YAY! Good move.

 

[Hope4More]

But why keep his identity secret?? :banghead:

Not frustrated with you, Hope. Just the situation.

There isn't a logical answer to that because we have all been sucked down into the rabbit hole where up is down and wrong is right and there is a Queen making rules but only in whispers we aren't allowed to hear.

Yeh. I'm frustrated too.....

 

[CarolinaMoon]

OK, yes, maybe an out-of-COUNTRY witness not subject to the Court's jurisdiction...and you can't even get an out-of-state subpoena for them to testify by phone/Skype, so you have to accept their extortionate conditions to testify...yes. That could be.

Ah, that comment takes me back to Henry Lee in the Phil Spector trial. The defense "forgot" to subpoena the already disgraced Lee and when it came to call him as a witness, he just happened to be in China.

 

[katiecoolady]

There isn't a logical answer to that because we have all been sucked down into the rabbit hole where up is down and wrong is right and there is a Queen making rules but only in whispers we aren't allowed to hear.

Yeh. I'm frustrated too.....

Sociopathic ripples run far and wide. This is why we need to bury them deep in to the system and shut that (#&$ down.

 

[Spellbound]

I don't really think it is the Bishop. I would think members of clergy have testified in court cases and know how to answer questions without overstepping whatever "rules of confidentiality" they may have. So why would there be a need for secrecy from him?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I'm out. I'm going to keep treating my Jodi-headache and spend the trial 3-day weekend doing something else.

See you all Monday!

One quick thought AZL, wouldn't JSS be setting a very bad precedent for future trials if her ruling stands?

 

[katiecoolady]

One other option in the chain of unending speculation is that it's Jodi herself, using her manipulative powers to shut down the media then she will change her mind by Monday and want them back in, then later claim she had an unfair trial because of this somehow. Just a thought. She loves to jack things around.

 

[JSR]

Yeah , this is going too far, IMO. All the bench dialogue and the hearings are already closed. On top of that, JSS did not release the bench and other hearings AFTER the trial like she said she would.

My biggest beef with all this is that Judge Stephens said she would have to "confer" with attys before even agreeing to release video or transcripts AFTER the verdict is rendered. After her verdict has been reached she no longer is in danger of not receiving a fair trial. You just can't deny the press 1st amendment rights willy nilly. As I said before the Constitution is NOT a list of recommendations!

 

[AZlawyer]

So far the only theories that make sense are (1) out-of-country witness who therefore cannot be forced to participate and who will testify by phone/Skype but only under their conditions, (2) child witness testifying about something horrible, (3) witness testifying about something horrible involving a child and release of witness's name would make finding out name of child super-easy.

I'm hoping for #1.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm out. I'm going to keep treating my Jodi-headache and spend the trial 3-day weekend doing something else.

See you all Monday!

One quick thought AZL, wouldn't JSS be setting a very bad precedent for future trials if her ruling stands?

No. Trial court rulings don't set any precedent at all.