Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

[Hope4More]

Basically, I agree. I think in general JSS did an excellent job, was largely impartial while being deliberate in her efforts to protect the record against issues for appeal, and therefore could not arbitrarily deny the defense any request as long as it was within the bounds of the law. I also believe she was being particularly cautious because it was her first DP trial and that contributed an element of uncertainty and heightened caution to some of her decisions.

I think Nurmi was very aware of this and sought to give JSS every opportunity to make reversible error by continually pushing limits, testing her patience, and that of the jurors, hoping as much for a mistrial as for a lenient verdict.

It was not an easy trial for any of the parties involved, and Nurmi made sure he did not make it any easier for either the prosecution, the judge, or the jury, because it wasn't to his advantage to do so.

In the end, I think JSS simply erred. Yes, it was on the side of caution, and in that sense it is to her credit and character, but it was an error, plain and simple, and as it turned out, a reversible error, just not the kind the defense wanted...

I agree entirely with the bolded part above, and I think that tactic definitely was in play on the 30th.

---------------------------------------------------
Salberg7---This was the trial through October 30:


Oct 21, 2014 Retrial begins, opening statements, Melendez, Flores.

Oct 22. Horn, Melendez

Oct 23. Flores, Amanda Webb (WalMart), Kevin Friedman (Yreka, re burglary).

Oct 27. Day 4. Flores. (re her statements in July)

Oct 28. Day 5. Flores. Cross, redirect, state concludes underlying evidence.

Oct 30. Day 6. VIMs, JSS closes court for CMJA. Media petitions COA to re-open court.


The trial was completely on track, moving at a brisk pace, and had not yet become contentious. Then came the morning of the 30th, when Tanisha and Stephen gave their VIMs. The State had completed the review portion of trial 1 and had rested. All parties were aware the defense case was to begin next, after a much needed recess.

I really think CMJA’s refusal to testify in open court was her own decision, made on the spot after she saw the overwhelmingly response to the Alexanders’ VIM’s, similar to what she pulled at sentencing after their statements that day to JSS.

It had been a VERY emotional morning for everyone in court, and I have to think that included JSS. I remember tweeters and trial watchers saying the trial was basically over, and there was no way CMJA would escape the DP. I bet that sense of things was palpable in the courtroom too, hence, perhaps, CMJA’s rage and refusal to testify unless accommodated snit fit.

The DT, as I’ve said, seemed to be making it up as they went along. If they were ambushed too, what other choice did they have? Nurmi’s threat about preclusion and fully mitigating was an old refrain, one he’s been pitching since the sentencing phase of trial one. JSS couldn’t have been surprised or caught off guard by that argument.

Neither was she the slightest bit impressed with the DT’s rapidly morphing argument about the nature of the “threat” CMJA said she felt. She didn’t buy their pitch. She proceeded to do the Waller analysis. That first response was legally correct and appropriate—move the public and media to the overflow room. Problem solved.

JW seemed most aware that CMJA wouldn’t concede defeat. IMO JSS was caught off guard by CMJA’s second refusal. JSS had double checked to make sure she was following the rules, checked off all the boxes, and thought she’d resolved the problem. I think CMJA had accurately assessed JSS’s vulnerabilities early on, exploited them all along, and sensed she could push JSS off balance with her refusals that day.

What followed next, all of it, suggests to me that JSS was extremely stressed by the refusal, and uncertain about how best to balance competing interests without risking the trial’s integrity. Recall that she need to/felt compelled to double check the rules about even partially closing the court. Completely sealing court went a great deal further, in reality, into what was costitutionally impermissible.

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I think that leap (into error) was paved by the many and endless granting of the DT’s requests for sealing and secrecy that had begun within weeks after the first sentencing mistrial in May, 2013. One can argue the merits of those DT requests or the wisdom/necessity of JSS granting virtually all of them, but it is indisputable that the PP2 retrial was cloaked in secrecy from the very beginning, to a degree that media attorneys had deemed unconstitutional BEFORE court was sealed on the 30th.

Did JSS rule, in error, out of caution? Sure, I agree, IMO that’s exactly what happened. Under duress, and IMO because she wasn’t well she versed in DP mitigation jurisprudence, she defaulted to her position of deferring to the DT out of an abundance of caution. She lost sight of the forest that morning in doing so, but yep, she’s human, and people make mistakes, even judges.

 

[Hope4More]

Happy father’s day to you dads and granddads!

 

[Steve44]

I agree entirely with the bolded part above, and I think that tactic definitely was in play on the 30th.

---------------------------------------------------
Salberg7---This was the trial through October 30:


Oct 21, 2014 Retrial begins, opening statements, Melendez, Flores.

Oct 22. Horn, Melendez

Oct 23. Flores, Amanda Webb (WalMart), Kevin Friedman (Yreka, re burglary).

Oct 27. Day 4. Flores. (re her statements in July)

Oct 28. Day 5. Flores. Cross, redirect, state concludes underlying evidence.

Oct 30. Day 6. VIMs, JSS closes court for CMJA. Media petitions COA to re-open court.


The trial was completely on track, moving at a brisk pace, and had not yet become contentious. Then came the morning of the 30th, when Tanisha and Stephen gave their VIMs. The State had completed the review portion of trial 1 and had rested. All parties were aware the defense case was to begin next, after a much needed recess.

I really think CMJA’s refusal to testify in open court was her own decision, made on the spot after she saw the overwhelmingly response to the Alexanders’ VIM’s, similar to what she pulled at sentencing after their statements that day to JSS.

It had been a VERY emotional morning for everyone in court, and I have to think that included JSS. I remember tweeters and trial watchers saying the trial was basically over, and there was no way CMJA would escape the DP. I bet that sense of things was palpable in the courtroom too, hence, perhaps, CMJA’s rage and refusal to testify unless accommodated snit fit.

The DT, as I’ve said, seemed to be making it up as they went along. If they were ambushed too, what other choice did they have? Nurmi’s threat about preclusion and fully mitigating was an old refrain, one he’s been pitching since the sentencing phase of trial one. JSS couldn’t have been surprised or caught off guard by that argument.

Neither was she the slightest bit impressed with the DT’s rapidly morphing argument about the nature of the “threat” CMJA said she felt. She didn’t buy their pitch. She proceeded to do the Waller analysis. That first response was legally correct and appropriate—move the public and media to the overflow room. Problem solved.

JW seemed most aware that CMJA wouldn’t concede defeat. IMO JSS was caught off guard by CMJA’s second refusal. JSS had double checked to make sure she was following the rules, checked off all the boxes, and thought she’d resolved the problem. I think CMJA had accurately assessed JSS’s vulnerabilities early on, exploited them all along, and sensed she could push JSS off balance with her refusals that day.

What followed next, all of it, suggests to me that JSS was extremely stressed by the refusal, and uncertain about how best to balance competing interests without risking the trial’s integrity. Recall that she need to/felt compelled to double check the rules about even partially closing the court. Completely sealing court went a great deal further, in reality, into what was costitutionally impermissible.

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I think that leap (into error) was paved by the many and endless granting of the DT’s requests for sealing and secrecy that had begun within weeks after the first sentencing mistrial in May, 2013. One can argue the merits of those DT requests or the wisdom/necessity of JSS granting virtually all of them, but it is indisputable that the PP2 retrial was cloaked in secrecy from the very beginning, to a degree that media attorneys had deemed unconstitutional BEFORE court was sealed on the 30th.

Did JSS rule, in error, out of caution? Sure, I agree, IMO that’s exactly what happened. Under duress, and IMO because she wasn’t well she versed in DP mitigation jurisprudence, she defaulted to her position of deferring to the DT out of an abundance of caution. She lost sight of the forest that morning in doing so, but yep, she’s human, and people make mistakes, even judges.

Excellent post and I agree completely. Reflecting on all of this it makes JM's performance during the trial even more impressive. He was never surprised, nonplussed, or confused by any of the DT's tactics, whether originating from council or the , even when they were attacking him or his team personally. Without missing a beat, and with an understanding of the law that clearly surpassed that of JSS, he skillfully moved passed every barrier, accusation and delay the DT put on the table, and continued doing his job with professionalism and confidence. I particularly liked when the defense had presented evidence the prosecution had tampered with the computer. The media were in a frenzy for days, and thought maybe they had blown the case. Juan came into court and discharged the entire fiasco with one sentence, and made the entire defense team, past and present, look like a Three Stooges comedy routine. He was unstoppable and unfazed, and was doomed.

 

[TexMex]

Happy father’s day to you dads and granddads!

I got some flip flops that have a bottle opener built in
Great gift

 

[salberg7]

View attachment 96914

I got some flip flops that have a bottle opener built in
Great gift

What a cool gift!
Happy Father's Day to all our lovely dads on this thread.

 

[salberg7]

Record heat in Phoenix today, BTW.
Hey TexMex, what's this I just read about Texit? (Like Brexit?)
If that happens I'm taking the husband, shaving my collie, and movin' to Texas, lol.

 

[Hope4More]

Most of the October 30 transcript, paraphrased and condensed in places, direct quotes are in quotes, commentary free of charge.

I’ve missed before the possible significance of Nurmi’s new (on the record, anyway) argument that CMJA’s mental illness must be considered when evaluating her perception of threats and her refusal to testify.

The COA considered this point not at all, which suggests it had no merit legally, but perhaps JSS mistakenly believed otherwise and it played a part in her decision to yield to the DT’s “request” for court sealing.

--------------------------

JW—seal Court.

JSS-why?

JW- cameras and public there will affect how she testifies and her ability to think.

Nurmi- sealing court is consistent, anyway, with what you’ve already ruled; you’ve said our mitigation witnesses could testify under seal and no cameras

JSS-well, I said I’d be willing to forbid cameras, but now you’re asking me to seal her testimony until post-verdict, correct?

JM—yes, they’re asking you clear the whole court, but the criteria to seal court has not been met.

JSS— “I need to pull out my sheet on this and see what the criteria are.”

JW- “It was also listed in the minute entry with regard to the media and our ability to ask for that for our witnesses.”

JSS---“But I have to make sure that this request meets some requirements. So we are going to take a recess.”

Nurmi— “(Rule) 122 (relating ONLY to cameras in court) Is that the Court’s concern?”

JSS---“No. There is another test that I have to----that I have to pull up.”

RECESS.

JSS says they need to make a record, so repeats— “you are asking that the cameras be turned off and the courtroom closed during her testimony?”

JW- “That’s correct.”

JSS--and the reason for this?

JW—ability to testify, nervousness, too much publicity, hate mail. Affects her ability to think. People in courtroom include some of the hate-mailers.

JSS—Point them out and I’ll have them thrown out.

JW- (Backs down from that unsupportable claim): Well, there isn’t anyone specifically, “it’s just the knowledge of the fact that people come in for her then send her threatening postcards.”

Nurmi: (IMO, knowing how weak that argument is and that JSS isn’t buying it):

“Judge, if I might—I think the other issue JW needs to address is if I think in any way CMJA’s ability to testify fully and fully actualize her mitigation due to the presence of others. I think the Court should be concerned about it as they—as a preclusion of mitigation because mitigating factors as remorse of the relationship—mitigating factors 3, 5, 6, and 9 in particular would be dampened by the public presence. “



Does this make sense? Who knows? But we do know she’s mentally ill, even the State has said so.

“If her psychological makeup is such she cannot fully actualize her mitigation, then I think we have a problem under Skipper v. South Carolina. I think the Court should be cognizant of that. I think we cited in our original motion to preclude the matter Smith v Texas and Estes v. Texas about the fact that the rights of the defendant trump the rights of the MEDIA and open courtrooms are not—certainly not absolute but also based on all the other authorities I have cited in the motion too previously… (verbatim quote, the incoherence is his. ”

JSS—JM?

JM: She’s nervous, bottom line, and “nothing in case law indicates she has a right or a witness has a right to testify in sealed proceedings just because they’re nervous.” (Refers to another case in which the conviction was reversed because the judge sealed the court for an improper reason. “What I took from that case is there has to be a compelling reason to deny the public the right to be there. It is not an issue of the media here. It is an issue of the public.”

(Bodney referred to this distinction as well in his statement to the COA, saying that (JSS) confused the (state, not constitutional) law about excluding cameras from court with the constitutionally based Rule 9.3’s requirement of making a finding of “clear and present danger.”

If Bodney is correct, JSS didn’t accidentally forget to invoke 9.3, she actually erroneously based her ruling on the wrong law. In “inferring” that JSS had properly invoked 9.3, the COA may well have remedied another very fundamental error by JSS).

JM: If the request is no cameras, sure, “but this is broader than that.” Seal the court because she’s nervous, and it’s my belief this will be overturned on appeal.

((Note—now JSS is hearing a wrong decision means being “reversed on appeal” by both parties))

JW: Not just nervous. Really. Threats. Scrambled brain. Can’t fully mitigate.

Nurmi: Case law says the Heightened level of due process because of DP means her rights trump the rights of the PUBLIC.

(Note: Arizona’s rules and constitution make plain that the rights of the media and the rights of the media are different and are NOT interchangeable).

(JSS focuses next on the physical presence of people in the gallery, JW changes up that argument to, saying yes physical, but more the “fact they will walk away with the information she is going to say.”

(JSS does the Waller analysis. JW says she’s pretty certain CMJA will refuse to testify).

JM: (One of the best lines of the day): “I’M SORRY. I DIDN’T HEAR YOU.” (translation- un fricking believable, and I ‘m going to make sure that goes on record).

JSS says I thought her concern was physical presence, JW says no, really about publicity and tweeters and threats, can’t say what she wants to say.

JM: “what if we seal the proceedings that get reported? Obviously the State isn’t reporting it. How is there a link between whatever correspondence she is receiving and keeping the media out of the overflow room?”

The media will report, and they’ll say sealed proceedings, and that isn’t going to stop the mail or hate mail.

The measures beyond what you’ve indicated are not in any way related to the defendant’s concern.

JW disagrees, repeats tweets and publicity profoundly affect CMJA’s ability to say what she means, etc.

JSS: I can’t make a decision based on her concern that she may receive mail in the future in response to something she said in these proceedings.

I do believe there is legitimate concern that she may feel intimidated by the presence of those in the courtroom because she’ll be talking about very sensitive matters.

(Note: sure do disagree with THAT assessment, but no harm done…yet).

So, think it’s appropriate to remove the media and the public to the overflow room. Tell your client, and” let me know if there is going to be an issue before I tell everyone to leave the courtroom.”

JW returns and ups the ante about CMJA feeling “threatened.” Now she refers to death threats, not just hate mail, and brings up tales of crazy people trying to visit CMJA in jail. Nurmi backs up the crazy talk about crazy people. JSS moves the crew back to chambers to hear CMJA on the record. Times aren’t noted on transcript, but this move is noted on page 16 of 34.

CMJA talks threats, JSS is dismissive, says there will be publicity no matter what, nasty mail no matter what, no physical threat and don’t read your mail if you don’t like what’s in it. Says no video or cameras, that should do it.

: “Well, not just in the courtroom. Their knowledge of my testimony at all. “

JSS: Tell me what your concern is.

: “I’ve received several threats over the years, lots of crazy people try to visit me in jail,” some of the threats are very specific and linked to what I might say. I can give you specifics.

JSS: OK.

: well, some are hateful to Travis and his family and some are hateful to me, it goes both ways, and “I can’t say what I want in terms of being open and honest because of the pressure from these threats.”

(adds: I’ve also heard that one of TA’s friends wants to shot me between the eyes.”

JSS. “Well, you’re in custody. So the physical threat aspect, I would think, would be of limited concern to you.” As for mail—if you don’t read it, you won’t be aware of what it says.

CMJA says –but I’m just asking for what you said you would do for “my witnesses.”


JSS: You know the trial is not being broadcast live, that your testimony will be made public after the trial, and that you can conceivably receive threats whether you testify or not?

CMJA: Well, some of my witnesses will be testifying under seal because they won’t be willing to otherwise because of how it would affect their lives in the future, and unless promised their testimony and identities won’t be released in the future, they’re not willing to testify. That’s my position too, and I’m just asking for what you’re allowing them.

JSS: I have not yet received any written motions requesting that any of the witnesses’ statements be sealed, or their testimony sealed, or the proceedings closed.

We’ve discussed this in the past, but I haven’t received any such requests for the penalty phase retrial, and I haven’t made any rulings.

CMJA. That isn’t what I understood about what you were allowing “my witnesses.”

JSS: “You did testify at length in the first trial.”

CMJA: Right. And it was because I testified in open court last time that I received hate mail and feel threatened.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JSS- so it’s not having people in the courtroom, it’s the fact they’ll hear what you have to say?

CMJA- yes, that they’ll know I’m even testifying at all (Note-another moving of the goal posts. Not just a sealed court, but for anyone to know she even testified. Complete secrecy).


Nurmi—repeats the crazy people threat, wants to make sure it’s on the record, gets MDLR to chime in, CMJA does as well.

JSS asks for closings (condensing their statements).



Nurmi: She is not mentally stable. Her concerns may seem illegitimate to us, but they’re legitimate to her, and because they are they need to be accommodated for her to fully mitigate. All DP jurisprudence says she has that right, and her rights trump the first Amendment and any public access.

And that’s what we are really talking about here, the right to attend a trial. The Court was already inclined to clear the courtroom. The issue then seems to be the (overflow room); if she feels intimidated by that, that’s enough to grant the motion. If she can’t effectively testify and chooses not to, that’s preclusion of mitigation.

JM: Prospective concern about something that may happen in the future. They have not met the threshold (presumably of clear and present danger? Though no party uses the term).

Also want to point out the defendant is blaming the media and asking them to be ejected, but at the same time is tweeting, “stirring the pot,” and using the media to try to manage public perceptions of herself.

(JM also refers to communication between Michael Kiefer and MDLR, suggesting that it isn’t only CMJA who is complaining about the media yet reaching out to access and use media for their own purposes.

((As a side note, JM referred to this in some of his book interviews, saying he had never had a case during which the media was so exceptionally well informed throughout, even when hearings and such were sealed and supposed to be kept confidential.

I think JM is convinced the DT deliberately stoked the media flames all along as strategy, to claim publicity prevented her from receiving a fair trial, a theme that ran from day one of the 1st trial to the closing of PP2)).

Sealing isn’t warranted, and “I have a strong concern this thing will come back” if you rule in favor.

Nurmi: “He’s applying the logic to the feelings of a woman he knows to be mentally ill.” We’re just talking about what little piddly difference here between what you said you’re willing to do and what needs to be done—just the closing of one more room, the overflow room.

Preventing CMJA from testifying due to her “mentally infirmity” is a “prevention” (think he means preclusion) under Eddings, and that “should be of more concern to the State than whatever media exposure they wish to have.”

“So we would ask the Court to comply and shut down and add the (media overflow room) to (your) previous order, I guess.”

CMJA asks to be heard one more time, says it’s not about people being there. It’s about the knowledge people are privy to my testimony. It will affect how I answer the questions.

JM- Is the defendant saying she’s going to be untruthful on the stand depending on the composition of the courtroom? That causes me concern, because the truth is whatever it is irrespective of who is in the courtroom. I believe that is what the defendant is indicating.

CMJA- “well, I’ll always be truthful. It is about am I able to express the truth in the way I need to express it (if I’m feeling threatened).

JSS says- “OK. I want think about this. It is 20 to 12. We’ll reconvene at 1:00pm. I’ll have a decision then.”

 

[Hope4More]

For those interested (if anyone,lol) in the legal question of whether or not JSS predicated her closure on the appropriate law:

The 4 criteria she used in the Waller analysis are the same criteria she later used in her ruling that the court be sealed. They are the same criteria Rule 122 requires for simply excluding cameras--not the media, and not the public. Again, Rule 122 is state, not constitutional law.

Rule 9.3 is state law underpinned by constitutional law. To meet constitutional standards for sealing court, JSS needed to meet the same 4 criteria AFTER making an explicit finding (explain exactly how it was, legally) that open court presented a clear and present danger to CMJA's due process rights and thus the integrity of the trial.

JSS didn't make that finding, so didn't properly invoke 9.3. That's not just a legal nicety thing. IMO Bodney had it right that she was confused and invoked the wrong law. Had she referred to 9.3 it's at least possible her ruling would have been different.

 

[TexMex]

Record heat in Phoenix today, BTW.
Hey TexMex, what's this I just read about Texit? (Like Brexit?)
If that happens I'm taking the husband, shaving my collie, and movin' to Texas, lol.

Come on down. We're at the river house having burgers



The ice chest is full



And the Guadalupe River water temp is a perfect 71 degrees




And hell yeah Texit
#TexasForever
#ShaveShane

 

[Niner]

Since it's 117 degrees in Perryville today - I'll post this:

 

[franquerolane]

I love ' Twitter post, "Jodi Arias and a bunch of women have been without hot water for 5 days". I guess the "bunch" are just a superfluous amount of
non entities.

 

[salberg7]

I'm thinking at 117 degrees that shower water is the perfect lukewarm temp and showering is not a problem. At least she has running water. No sympathy from me....

 

[Grammy717]

I was so happy to hear about temps in Perryville -- that prison isn't air-conditioned, is it? Does anyone know?

 

[Sweetiemom]

As far as I know, Perryville has swamp coolers for cooling. They work fairly well when it is not too hot or humid, but in that high heat forget it!

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...oenix/a-preview-of-prison-life-for-jodi-arias

 

[TrialWatcher]

Just out of curiosity, what do you base that opinion upon? The opinion of legal professionals that she made a legal error based on (faulty legal reasoning --best case, cowed by the DT, worst case) was literally unanimous, opinion differing only on whether it was just a very significant or truly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKNt2N4Fzyc error.

I've gone through it all blow by blow, and understand (and agree) with that criticism, To believe JSS threw it to the COA means you believe she disregarded her oaths and professional responsibilities to make a ruling she knew to be unconstitutional. Do you believe that?

It is also to believe that despite the concern she (and Nurmi and JM) expressed on the record about additional delays resulting in a mistrial, she made a ruling that she knew would cause additional, perhaps substantially lengthy details. Do you believe that?


I’m interested in any one making a factual case for JSS deliberately making a reversible error, rather than, for whatever combination of reasons, “simply” making a mistake.

Expert opinion? Is Juan Martinez not an expert in legal matters? He doesn't think there were mistakes that would merit a successful appeal. In fact, regarding the judge he has said specifically that he does not think there were any errors made:

[video=youtube;tKNt2N4Fzyc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKNt2N4Fzyc[/video]

On appeals, from around 22 minutes in.


"... I don't believe that there was any error that was committed, whether it was by the prosecution, the defence, or the judge.

Judge Sherry Stephens has my respect for how she handled the trial and negotiated the trickiest of bends on a world stage. She did not make any irreversible errors over a lengthy trial period which required strength and patience in enormous measure. Did the delays and extreme patience applied drive me nuts at times? Yes. Was JSS incompetent, naive or timid enough to make a "truly egregious error" over the exclusion of the media? No, not in my opinion. Did that decision annoy the hell out of me? Yes. Was it a pragmatic move - designed to ensure no irreversible errors were made? Possibly. There may be things we don't know regarding this decision.

What we do know is that the world was watching JSS' every move. We know that Arias was mentally ill. We know that the issues around coverage of this case were unusual and not everyday in nature. We know that the defence team played every trick at their disposal and would have been delighted to cause additional delays. It shows strength to me, not weakness - that Judge Stephens was cool under such time pressure. We also know that Samantha thanked the judge for her strength and showed sincere appreciation for her efforts - in court, in front of the judge. I believe Samantha. I have stated on this forum that the opinion of the family on Judge Stephens was important to me. They understood what she was trying to do, it seems to me - when people (including myself) were carping and complaining about delays.

Ultimately, the appeal will reveal what the experts that matter really think. Someone said on the forum - I'm sorry, I can't find it just now - that JSS was 'artful' in arriving at a decision. I think she was that and something more. Brave. Up to the job.

 

[Steve44]

Expert opinion? Is Juan Martinez not an expert in legal matters? He doesn't think there were mistakes that would merit a successful appeal. In fact, regarding the judge he has said specifically that he does not think there were any errors made:

[video=youtube;tKNt2N4Fzyc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKNt2N4Fzyc[/video]

On appeals, from around 22 minutes in.


"... I don't believe that there was any error that was committed, whether it was by the prosecution, the defence, or the judge.

Judge Sherry Stephens has my respect for how she handled the trial and negotiated the trickiest of bends on a world stage. She did not make any irreversible errors over a lengthy trial period which required strength and patience in enormous measure. Did the delays and extreme patience applied drive me nuts at times? Yes. Was JSS incompetent, naive or timid enough to make a "truly egregious error" over the exclusion of the media? No, not in my opinion. Did that decision annoy the hell out of me? Yes. Was it a pragmatic move - designed to ensure no irreversible errors were made? Possibly. There may be things we don't know regarding this decision.

What we do know is that the world was watching JSS' every move. We know that Arias was mentally ill. We know that the issues around coverage of this case were unusual and not everyday in nature. We know that the defence team played every trick at their disposal and would have been delighted to cause additional delays. It shows strength to me, not weakness - that Judge Stephens was cool under such time pressure. We also know that Samantha thanked the judge for her strength and showed sincere appreciation for her efforts - in court, in front of the judge. I believe Samantha. I have stated on this forum that the opinion of the family on Judge Stephens was important to me. They understood what she was trying to do, it seems to me - when people (including myself) were carping and complaining about delays.

Ultimately, the appeal will reveal what the experts that matter really think. Someone said on the forum - I'm sorry, I can't find it just now - that JSS was 'artful' in arriving at a decision. I think she was that and something more. Brave. Up to the job.

I don't think Juan would call her out on it now, since it was resolved and it's in the past, and he's just not that kind of person. I believe at the time, however, he told her that if it stood it could be an issue on appeal.

 

[TrialWatcher]

I don't think Juan would call her out on it now, since it was resolved and it's in the past, and he's just not that kind of person. I believe at the time, however, he told her that if it stood it could be an issue on appeal.

I don't think Juan would have been so clear unless he thought that appeared to be the case. That interview was just after the trial ended in April 2015. He could have chosen to say nothing about the judge. The matter was resolved, as you state. What is important to me is that Arias has no wriggle-room in appeal. If the precise patience of Judge Stephens means that the murderer is never released, that sounds good to me. I'd even bet that Nurmi will be delighted if she serves life and loses appeal(s).

 

[Steve44]

I don't think Juan would have been so clear unless he thought that appeared to be the case. That interview was just after the trial ended in April 2015. He could have chosen to say nothing about the judge. The matter was resolved, as you state. What is important to me is that Arias has no wriggle-room in appeal. If the precise patience of Judge Stephens means that the murderer is never released, that sounds good to me. I'd even bet that Nurmi will be delighted if she serves life and loses appeal(s).

I think Juan is saying JSS did a very good job with a difficult trial and that there are no issues for appeal, and I agree with that. He didn't address the particular issue we're discussing because it was resolved and in the past, and was no longer an issue. It was clear at the time however that he did not agree with her decision and he pointed that out to her at the time.

No reason to keep rehashing it, the end result of the trial, and of JSS's overall performance, is that the has no leg to stand on in an appeal, and won't be going anywhere, and that's due in no small part to how JSS handled things.

 

[TrialWatcher]

The media issue was indeed resolved and I am not particularly interested in it at this stage. If it becomes a huge deal during the appeal, then that is another matter. I was merely responding courteously to a question, not, 'rehashing'.

"...and of JSS's overall performance, is that the has no leg to stand on in an appeal, and won't be going anywhere, and that's due in no small part to how JSS handled things."

Agreed. I truly hope that JSS is vindicated when that happens. If that happens. She does not seem like a woman with a huge ego to me, making her a good choice for this very difficult case.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think Juan would call her out on it now, since it was resolved and it's in the past, and he's just not that kind of person. I believe at the time, however, he told her that if it stood it could be an issue on appeal.

He told her twice in chambers on October 30 he had strong concerns that sealing court would be an appeallable issue. He was correct about the law- the standard for sealing hadn't been met, and correct about the consequences-- another trial delay, this time because of judicial error.

I trust JM's opinion (and AZL's, and most trial commentators) that the verdict will survive appeals intact. The first appeal hasn't even been written yet though, much less heard, so at the moment and for a very long while we won't know if JSS made any reversible errors. Only appellate courts can make that determination.

About JSS. Doing a bit of background research helped provide prospective on the situation JSS was thrown into way back in 2010. (Wrote up some of it and posted in the appeals thread).

AZ's court system was in crisis then, in large part because of a back up of DP cases. There weren't enough DP qualified judges, there were too many DP cases, and both the court system and the county attorney's (DA) office had been tainted by the corruption and abuse of power scandals.

JSS, like every other Superior Court judge, was made DP qualified in one fell swoop in order to push DP cases through to clear the backlog. I suspect more than one judge in the same time period struggled with unfamiliar DP trial law and court situations, a situation made more intense for all by the increased scrutiny of Supreme Court committees and the media resulting from the scandals.

JSS drew the shortest straw of all in having, on top of all that, a high profile case with a cast from hell---a remorseless, manipulative, sociopathic defendant, an inexperienced and juvenile second chair DT, an ethically challenged mitigation specialist, and a thin-skinned, ego-driven, and mediocre DT first chair. It's to JSS's credit that she cared as much as she clearly did to get it right.

Evaluating the trial and JSS in a legal context and with an eye on appeals is an exercise that's teaching me a lot, and has nothing to do with beating up on JSS, or giving her a free pass because of a guilty verdict, or , or , or.

I think the legal manuevering and rulings are fascinating, but then again, the practice of law is what drives my interest in trials. Not for everyone, I know.