Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

[TexMex]

One interview he gave he said the physical abuse claim was discounted by him because they only had Jodi's word, no police or hospital or eyewitness reports.

In HLN interview he says he felt there was emotional and verbal abuse


Bill Zervakos was juror No. 18 during the nearly six-month trial. He says he voted against the death penalty. The jury was split 8-4 on the decision to give Jodi Arias life or death. Zervakos is the first of the four who voted for a life sentence to speak publicly about his decision.

Zervakos says there were multiple mitigating factors, including Arias' age, the fact that she had no criminal history and her "dysfunctional" family, which led him to vote the way he did.

Most notably, as he expressed during an interview with "Good Morning America" the day after the judge declared a mistrial, he firmly believes Arias was abused. "All of the testimony that I listened to -- and that I actually heard as well as read… I do believe he verbally and mentally abused her," Zervakos said. "There was just too much evidence. That… you know. Again not an excuse. And believe me I’m not painting Jodi Arias as a sympathetic figure."

When asked about sympathy for Arias and the claims that the defense tried to vilify Travis Alexander, Zervakos responded, "I’m sorry. I don’t mean to slander him." He went on to say, "I’m not blaming the dead guy. He didn’t deserve to die. What she did was horrific, and she’s got to pay for it. And she is going to."

Zervakos gave more reasons why he voted against the death penalty. "You don’t put people to death for being stupid. You don’t put people to death for lying. So I had to weigh all these things."

“I don’t think Jodi Arias is a menace to society. I think something happened and she’s got to pay for it and she will pay for it."

As for the Alexander family, who attended much of the proceedings, grieving the loss of their sibling, Zervakos said, “I think [Alexander's family] got justice."

 

[Hope4More]

Wow. I gave him too much credit, remembered incorrectly that his sympathy was based on believing the physical as well as emotional abuse.

The man found himself in a sheet-storm fairly quickly after his first interview. Maybe that was the one in which he said- "you don't put people to death for being stupid."

Some of his other memorable statements, iirc (paraphrased) - "she shouldn't be put to death for lying," "she was a perfectly normal and typical person up until June 4, and then she wasn't, something happened to her that day," make it difficult (scratch that, make it impossible) to believe he wasn't sympathetic, despite his protestation of "I'm not painting her as sympathetic."


My original point in bringing him up was to say I'm convinced he would have voted for second degree heat of passion had the allowed Nurmi to present that case. I think his post-verdict comments are a pretty solid indication that he sympathized with her, thought TA was abusive, and would readily have believed a " snapped " defense. IMO that's what he may have believed anyway, on his own.

 

[TexMex]

Wow. I gave him too much credit, remembered incorrectly that his sympathy was based on believing the physical as well as emotional abuse.

The man found himself in a sheet-storm fairly quickly after his first interview. Maybe that was the one in which he said- "you don't put people to death for being stupid."

Some of his other memorable statements, iirc (paraphrased) - "she shouldn't be put to death for lying," "she was a perfectly normal and typical person up until June 4, and then she wasn't, something happened to her that day," make it difficult (scratch that, make it impossible) to believe he wasn't sympathetic, despite his protestation of "I'm not painting her as sympathetic."


My original point in bringing him up was to say I'm convinced he would have voted for second degree heat of passion had the allowed Nurmi to present that case. I think his post-verdict comments are a pretty solid indication that he sympathized with her, thought TA was abusive, and would readily have believed a " snapped " defense. IMO that's what he may have believed anyway, on his own.

Idk. He did say he believed the murder was "very premeditated". I think he (and three other original jurors) believed she "didn't look like a killer" and the premeditated killing was a result of her losing it after his rejecting her as being good enough to marry.
I think these jurors thought life in prison was punishment enough and rejected the death penalty

 

[Hope4More]

Do you have a link handy for Foreman Z saying he believed the murder very premeditated? I don't remember him ever talking about premed, but I've forgotten a lot of this stuff.

I do remember that Foreman Z didn't like JM one little bit. IIRC, he took JM's (dismissive?) reply to his question for DeMarte very personally. Foreman Z didn't seem to find DeMarte credible, but he did seem to accept Alyce's version of -land.

Z said of 's 18 days on the stand-" that it didn't do her any good;" she was up there too long, so there were a lot of inconsistencies in her stories; but then again, she was up against JM, well known for his "aggressive style," and that he didn't think he would have done very well either against JM.

It is just an opinion, but yah, I think Foreman Z was sympathetic to her from the get-go and filtered what he heard through that prism.

 

[TexMex]

Do you have a link handy for Foreman Z saying he believed the murder very premeditated? I don't remember him ever saying that about premed at all, but I've forgotten a lot of this stuff.

I do remember that Foreman Z didn't like JM one little bit. IIRC, he took JM's (dismissive?) reply to his question for DeMarte very personally. Foreman Z didn't seem to find DeMarte credible, but he did seem to accept Alyce's version of -land.

Z said of 's 18 days in the stand-" that it didn't do her any good;" she was up there too long, so there were a lot of inconsistencies in her stories; but then again, she was up against JM, well known for his "aggressive style," and that he didn't think he would have done very well either against JM.

It is just an opinion, but yah, I think Foreman Z was sympathetic to her from the get-go and filtered what he heard through that prism.

http://thetrialdiaries.com/exclusivethe-foreman-from-the-jodi-arias-trial-speakshear-his-story/

"This crime was VERY pre meditated and I believe it was since May 10, 2008. It was brutal; she wasn’t honest after the murder and the letter she wrote to the family showed deception. I didn’t see any genuine remorse from Jodi Arias yet I did have the impression that Travis was emotionally and verbally abusive. Jodi didn’t have to go to Mesa, Arizona that day. She wasn’t even living in Arizona, she pre meditated this.”

Eta. My bad this link is for jury foreman of DP retrial

 

[TexMex]

Same link. His (foreman #2) opinion on Dr. DeMarte


The state’s top expert Dr. Janeen DeMarte was one I really wanted the Foreman’s opinion on. He found her to be very well spoken. The most interesting thing he noted was that Jodi didn’t seem to like her at all. “Jodi would lean forward in her seat, smiling and staring intently as Kirk Nurmi would drill the Dr. on the stand.” He felt DeMarte held up very well and remained calm and cool as a cucumber as Kirk Nurmi called her Dr. Death, “I just felt that was childish.” DeMarte he felt was important because she stated there was no physical abuse that happened at the hands of Travis Alexander. The Foreman had put a question for her in the basket that was never asked, “Since you had the most interview time with Jodi did you see genuine remorse from her?” While the defense hammered away at DeMarte’s qualifications and experience, the Foreman felt the Dr. was “diligent and knew her stuff,” a statement most everyone that has seen her testify in trial could agree on.

 

[Hope4More]

http://thetrialdiaries.com/exclusivethe-foreman-from-the-jodi-arias-trial-speakshear-his-story/

"This crime was VERY pre meditated and I believe it was since May 10, 2008. It was brutal; she wasn’t honest after the murder and the letter she wrote to the family showed deception. I didn’t see any genuine remorse from Jodi Arias yet I did have the impression that Travis was emotionally and verbally abusive. Jodi didn’t have to go to Mesa, Arizona that day. She wasn’t even living in Arizona, she pre meditated this.”

That interview was with the foreman of PP2, not with Foreman Z.

He and other PP2 jurors also believed Fonseco and Samuels about abuse....until they went back into deliberations and read the full text record between TA and the Hughes, and TA with the .

I think they only made that effort, though, because of juror 17.

Which brings me back to the same point I've been making. I've been tweaking Madeleine, but I also genuinely don't believe a 1st degree murder conviction was inevitable, no matter what theory the defense chose to present.

I know we had more access to info than did the juries, but I'm impressed that the DT could convince any PP2 juror (other than 17) that TA was abusive, despite being presented a lying defendant already convicted of 1st degree murder.

 

[TexMex]

That interview was with the foreman of PP2, not with Foreman Z.

He and other PP2 jurors also believed Fonseco and Samuels about abuse....until they went back into deliberations and read the full text record between TA and the Hughes, and TA with the .

I think they only made that effort, though, because of juror 17.

Which brings me back to the same point I've been making. I've been tweaking Madeleine, but I also genuinely don't believe a 1st degree murder conviction was inevitable, no matter what theory the defense chose to present.

I know we had more access to info than did the juries, but I'm impressed that the DT could convince any PP2 juror (other than 17) that TA was abusive, despite being presented a lying defendant already convicted of 1st degree murder.

I am unsure. Probably a first degree conviction was inevitable with a death qualified panel. Foreman 1 did convict on first degree.
Did foreman 2 take back his belief that Travis was emotionally abusive or did he just reject that the "abuse" was no reason she shouldn't receive the DP?

 

[Hope4More]

What I know for sure: Arias lies, so if Arias claimed she was "going camping" I know that's almost certainly a lie because the truth and what Arias says are never in the same room.

Feel better soon. . We'll leave the porch light on.

 

[GigiG]

I am unsure. Probably a first degree conviction was inevitable with a death qualified panel. Foreman 1 did convict on first degree.
Did foreman 2 take back his belief that Travis was emotionally abusive or did he just reject that the "abuse" was no reason she shouldn't receive the DP?

What's on the table for dinner this Sunday, TexMex?

 

[Hope4More]

I am unsure. Probably a first degree conviction was inevitable with a death qualified panel. Foreman 1 did convict on first degree.
Did foreman 2 take back his belief that Travis was emotionally abusive or did he just reject that the "abuse" was no reason she shouldn't receive the DP?

Everything the PP2 foreman said is that interview and in the group juror interview. I think he rejected the lies about emotional abuse after reading the full text record, and realized the DT hadn't been especially honest in how they portrayed the victim of their client.

 

[TexMex]

What's on the table for dinner this Sunday, TexMex?

Potluck with the neighbors.

Dessert is Tres Leche cake


Or peanut butter cream sandwich stuff

 

[Hope4More]

COURT OF APPEALS UPDATE….DELAYS, AND PROBABLY EVEN MORE DELAYS
------------------------------------------------
(appellant=, appellee=State)


April 11, 2016. Motion to provide transcripts to Counsel; appellant

April 12, 2016. Amended Motion to provide transcripts to Counsel; appellant

April 18, 2016 GRANTED: Amended Motion, copies of transcripts due to counsel by May 2

May 11, 2016 Second Motion to provide transcripts to counsel; appellant

May 11, 2016 Motion by appellant: Request for Management Conference and Briefing Schedule

Conference set for May 13, Department M (decision (s) from conference not recorded yet)


May 12, 2016 Notice of Completion of Record


May 12, 2016 GRANTED: second motion to provide transcripts to counsel for appellee and appellant. Copies due to counsel by MAY 26, 2016



DUE DATE: Opening brief due Monday, June 27, 2016

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

By Administrative Order: “ In an appeal from a lengthy trial or in which the record or legal issues are particularly complex, the Court in its own discretion ,or at the request of a party, may schedule a management conference to set deadlines other than those specified in this Order for the supplementation of the record and the filing of briefs.”
--------------------

**In other words, it looks like ’s counsel anticipates requiring more than one 30 day extension for filing, and is being proactive?

**Wonder if it’s meaningful that appellants are given 40 days to file an opening brief, but the initial due date for ’s counsel brief is 30 days instead?

**Looks like the COA goes by calendar days, not business days, in setting deadlines



----------------------------------------
(General)

COA COURT RULES, FILING CRIMINAL APPELLANT BRIEFS

The record for appeals: certified transcript, all documents, papers, books and photographs entered into evidence, all pleadings and documents in the file.

Certified transcript: any hearings on suppression of use of evidence; the trial, except voir dire, opening and closing statements, unless requested; entry of judgement and sentence, aggravation-mitigation hearing.

Within 5 days of filing for appeal, appellant () can request any proceeding not automatically included, or to delete any portion deemed unnecessary.

Within 12 days of filing for appeal, appellee (State) may request that whatever portion deleted by the appellant, or any not automatically added.


Request to supplement the record must be made no later than 30 days after Notice of Completion (of trial record) is filed. If not filed, counsel must demonstrate “actual and substantial good cause” why the need for additional transcripts wasn’t discovered earlier

Opening briefs are due 40 days after the mailing of the Clerk’s notice of Completion (of trial record) is completed. One 30-day extension for filing opening briefs is automatically granted.

April 30, 2015 Notice of Appeal filed

June 12, 2015 Filed: additional record on appeal (hearing dates)

 

[GigiG]

Potluck with the neighbors.

Dessert is Tres Leche cake
View attachment 94566

Or peanut butter cream sandwich stuff

View attachment 94567

Thanks, TexMex -- you never fail to make me salivate!

 

[geevee]

O/T: I just saw Corpus had some flooding overnight, you doing okay down there, Texy?

 

[LinasK]

Potluck with the neighbors.

Dessert is Tres Leche cake

Or peanut butter cream sandwich stuff

Save me a piece of the Tres Leche Cake- looks yummy!

 

[LinasK]

She appeared prepared to threaten, maim or kill if she needed to, hence the weapons. Why do people take weapons with them? Any one of or combo of the following: Protection, Hunting for and/or preparing food, To Threaten Someone Else, To get something (like a robbery for $$$), Harming themselves, Harming someone else, as a tool (knife).

If there's evidence she was on her way to AZ to exact revenge or harm someone else, I'm certainly open to looking at it. I haven't seen any evidence of that so far (other than the fact she possessed a gun and knife and had her mother obtain a rental car).

We don't have evidence because she was stopped before she could get away. Just because she didn't leave paper AZ maps in the car doesn't prove that she wasn't headed there and was going someplace else. It's common logic, and she had many other targets. It's just a question of who pissed her off the most and was next on her target list. I strongly think it was Mimi because Mimi's name was on the ticket for Cancun.

 

[LinasK]

Nope. Making fun of it, not a serious list. What I know for sure: Arias lies, so if Arias claimed she was "going camping" I know that's almost certainly a lie because the truth and what Arias says are never in the same room.

Okay, something we agree on! Jodi was never a hunter- at least not of prey other than human.

 

[TexMex]

We don't have evidence because she was stopped before she could get away. Just because she didn't leave paper AZ maps in the car doesn't prove that she wasn't headed there and was going someplace else. It's common logic, and she had many other targets. It's just a question of who pissed her off the most and was next on her target list. I strongly think it was Mimi because Mimi's name was on the ticket for Cancun.

I suspect Darryl could be a target. She might figure she'd eliminate him before he could give info on gas cans to LE. They prove premeditation IMO.

To me, any of Travis's girls were not a threat to her anymore since Travis was already out of the picture

 

[TexMex]

O/T: I just saw Corpus had some flooding overnight, you doing okay down there, Texy?

Yes ma'am. All good. Ton of rain though.