Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[geevee]

She had no input? wow. I thought I detected her delusional thinking in every twisted argument..

Maybe they just channeled her when formulating the brief.

I can see also why they'd want the brief to be kept secret, the bevy of lies in the Fact section alone would make average people want to wretch all over them. And maybe smack them with a pillow for being so utterly naive.

 

[pocketaccent]

The Arizona Rules of Evidence provide that an expert may not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state that constitutes an element of the crime. Dr. DeMarte testified for the state about Arias’s ability to plan and organize. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it allowed Dr. DeMarte to testify regarding Arias’s mental state at the time of the crime?

This argument is so ridiculous. Dr. DeMartes's testimony on ' ability to plan and organize debunked her false memory loss from PTSD, which supposedly came after the crime was committed.

 

[krkrjx]

She's cooked because she went over the top in this brief, too, by saying she didn't get a fair trial because she had to wear a stun belt (like no other defendant has to, LMAO). Including this little gem makes the whole rest of the document a laughable reach. And if she had to claim that to make her case, clearly there's nothing else at the bottom of the barrel: we've gotten to the scrapings of the dregs.

The State went to great lengths to ensure the jury never saw the stun belt or leg brace. They were removed from court just so killer could walk up to the stand each time and weren't brought in until she was seated.

As for the "costumes" that attorneys are claiming were worn in an effort to sway the jurors, nothing was allowed in court by those supporting TA. Yet, JA supporters were allowed to wear items pertaining to domestic abuse while killer was on the stand claiming she was a victim of that.

JSS went out of her way to ensure killer's rights were not ignored and I believe the court record shows ample evidence of this. She even ended court earlier most days so killer would not arrive back in her cell too late for dinner.

I suppose these appeals attorneys have to try everything. They come up with the most ridiculous claims hoping that some appellate judge will be obtuse enough--or perhaps hate Martinez enough--to fall for it.

 

[Hope4More]

I never understood the pedophilia thing. You can't kill a pedophile in cold blood any more than you can kill anyone else in cold blood.

Never mind whether or not the pedophile letters could be introduced at trial, why did JM even have to go as far as pointing out that they could have been cut and pasted and then copied? Should never have happened: even if not forgeries, they would have had no bearing on whether or not murdered the guy in heinous fashion.

Besides, you're only a victim of a paedophile if you're a child or young person. was neither. How could she possibly claim the murder was the byproduct of pedophilia?

All irrelevant IMO, and JSS could have skipped all the messing about with the pedophilia thing. Since the unnecessary messing about was in 's favor, however, it would be very hard to claim that the messing about was grounds for appeal.

The only reason why JSS considered allowing the forgeries in was because the pedo claims were actually central to the defense's case for self defense.

Their case, in a nutshell:

1. TA abused both emotionally & physically.

2. He abused her because he was abused as a child, and because he was tormented by the guilt of pretending to be a good Mormon but all the while being a sexual predator.

3. His physical abuse of the dramatically escalated in January 2008, because she had discovered he was a pedophile.

4. The reason why not a single other person or GF of Travis had ever been abused by him is that no one other than the knew he was a pedophile.

5. responded to his rage on June 4 as a battered woman, who knew his darkest secret, and who had been physically abused and tormented by him because of that knowledge.

 

[Hope4More]

She had no input? wow. I thought I detected her delusional thinking in every twisted argument..

The reason why you recognize her twisted evil self is because her attorneys regurgitated her trial testimony as "fact."

 

[geevee]

This argument is so ridiculous. Dr. DeMartes's testimony on ' ability to plan and organize debunked her false memory loss from PTSD, which supposedly came after the crime was committed.

Considering the PTSD was linked to witnessing the ninjas murder Travis, I'm surprised the POSA had the nerve to include any reference to it.

 

[Hope4More]

Maybe they just channeled her when formulating the brief.

I can see also why they'd want the brief to be kept secret, the bevy of lies in the Fact section alone would make average people want to wretch all over them. And maybe smack them with a pillow for being so utterly naive.

OK. Here goes.

1. Her attorneys used her trial testimony -her own words & lies- in their brief. They did not speak with her about what to include or for additional info. One isn't allowed and the other never happens.

2. The DT, in several evidentiary hearings, said plainly that the would NEVER express remorse for killing him in any way that would imply she was culpable for CHOOSING to kill him.

3. Relating her trial testimony as "fact" is a continuation of this strategy.She killed him because she had to. It was self defense. No matter that the jury got it wrong. The only reason the jury got it wrong was because the did not receive a fair trial.

That's their appeal.

 

[geevee]

OK. Here goes.

1. Her attorneys used her trial testimony -her own words & lies- in their brief. They did not speak with her about what to include or for additional info. One isn't allowed and the other never happens.

2. The DT, in several evidentiary hearings, said plainly that the would NEVER express remorse for killing him in any way that would imply she was culpable for CHOOSING to kill him.

3. Relating her trial testimony as "fact" is a continuation of this strategy.She killed him because she had to. It was self defense. No matter that the jury got it wrong. The only reason the jury got it wrong was because the did not receive a fair trial.

That's their appeal.

Oh yeah, I understand how it works, they just did such a good job of sounding like her essays of the past that it's easy for anyone to be confused.

I see that the COA gave the state until Jan. sometime for their response, do you have any feeling whether they will take that much time?

 

[FelicityLemon]

I'm surprised that the didn't object to the fact that her judge was a woman and it wasn't fair to her because a man-judge would be more likely (in her mind) to succumb to her "meek little girl/seductress" act.

 

[Hope4More]

That "fact" section angered me too. A lot. It is outrageous that she is seemingly allowed to continue peddling her vicious lies even after she has been convicted of first degree murder.


But, taking a step back, two things imo are obvious:

1. As JM said, this trial was always about a gun and a knife and a slaughter that was premeditated.

The jury voted on a gun and a knife and whether or not the slaughter was premeditated. They weren't asked to vote on whether or not they were persuaded that Travis was a pedophile, or a sexual predator , or a bad Mormon, or a bad person.

Neither were they asked to vote on whether or not the was a liar or a horrible person. Their only job was to decide whether or not she was a person who premeditated killing Travis Alexander.

Why that distinction matters is that because the jury is silent on the individual elements of a defense case, yes, technically POSA is entitled to state her testimony as "fact."

2. Why IMO it was not very smart of POSA to present so much of her testimony at all, much less to include so many of her most egregious lies, is because it will be an easy task for the State to neutralize these "facts" by noting how thoroughly the 's testimony on those matters was impeached at trial.

And that's if they even bother to refute those "facts" individually in their response brief.

The State doesn't need to do so, actually. The "facts" presented were, at minimum, contested at trial, and POSA's presentation of them as unchallenged facts weakens their credibility.

As much or more to the point: the "facts" as presented weaken POSA's appeal (imo) because they insult the Court's intelligence by gliding over, almost entirely, the inconvenient actual facts presentee by the State that led a jury to convict the of first degree murder.

Bad idea. Bad attorneys. Bad appeal

 

[Pasasana]

Oh yeah, I understand how it works, they just did such a good job of sounding like her essays of the past that it's easy for anyone to be confused.

I see that the COA gave the state until Jan. sometime for their response, do you have any feeling whether they will take that much time?

I need to read the prosecutions response ASAP as a palate cleanser after that piece of fiction.

 

[Hope4More]

I need to read the prosecutions response ASAP as a palate cleanser after that piece of fiction.

Lol. And to answer Geevee's question- I can't imagine why the State would file their response much if any earlier than the Jan deadline. As much as likes to believe she's singular, she is just one more felon appealing her conviction, and the State has an abundance of appeals by such felons they need to work on. And, no matter when they filed, POSA's deadline for a reply brief remains the same.

 

[pocketaccent]

The only reason why JSS considered allowing the forgeries in was because the pedo claims were actually central to the defense's case for self defense.

Their case, in a nutshell:

1. TA abused both emotionally & physically.

2. He abused her because he was abused as a child, and because he was tormented by the guilt of pretending to be a good Mormon but all the while being a sexual predator.

3. His physical abuse of the dramatically escalated in January 2008, because she had discovered he was a pedophile.

4. The reason why not a single other person or GF of Travis had ever been abused by him is that no one other than the knew he was a pedophile.

5. responded to his rage on June 4 as a battered woman, who knew his darkest secret, and who had been physically abused and tormented by him because of that knowledge.

And she did everything she could to discourage TA from molesting boys. This part irks me the most.

Page 7,
In January 2008, their relationship changed ....... After that, Arias admitted that one reason she had sex with T.A. was to keep him from molesting children. (Id., pp. 142-143).

 

[Hope4More]

This argument is so ridiculous. Dr. DeMartes's testimony on ' ability to plan and organize debunked her false memory loss from PTSD, which supposedly came after the crime was committed.

I couldn't agree more. I had to reread that section several times to believe they were really making that assinine argument. It not only doesn't have any merit, it is just plain vanilla stupid, and imo reveals POSA's very tenuous grasp of the evidence provided at trial.

 

[pocketaccent]

Just for the record:
Page 7,
The supposed physical abuse in Aug 2007 is misdated to March 2007 in the brief. Incompetent POSA...

(Ugh, Brazil lost..World Cup)

 

[Hope4More]

Just for the record:
Page 7,
The supposed physical abuse in Aug 2007 is misdated to March 2007 in the brief. Incompetent POSA...

(Ugh, Brazil lost)

I remember when POSA, fresh out of the gate, decided it was a good plan to file a motion demanding that the entire COA recuse themselves from hearing her appeal because a single judge wrote an obscure article in an obscure journal and mentioned her name & case in a discussion about the cost of pursuing a DP conviction.

I asked AZLawyer at the time- "surely they have a strategic reason for doing this? And after the COA denied the motion, for demanding that the motion be reconsidered? "

AZLawyer's reply (paraphrased) was: "well, only if they think repeatedly insulting the integrity of every COA judge with a completely meritless allegation is good strategy. "

POSA really is just that clueless. And....I'm pretty sure the COA has known that for years.

 

[Pasasana]

Lol. And to answer Geevee's question- I can't imagine why the State would file their response much if any earlier than the Jan deadline. As much as likes to believe she's singular, she is just one more felon appealing her conviction, and the State has an abundance of appeals by such felons they need to work on. And, no matter when they filed, POSA's deadline for a reply brief remains the same.

Besides the especially bad writing, does this read as a "normal" appeal? For your garden variety killer, not a super special one like the , would you expect an appeal to read differently then this?

 

[freudianslip]

(I immediately thought of you when reading this scenario, lol).

I personally doubt the intended to frame the Hughes, though agree she hated them intensely and still does, because her hatred is never sated, not even by revenge.

I don't believe she intended to frame anyone else at all, but if she ever entertained that thought after the fact, I think her choice would have been Deanna.

She mentioned Deanna in both her nasty letter to TA's family and in her ridiculous "manifesto," saying in both, basically, that Deanna was unhinged and extremely jealous of .

Oopsy... HugHes, not HugUes...

I'm just speculating, but I think it is possible, even likely, that her premeditation included something that explains her eagerness to mention two possible attackers, the two weapons and her obsession with the pedo lie. She sure didn't have the means, the motive, nor the opportunity...

It didn't work. She was left with a bad storyline she needed to fix, a new humiliation, her envious hatred and the hell that must be her own mind.

All JMO and thinking out loud.

 

[RickshawFan]

Maybe this was the issue that needed to be resolved. (JSS ordered AL to return and 'complete her testimony' on her last day of testimony) I wonder what AL said to the spectator. Good that JM referred the matter to the detective unit.

Page 31,
The court addressed a matter which arose involving a spectator who contacted LaViolette by telephone. (RT 4-11-13, pp. 4-12). LaViolette returned the call and spoke to the spectator. (Id.).
The spectator alerted the county attorney’s office and the prosecutor referred the matter to the county attorney’s office detective unit. (Id.).
The court admonished LaViolette to refrain from interacting with the spectators.

Of course, this made me all the more curious.... LaV must have said something vile to the spectator? What do you think she said? Or did the spectator merely trap her into a response, and the fact she responded was the problem?

 

[RickshawFan]

She had no input? wow. I thought I detected her delusional thinking in every twisted argument..

Since H4M ruled out any contribution from , I had to conclude that 's attorneys now talk and think like her because they've been around her or her stuff too much.