Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #1

[krkrjx]

As far as appeal issues go, many who appeal take the ineffective counsel route. Most of those are denied but once in a while one grows legs. In the case of Killer Arias, I have always thought it could be raised on appeal that her DT did not pursue mental illness intensely enough. Part of the reason was their client would not allow it but on appeal she would surely claim exactly the opposite.

Nurmi and Wilmott did bring in witnesses to talk about "the fog" and PTSD and other nonsense as it pertains to the vicious killer. Nothing was proven but a lot of possible mental health afflictions that Killer might have been suffering from were tossed around in court. Much of it was refuted by the state using bonafide testing methods. The DT also tried self defense and when that didn't fly, they pointed at emotional turmoil brought on by physical abuse the killer suffered over the duration of the relationship.

So, for the most part, ineffective counsel appeal looked like it would go nowhere. But just like we should not assume we know how a jury heard testimony, we should not assume appeals courts will hear it the same as we did. I thought for the long months of waiting til the penalty phase and again with testimony during that phase, that there could be some possibility of Killer Arias's ineffective counsel appeal at least being heard. Not upheld, mind you. But heard.

Now I don't think that anymore. If Arias did have even the proverbial snowball's chance of getting a new trial based on her DT not trying hard to prove "how mentally ill" she was at the time of the crime and that her affliction made it impossible for her to be in control of her actions, thoughts, deeds, and what-have-you, I do not think she has that snowball's chance anymore.

I think Killer's statements during sentencing proves there was never any fog, certainly is no remorse and her claim that she slit his throat because "he was still attacking me, trying to kill me" is so far beyond the realm of possibility that it actually proves he never attacked at all, and her sentencing statement played a big part in any ineffective counsel appeal she files being deemed without merit. Not that I believed before that the chances of such appeal succeeding were ever very good, but now I think they are non-existent.

Killer Arias has to have her say even when it is detrimental to her position. She ran her mouth in numerous interviews, especially to 48 Hours and then in social media. And during sentencing, when Killer should have been pleading for leniency she instead used her time at the podium as an opportunity to cut off her nose to spite her face.

She is her own worst enemy.

 

[katydid23]

I have not thought of CKJA for quite awhile---thankfully. I am glad to see the sweltering weather report for her cozy little He!! on Earth though. It might help prepare her for her afterlife. :devil:

 

[Hope4More]

As far as appeal issues go, many who appeal take the ineffective counsel route. Most of those are denied but once in a while one grows legs. In the case of Killer Arias, I have always thought it could be raised on appeal that her DT did not pursue mental illness intensely enough. Part of the reason was their client would not allow it but on appeal she would surely claim exactly the opposite.

Nurmi and Wilmott did bring in witnesses to talk about "the fog" and PTSD and other nonsense as it pertains to the vicious killer. Nothing was proven but a lot of possible mental health afflictions that Killer might have been suffering from were tossed around in court. Much of it was refuted by the state using bonafide testing methods. The DT also tried self defense and when that didn't fly, they pointed at emotional turmoil brought on by physical abuse the killer suffered over the duration of the relationship.

So, for the most part, ineffective counsel appeal looked like it would go nowhere. But just like we should not assume we know how a jury heard testimony, we should not assume appeals courts will hear it the same as we did. I thought for the long months of waiting til the penalty phase and again with testimony during that phase, that there could be some possibility of Killer Arias's ineffective counsel appeal at least being heard. Not upheld, mind you. But heard.

Now I don't think that anymore. If Arias did have even the proverbial snowball's chance of getting a new trial based on her DT not trying hard to prove "how mentally ill" she was at the time of the crime and that her affliction made it impossible for her to be in control of her actions, thoughts, deeds, and what-have-you, I do not think she has that snowball's chance anymore.

I think Killer's statements during sentencing proves there was never any fog, certainly is no remorse and her claim that she slit his throat because "he was still attacking me, trying to kill me" is so far beyond the realm of possibility that it actually proves he never attacked at all, and her sentencing statement played a big part in any ineffective counsel appeal she files being deemed without merit. Not that I believed before that the chances of such appeal succeeding were ever very good, but now I think they are non-existent.

Killer Arias has to have her say even when it is detrimental to her position. She ran her mouth in numerous interviews, especially to 48 Hours and then in social media. And during sentencing, when Killer should have been pleading for leniency she instead used her time at the podium as an opportunity to cut off her nose to spite her face.

She is her own worst enemy.

Arizona law doesn't allow the convicted to argue ineffective counsel on direct appeal, which is the only appeal in the works for now.

JA can also pursue (and likely will) post- conviction relief. A trial judge oversees those proceedings, and JA will be allowed at that point to argue ineffective counsel, which I'm certain she'll do, vehemently. I'm just as certain she'll be denied, and that denial will have nada to do with anything she said or did during sentencing.

She can theoretically appeal a PCR denial, at her own expense. But....appellate courts typically give defense attys the "benefit of the doubt" about their trial strategies, and how vigourously to present "mitigating" mental illness throughout was just that, as was the choice to pursue self defense.


From online ravings, it would seem JA's definition of ineffective counsel has nothing to do with any of that anyway. Rather, she thought Nurmi ineffective because he didn't like her and tried repeatedly to be released.

The chance of that flying is about as good as me sprouting wings and taking to the air.

She is her own worst enemy, but her original trial decisions are the hammer nailing shut her Perryville coffin.

 

[LinasK]

Arizona law doesn't allow the convicted to argue ineffective counsel on direct appeal, which is the only appeal in the works for now.

JA can also pursue (and likely will) post- conviction relief. A trial judge oversees those proceedings, and JA will be allowed at that point to argue ineffective counsel, which I'm certain she'll do, vehemently. I'm just as certain she'll be denied, and that denial will have nada to do with anything she said or did during sentencing.

She can theoretically appeal a PCR denial, at her own expense. But....appellate courts typically give defense attys the "benefit of the doubt" about their trial strategies, and how vigourously to present "mitigating" mental illness throughout was just that, as was the choice to pursue self defense.


From online ravings, it would seem JA's definition of ineffective counsel has nothing to do with any of that anyway. Rather, she thought Nurmi ineffective because he didn't like her and tried repeatedly to be released.

The chance of that flying is about as good as me sprouting wings and taking to the air.

She is her own worst enemy, but her original trial decisions are the hammer nailing shut her Perryville coffin.

BBM. She claimed that he didn't visit her, but then when he did she refused his visits! So how was he supposed to work with her when she refused his visits???:waitasec:

 

[janx]

Arizona law doesn't allow the convicted to argue ineffective counsel on direct appeal, which is the only appeal in the works for now.

JA can also pursue (and likely will) post- conviction relief. A trial judge oversees those proceedings, and JA will be allowed at that point to argue ineffective counsel, which I'm certain she'll do, vehemently. I'm just as certain she'll be denied, and that denial will have nada to do with anything she said or did during sentencing.

She can theoretically appeal a PCR denial, at her own expense. But....appellate courts typically give defense attys the "benefit of the doubt" about their trial strategies, and how vigourously to present "mitigating" mental illness throughout was just that, as was the choice to pursue self defense.


From online ravings, it would seem JA's definition of ineffective counsel has nothing to do with any of that anyway. Rather, she thought Nurmi ineffective because he didn't like her and tried repeatedly to be released.

The chance of that flying is about as good as me sprouting wings and taking to the air.

She is her own worst enemy, but her original trial decisions are the hammer nailing shut her Perryville coffin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't AZLawyer think that the killer was calling the shots more in the penalty retrial than in the original trial? I remember thinking the same--the attempts at impeaching certain witnesses, Deanna Reid for example, were just so far over the top. Such a complete waste of time.

I realize this has little to do with your point, but your post reminded me of it.

 

[ShadyLady]

I wonder how smart JA thinks she is now....

 

[RickshawFan]

This isn't directed at you, Zebra, but how bizarre is it that a convicted child-killer on DR is being listened to and thanked(elsewhere) for providing "info" about another convicted and especially cruel murderer?

Why would anyone believe a word that child-killer says? Then the media distorts her distortions by saying JA was "concerned" that her de-fogged outburst might hurt her appeals.

That's not what the child killer said. She said that JA asked her what she thought about the outburst. An important distinction.

IMO, the "outburst" was preplanned, calculated, and discussed with her DT. I doubt either JW or KN approved of it, but their dissent wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

JA's admission didn't damage her appeals, though it's clear the majority of the few folks still paying attention to all this think she did just that. Her one straight shot appeal will be about trial/legal "technicalities," not testimony.

Circling back (it's been awhile, I'm out of practice , while I think JA relished the secondary benefit of hurting the Alexanders for daring to speak up, I think JA's focus was on pivoting - in public- from playing meek victim to playing bad arse inmate, in anticipation of Perryville. New audience- fellow inmates. New goal- survival on her own terms until her fellow inmates recognize her as the goddess she is and treat her accordingly.

She asked the child killer for reviews on her performance because JA cannot survive without affirmation from others.

If they were only "vent partners" how would Shawna be able to see that Jodi looks mousy and has bad teeth? In the yard? Do DR inmates even see other prisoners in the yard? How would Shawna have known what Jodi said in the courtroom for realz? From Jodi herself? Bwahahaha!

I love how the Perryville Warden has placed Jodi just one step away from DR. It's as close as you can get, blaring notice to JA 24/7 that she's all but on DR, with all the downsides of DR and none of the perks (like publicity).

 

[RickshawFan]

As far as appeal issues go, many who appeal take the ineffective counsel route. Most of those are denied but once in a while one grows legs. In the case of Killer Arias, I have always thought it could be raised on appeal that her DT did not pursue mental illness intensely enough. Part of the reason was their client would not allow it but on appeal she would surely claim exactly the opposite.
****
She is her own worst enemy.

The problems with making a claim that the DT didn't highlight JA as mentally ill more than they did, are:
1. The prosecution brought it up, and there was plenty of scope to discuss it within the context of the trial.
2. 11 jurors didn't think a mental disorder was a strong enough mitigator in the death penalty phase.
3. When she chose not to allocute, JSS point blank (and very cleverly, IMO) asked JA if she was on medication. Jodi said she was not. This means she either didn't need psychiatric medication or she was out of compliance with her prescribed regimen. Either way, on the trial record she has no mental illness.
4. Demarte stuck with a less problematic-sounding diagnosis, when she could have diagnosed something more extreme in the second trial. Demarte didn't, for instance, say Jodi is a sociopath. I'm thinking it would be easier to argue for "ineffective assistance of counsel" if Demarte had used the sociopath diagnosis: in this case, Jodi could claim this was an extreme diagnosis that wasn't challenged and/or she was mentally incompetent to stand trial. This would be much harder to argue with a borderline diagnosis. I would guess JM did this on purpose.

 

[GigiG]

The problems with making a claim that the DT didn't highlight JA as mentally ill more than they did, are:
1. The prosecution brought it up, and there was plenty of scope to discuss it within the context of the trial.
2. 11 jurors didn't think a mental disorder was a strong enough mitigator in the death penalty phase.
3. When she chose not to allocute, JSS point blank (and very cleverly, IMO) asked JA if she was on medication. Jodi said she was not. This means she either didn't need psychiatric medication or she was out of compliance with her prescribed regimen. Either way, on the trial record she has no mental illness.
4. Demarte stuck with a less problematic-sounding diagnosis, when she could have diagnosed something more extreme in the second trial. Demarte didn't, for instance, say Jodi is a sociopath. I'm thinking it would be easier to argue for "ineffective assistance of counsel" if Demarte had used the sociopath diagnosis: in this case, Jodi could claim this was an extreme diagnosis that wasn't challenged and/or she was mentally incompetent to stand trial. This would be much harder to argue with a borderline diagnosis. I would guess JM did this on purpose.

I also get the impression that JA only allowed Nurmi & Willmott to add "mental illness" to her mitigators after some convincing. She appears to think she's the most sane person on the planet. When you listen to her in interviews, no matter what she's talking about, that seems to be the underlying theme. She thinks she's normal, and those who don't agree with her version of reality are the ones with some kind of deficiency. To me, that speaks to how all-encompassing her narcissism really is.

 

[Madeleine74]

"Sociopath" and "Psychopath" are not diagnoses. They are descriptive terms used by lay people. "Antisocial Personality Disorder" is the recognized disorder. Demarte didn't give Arias every test that's possible to give someone; she opined on the test results she had available.

 

[Madeleine74]

I love how the Perryville Warden has placed Jodi just one step away from DR. It's as close as you can get, blaring notice to JA 24/7 that she's all but on DR, with all the downsides of DR and none of the perks (like publicity).

From a tour of Perryville and discussion with either the Warden or his proxy, Troy Hayden reported that there is no "death row" in Perryville per se. Because there are so few women on DR, they are actually located in regular cells where anyone could be located, but their restrictions of course are different. In fact Hayden pointed out that Arias would be in the same cell whether she got the DP or LWOP.

 

[krkrjx]

The problems with making a claim that the DT didn't highlight JA as mentally ill more than they did, are:
1. The prosecution brought it up, and there was plenty of scope to discuss it within the context of the trial.
2. 11 jurors didn't think a mental disorder was a strong enough mitigator in the death penalty phase.
3. When she chose not to allocute, JSS point blank (and very cleverly, IMO) asked JA if she was on medication. Jodi said she was not. This means she either didn't need psychiatric medication or she was out of compliance with her prescribed regimen. Either way, on the trial record she has no mental illness.
4. Demarte stuck with a less problematic-sounding diagnosis, when she could have diagnosed something more extreme in the second trial. Demarte didn't, for instance, say Jodi is a sociopath. I'm thinking it would be easier to argue for "ineffective assistance of counsel" if Demarte had used the sociopath diagnosis: in this case, Jodi could claim this was an extreme diagnosis that wasn't challenged and/or she was mentally incompetent to stand trial. This would be much harder to argue with a borderline diagnosis. I would guess JM did this on purpose.

You are right on with your assessment. Killer has no chance at all of an appeal based on ineffective counsel. We don't like Nurmi for how he accomplished it but he covered every issue he could think of and then some. I bet a lawyer will find possible issues--no trial is without some faults--but nothing that could have or would have changed verdict of guilty. The judge was cautious to the point of ridiculous, even making a decision for secrecy in her court out of consideration for the perceived special needs of this defendant. No matter how many fools donate to Killer's appellate fund(s) I do not see how any lawyer anywhere, regardless of how much s/he is paid, could successfully appeal that Killer did not get a fair trial. That's another issue lost before it even gains momentum.

Things will go on for years but nothing will change for the Killer. And even though many were upset at the hung jury, Killer has even less chance for any consideration during the appeals process than she would have had if she had received a death sentence.

IMO, her goose is already cooked.

 

[b_lab7410]

Now I don't think that anymore. If Arias did have even the proverbial snowball's chance of getting a new trial based on her DT not trying hard to prove "how mentally ill" she was at the time of the crime and that her affliction made it impossible for her to be in control of her actions, thoughts, deeds, and what-have-you, I do not think she has that snowball's chance anymore.

But JM proved premeditation too, the gas cans, stolen gun, slashing tires/escalating pattern...etc etc. She always lies to hide everything, that's not someone who can prove that they didn't know what they were doing was very wrong. I don't think it would have worked, she is too methodical and it shows!

Personality disorder isn't psychopathy. Sociopathy isn't grounds for unaccountability either so (neither is insane, they just live by their own rules, they choose what those are)... I don't think mental illness would have ever worked. They say many disorders can be linked to ENVIRONMENTAL causes, it's not genetic she behaves like a selfish deviant. She's had this internalized anger for some time, she's on trial because she let her ways take the life of another. Either way, she knows the laws and understands them but is trying to impress her fandom of 'battered victims' because she still can't admit to everybody that they caught her and that she can't make Travis look bad enough (it's not as easy as she premeditated)!

I think JM would have made it clear she CHOSE to disregard the law and come up with false stories, not only about the crime but she just never wants to be PROVEN bad. Even if she couldn't control her anger in TA's final moments, she even wrote she knew it's destructive and again, JM already proved premeditation (she also had those fake suspicious diary entries like she loves Travis so much but he is SOOO mean to her, all sounding fake/cover story being prepared). She thinks she can hide herself very well when we know she can't. It's just another criminal mind trying to cover their agenda. There's no disorder for that. Pathological lying, I would imagine, doesn't guarantee instead of being imprisoned, you will be institutionalized. She would be a danger to the institutionalized because she's sociopathic!

With ineffective counsel she can say "Nurmi was not competent, *insert more lies*."

 

[krkrjx]

But JM proved premeditation too, the gas cans, stolen gun, slashing tires/escalating pattern...etc etc. She always lies to hide everything, that's not someone who can prove that they didn't know what they were doing was very wrong. I don't think it would have worked, she is too methodical and it shows!

Personality disorder isn't psychopathy. Sociopathy isn't grounds for unaccountability either so (neither is insane, they just live by their own rules, they choose what those are)... I don't think mental illness would have ever worked. They say many disorders can be linked to ENVIRONMENTAL causes, it's not genetic she behaves like a selfish deviant. She's had this internalized anger for some time, she's on trial because she let her ways take the life of another. Either way, she knows the laws and understands them but is trying to impress her fandom of 'battered victims' because she still can't admit to everybody that they caught her and that she can't make Travis look bad enough (it's not as easy as she premeditated)!

I think JM would have made it clear she CHOSE to disregard the law and come up with false stories, not only about the crime but she just never wants to be PROVEN bad. Even if she couldn't control her anger in TA's final moments, she even wrote she knew it's destructive and again, JM already proved premeditation (she also had those fake suspicious diary entries like she loves Travis so much but he is SOOO mean to her, all sounding fake/cover story being prepared). She thinks she can hide herself very well when we know she can't. It's just another criminal mind trying to cover their agenda. There's no disorder for that. Pathological lying, I would imagine, doesn't guarantee instead of being imprisoned, you will be institutionalized. She would be a danger to the institutionalized because she's sociopathic!

With ineffective counsel she can say "Nurmi was not competent, *insert more lies*."

Oh yeah, the case against Killer was proven beyond ANY doubt. Not just reasonable doubt but all doubt. She did it. It was murder. It was premeditated. There is no way her conviction could be overturned unless an appeals court finds some error that made her trial not fair.

As for ineffective counsel, she can say whatever she wants, and she will. She just can't win that one. DT are licensed to practice and thus are competent to practice. To prove otherwise she would have to prove something like they came to court drunk, or failed to file a motion, or whatever. With all the motions Nurmi filed she'll be hard pressed to find where he failed to file on any issue.

Appeals will have to show trial error in order to have merit. She testified during trial that she couldn't remember, was in a fog, was fighting for her own life, blah blah blah. Then stated at the end that she remembered slicing her victim's throat. Not even stated, but gloated. She relished saying that, which flies in the face of any "remorse" anyone tries to point to.

Stick a fork in her; she's DONE.

 

[FelicityLemon]

:laughcry:

I wonder how smart JA thinks she is now....

:laughing::drumroll::happydance::loveyou::great::dance::clap::blowkiss::yourock::silly::cupcake::goodpost:

einsteinmyass

 

[Hope4More]

Executive summary of the investigation into leaking of juror names was just released. Bottom line.....JSS ruled out court staff as source of leak, accepted the investigator's opinion that the source can't be determined, and that is the end of that. Investigation over, issue dead.

BTW, emphasis was on release of holdout juror's name, not the 11 on JAA.

 

[zebra]

I've been all over that page. Fascinating and pathetic, no? Thank god they're both locked up.

BBM

Oh yes - I concur, janx. :seeya:

 

[Tiger09]

I wonder if Inmate #whatever... actually told someone in jail where the weapons are or other mysteries and that's what's in the report? Like they can't confirm it because it's second hand or there is procedure.

 

[geevee]

This isn't directed at you, Zebra, but how bizarre is it that a convicted child-killer on DR is being listened to and thanked(elsewhere) for providing "info" about another convicted and especially cruel murderer?

Why would anyone believe a word that child-killer says? Then the media distorts her distortions by saying JA was "concerned" that her de-fogged outburst might hurt her appeals.

That's not what the child killer said. She said that JA asked her what she thought about the outburst. An important distinction.

IMO, the "outburst" was preplanned, calculated, and discussed with her DT. I doubt either JW or KN approved of it, but their dissent wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

JA's admission didn't damage her appeals, though it's clear the majority of the few folks still paying attention to all this think she did just that. Her one straight shot appeal will be about trial/legal "technicalities," not testimony.

Circling back (it's been awhile, I'm out of practice , while I think JA relished the secondary benefit of hurting the Alexanders for daring to speak up, I think JA's focus was on pivoting - in public- from playing meek victim to playing bad arse inmate, in anticipation of Perryville. New audience- fellow inmates. New goal- survival on her own terms until her fellow inmates recognize her as the goddess she is and treat her accordingly.

She asked the child killer for reviews on her performance because JA cannot survive without affirmation from others.

It's great to see you again, Hope. I've taken a bit of a break from all things Arias before I watch all of the retrial videos (wanting a clear mental deck from which to view them), I agree with your points above, I do think she planned a lengthy 'defending myself' diatribe during her secret testimony and had to condense it to the extreme for sentencing, trying to help herself while hurting the Alexanders, and as usual failing at both.

I also think the letters she's gotten out of jail to her supporters fly in the face of a 'mentally ill' defendant and will be useful during appeals if that card is played. What, she's only crazy occasionally?

It's really been lovely not thinking about her at all day in and day out but I'm almost ready to dive back in, beginning with the videos. Anyways, glad to see you posting again.

 

[ShadyLady]

Can't believe Sheriff's report is still not out....but I hear he has problems of his own.