Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #2

[b_lab7410]

I don't know which possibility is more comical and satisfying... that CMJA insisted on this approach and her two attorneys gave her what she asked for, or that her two hapless attorneys are so incompetent they thought this BS would fly.

She is REALLY going to get the same conviction now... niice job, attnys. I'm sure the judge is all... "you are sooooh on my LIST, now!"

Gave him the heads up is all.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

I don't get it either. The AZ Supreme Court isn't obligated to hear her appeal & I can't imagine why they would be interested in doing so.

I'd suspect some kind of crazy like a fox strategy, but not after reading the Motion to Disqualify, in which her attorneys barely managed to write whole sentences.

In any case, the COA isn't going to disqualify itself, so all her attorneys seem to have accomplished is insulting every single judge who will actually hear her appeal. WTG, CMJA!

I agree - the whole motion makes very little sense, in my opinion - even if there was cause to speculate this judge had some sort of bias (and IMO, he doesn't), that would not reflect the entire COA, or why only the one judge who authored the article is named (I think the other is named McCurdie)

I was curious what the article actually said, and had a hard time finding it - turns out it was written by two judges for an annual judicial college publication (hardly a widely read publication, IMO), and was reprinted with updates for the National Judicial College newsletter (again, not exactly USA today).

Unless I didn't understand it correctly, the article is specifically about the death penalty, and that portion of the trial - when CMJA HAD already been found gulty by a jury, so the Judge is perfectly correct in saying her guilt was not in question.
What surprised me most was that the article seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and has little or nothing to do with her guilt phase trial, so this motion makes even less sense to me - and I agree, CMJA is probably behind it, IMO.

Link to the article, if anyone wants to read :
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/

I apologize if this was already posted.

 

[josie1986]

:wave:

ive not been online to WS for soooo soo long...have i missed anything noteworthy from the little princess?

tried to avoid googling her etc and i moved house so that kind of distracted but i guess i just can't help myself and keep away.

 

[Wing Ding]

Originally Posted by Hope4More: "I don't know which possibility is more comical and satisfying... that CMJA insisted on this approach and her two attorneys gave her what she asked for, or that her two hapless attorneys are so incompetent they thought this BS would fly."

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

She is REALLY going to get the same conviction now... niice job, attnys. I'm sure the judge is all... "you are sooooh on my LIST, now!"

Gave him the heads up is all.

There's no doubt she's on their radar after all the trickery and bs motions the defense team filed even before the trial was even over with, but just because JA claims the ACOA has a bias against her doesn't make it true. Bypassing the ACOA and filing her appeal directly with the ASC sounds like its desperation time.

She's behaving like the spider that can't make it out of the toilet bowl. Love it!! (<--- double exclamation point )

 

[b_lab7410]

I can't figure out how skipping the COA benefits her. Seems to me that it would only lose one state shot @ appeal because she can ask AZSC to review once COA rules. Someone suggested she might be judge shopping, but if the AZSC is more likely to see issues with the case, then they would accept her case for review after the COA ruled anyway. I can't see a good reason for it - all I see is JA angry at that article and trying to get back at Cattani. As if he is wanting to get on her case and have to read the ridiculous amount of paperwork being req'd for this appeal. Hmm, after typing that, maybe Cattani wasn't naive writing that article - he just wanted insurance that his panel wouldn't get the case, LOL!

As usual, something must be done to avenge her "hurt feelings'... I think prisoners like her shouldn't get letters, or get tv, she has to pay for nothing she owns right now and has the sense to continue her borderline antics like this. She needs to be forced to do work for once, without interacting with others. Mop some floors, clean like we all do, all under watchful eyes. Not lounge about being this casual busy-body vindictive daydreamer. Put some money back into AZState and taxpayers.

I still think the judge is going to smack her.

 

[b_lab7410]

Unless I didn't understand it correctly, the article is specifically about the death penalty, and that portion of the trial - when CMJA HAD already been found gulty by a jury, so the Judge is perfectly correct in saying her guilt was not in question.

Right, the very first paragraph said nothing controversial, the first sentence is 'factually correct.' The sentencing phase is NOT ALLOWED to question her guilt, jury had made it's decision and when they say you are guilty, it means, that the courts AND judges everywhere in our nation can now refer to you as a CONVICTED murderer, legally, in print, possibly on Mars, wherever whatever. It is factually correct. You can appeal, but if anything, Kent Cattani is only restating a fact for which he should not be held 'libel' for. lol

How did the JA attorneys get their degrees? That's why I think it's JA doing too... like 'sweetie' (barf), they're allowed to refer to your guilty sentence now, psst, once the trial's process says so, we don't need 'your opinion' on your guilt anymore... . It's not like he said, I personally think she's guilty too. He seems to have reaffirmed her sentence, is all...

 

[geevee]

The only thing that makes sense to me is she's trying to do an end run around the CoA because they ruled against her on the secret testimony malarky and their appeal is going to revolve around her not receiving a fair trial because of all the publicity, live streaming, tweeting, TV, etc. They know the CoA didn't buy any of that argument when ruling against her oh-so-private testimony so they'd rather not let them give the SC sound legal reasons as to why she did receive a fair trial despite the 24/7 coverage. The article is the only excuse they could possibly find to try and bypass that court, it's the only thing that makes the tiniest bit of sense in this whole nonsensical attempt, at least to me.

 

[Hope4More]

The only thing that makes sense to me is she's trying to do an end run around the CoA because they ruled against her on the secret testimony malarky and their appeal is going to revolve around her not receiving a fair trial because of all the publicity, live streaming, tweeting, TV, etc. They know the CoA didn't buy any of that argument when ruling against her oh-so-private testimony so they'd rather not let them give the SC sound legal reasons as to why she did receive a fair trial despite the 24/7 coverage. The article is the only excuse they could possibly find to try and bypass that court, it's the only thing that makes the tiniest bit of sense in this whole nonsensical attempt, at least to me.

Publicity & unfair trial might be one of their grounds of appeal, but even if it is, it would be only one of many, and no doubt would rank high on appellate judges' list of "doesn't merit our valuable time responding to such nonsense" items.

In any case, it comes back to incredibly stupid lawyering, IMO. There is no way the entire COA is going to disqualify itself because 2 lowly and inept attorneys lobbed baseless accusations against a single COA judge.

And on the merits. Her attorneys would have the burden of demonstrating that :

1. The sheer amount of publicity denied her a fair trial. (fail).

2. The publicity deterred guilt and/or mitigation witnesses from testifying, depriving her of fair trial. (fail).

3. The publicity prevented her from testifying in the 2nd penalty phase, even though she testified for 18 days in the guilt phase when there was exponentially greater media attention and coverage. (epic fail).

 

[samspace070]

I agree - the whole motion makes very little sense, in my opinion - even if there was cause to speculate this judge had some sort of bias (and IMO, he doesn't), that would not reflect the entire COA, or why only the one judge who authored the article is named (I think the other is named McCurdie)

I was curious what the article actually said, and had a hard time finding it - turns out it was written by two judges for an annual judicial college publication (hardly a widely read publication, IMO), and was reprinted with updates for the National Judicial College newsletter (again, not exactly USA today).

Unless I didn't understand it correctly, the article is specifically about the death penalty, and that portion of the trial - when CMJA HAD already been found gulty by a jury, so the Judge is perfectly correct in saying her guilt was not in question.
What surprised me most was that the article seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and has little or nothing to do with her guilt phase trial, so this motion makes even less sense to me - and I agree, CMJA is probably behind it, IMO.

Link to the article, if anyone wants to read :
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/

I apologize if this was already posted.

Thank you Notmyself, that was truly an interesting read. They have no complaint about this article as I see it. She was convicted of murder by a jury of her peers. No question about it, as Jen Willnotshutup says. Didn't Judge Stephens tell the second jury they were not to consider her guilt because it was already decided by an earlier jury. They were only to decide if she should get the death penalty or not? This CMJA thinks she is something special and everyone should cater to her whims. I think she told the attorneys to do this because she has such thin skin. Just like at sentencing, she had to go after Det. Flores and Juan and Samantha. She had to get that one last dig in. Even Willnotshut up claims she didn't know what CMJA was going to say. I would love to be in a room where those judges discuss this appeal motion.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Publicity & unfair trial might be one of their grounds of appeal, but even if it is, it would be only one of many, and no doubt would rank high on appellate judges' list of "doesn't merit our valuable time responding to such nonsense" items.

In any case, it comes back to incredibly stupid lawyering, IMO. There is no way the entire COA is going to disqualify itself because 2 lowly and inept attorneys lobbed baseless accusations against a single COA judge.

And on the merits. Her attorneys would have the burden of demonstrating that :

1. The sheer amount of publicity denied her a fair trial. (fail).

2. The publicity deterred guilt and/or mitigation witnesses from testifying, depriving her of fair trial. (fail).

3. The publicity prevented her from testifying in the 2nd penalty phase, even though she testified for 18 days in the guilt phase when there was exponentially greater media attention and coverage. (epic fail).

BBM - Exactly! I don't get it - what is the motion to eliminate the COA trying to appeal - the penalty phase? She already got the best possible outcome she could hope for in that phase, are they appealing the penalty?
The motion makes no sense , unless they are trying to get a do over of the penalty phase, and is that even possible?
It seems like bad lawyering for sure, and probably filed to cause confusion at best, or at worst, to imply something that doesn't exist, IMO

 

[Frigga]

Could any of this be about saving money from her personal appellate fund?

I mean that if she gets her automatic appeal filed all the way to the supreme court in one fell swoop- lets just say it ends in her favor- then the $$$ is hers and she is also free? ( I mean in her deranged, delusional and underhanded mind, of course)

Does that even make sense? I know what I am trying to say but I'm not sure I'm being clear in conveying it to you all! LOL

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Could any of this be about saving money from her personal appellate fund?

I mean that if she gets her automatic appeal filed all the way to the supreme court in one fell swoop- lets just say it ends in her favor- then the $$$ is hers and she is also free? ( I mean in her deranged, delusional and underhanded mind, of course)

Does that even make sense? I know what I am trying to say but I'm not sure I'm being clear in conveying it to you all! LOL

I get what you're saying, Frigga - at least I think I do! If she skips the COA altogether, and her paid for appeal goes straight to the supreme court, she could possibly keep her 'appelate fund donations' , because they wouldn't be needed?
I never thought about that, but maybe it's possible? Bizzare sure, but in CMJA-land, anything is possible, IMO. I sure can't understand the reasoning, and that's the first plausible explanation I've read.
I don't know if it's legal, but I don't think that would bug her much, LOL.

 

[b_lab7410]

The only thing that makes sense to me is she's trying to do an end run around the CoA because they ruled against her on the secret testimony malarky and their appeal is going to revolve around her not receiving a fair trial because of all the publicity, live streaming, tweeting, TV, etc. They know the CoA didn't buy any of that argument when ruling against her oh-so-private testimony so they'd rather not let them give the SC sound legal reasons as to why she did receive a fair trial despite the 24/7 coverage. The article is the only excuse they could possibly find to try and bypass that court, it's the only thing that makes the tiniest bit of sense in this whole nonsensical attempt, at least to me.

Meanwhile, the jury did not really enjoy her diva antics, they said the most damaging thing in the trial (well, one of), was when SHE took the stand (and kept talking, and talking, and talking). Those interviews, "no one will find me guilty, I'm innocent." Then she puts on her makeup and moves her hair in front of camera and interviewer. You don't put on gloss unless you want to be noticed for shiny lips.
Then she comments at final sentencing about Travis... she digs herself into the ground whether or not there is any media outlet around.

Oh well, whatever, Arias felt she was going to get caught, be fine with free prison, but once she's there, she realized... (oh sh**, I'm in jail!)... So her 'fetching' interviews begin, that gain national attention. I never even heard of her until YEARS later after her prison garb (waist down, 48 Hours?) interview. She loves attention, just not the kind people end up giving to her, I think it helped the Alexanders more.

I couldn't stomach watching any of those all the way through btw.. you knew she was some guilty mess of a thing.. I felt for Travis though...

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Could any of this be about saving money from her personal appellate fund?

I mean that if she gets her automatic appeal filed all the way to the supreme court in one fell swoop- lets just say it ends in her favor- then the $$$ is hers and she is also free? ( I mean in her deranged, delusional and underhanded mind, of course)

Does that even make sense? I know what I am trying to say but I'm not sure I'm being clear in conveying it to you all! LOL

Yes, she will be smiling all the way to Greece where the imposters expect her to come live when she wins the appeal and gets her conviction overturned (ain't gonna' happen.) I'll say this, she should be thanking her lucky stars that she had one nimwit juror who stopped her from residing on Death Row right now. I wonder if she corresponds with her? :jail:..... GET USED TO IT BUTCHERESS!!!!!

 

[Renee110]

Doesn't she have to pay restitution to the Alexander family still? I have not kept up with this case in the last few months. Your idea is a good one though.

Frankly, I think she just loves to butt heads and antagonize but above all, she loves her some vengeance. I bet she has a list longer than the list Santa Clause has of kids wanting toys.

 

[samspace070]

I get what you're saying, Frigga - at least I think I do! If she skips the COA altogether, and her paid for appeal goes straight to the supreme court, she could possibly keep her 'appelate fund donations' , because they wouldn't be needed?
I never thought about that, but maybe it's possible? Bizzare sure, but in CMJA-land, anything is possible, IMO. I sure can't understand the reasoning, and that's the first plausible explanation I've read.
I don't know if it's legal, but I don't think that would bug her much, LOL.

I just checked the Court of Appeals case on CMJA and it says it is Closed. What does that mean? Oct 5, 2015 Case closed. Filed May 7,2015 and Closed on Oct 5 2015. Can someone find out what this means?

 

[Hope4More]

Could any of this be about saving money from her personal appellate fund?

I mean that if she gets her automatic appeal filed all the way to the supreme court in one fell swoop- lets just say it ends in her favor- then the $$$ is hers and she is also free? ( I mean in her deranged, delusional and underhanded mind, of course)

Does that even make sense? I know what I am trying to say but I'm not sure I'm being clear in conveying it to you all! LOL

That's an interesting thought! I'd really really like to know how involved she is in deciding appellate strategy, if she is at all. The arrogance and stupidity of the motion to disqualify definitely suggest she's running the show yet again, and dooming herself, yet again.

 

[Hope4More]

I just checked the Court of Appeals case on CMJA and it says it is Closed. What does that mean? Oct 5, 2015 Case closed. Filed May 7,2015 and Closed on Oct 5 2015. Can someone find out what this means?

Can you please post a link? I just looked at the record (on PDF) and don't see anything about it being closed.

ETA- double checked. Looked at what definitely is the active, current case docket. Nothing there about it being closed (on top left, date closed space is blank), and nothing in entries about being closed. Last meaningful entry was on Sept 30, ordering the COA to respond to the disqualify motion.
.

 

[Colie]

I don't see a closed date.
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/1ca/1capartyindex.htm

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

I just checked the Court of Appeals case on CMJA and it says it is Closed. What does that mean? Oct 5, 2015 Case closed. Filed May 7,2015 and Closed on Oct 5 2015. Can someone find out what this means?

Can you please post a link? I just looked at the record (on PDF) and don't see anything about it being closed.

ETA- double checked. Looked at what definitely is the active, current case docket. Nothing there about it being closed (on top left, date closed space is blank), and nothing in entries about being closed. Last meaningful entry was on Sept 30, ordering the COA to respond to the disqualify motion.
.

I don't see a closed date.
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/1ca/1capartyindex.htm

Samspace, I don't see a closed date either (like the other posters), so I'm not sure what you're seeing. If you use Colie's link above, or just go to the COA page and search by name, it shows as an active case.

If you post a link to what you saw, maybe we can figure it out together?