Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #2

[geevee]

About the PCR process. There is little chance she'll get a hearing at all. The first step is attorneys filing an argument that she deserves such a hearing. JSS (or replacement) will review that argument.

The argument made for ineffective counsel or new evidence has to be compelling enough to claim that the outcome of the trial would have been different if only but for her attorney, or if only had the new evidence been introduced. And BTW, she'd have to explain why the new evidence could not have been known at the time of the trial....

Only then would JSS take the next step and order an evidentiary hearing. Otherwise she can just essentially one word it- DENIED, and the process ends.

I agree with you that her attys want to play the media card as basis to argue for a new trial. I think that's been clear since during the guilt phase.

I believe that Nurmi knew she'd be found guilty and was pretty sure she would get the DP. The DT's job was to prevent her getting the DP and to lay down the basis for a DP appeal as they went along.

The Ninth Circuit, where her appeal would have eventually landed, is as a court anti-DP. They are wide open to being given appeals they can use to try to overturn DP convictions. The US Supreme Court chastises them on a regular basis for just that.

I think Nurmi's intent was to serve up the "novel" argument that the ubiquity of social media has fundamentally undermined the ability of high profile defendants to receive a fair trial.

Oops. But now she doesn't have those DP appeals lined up til kingdom comes, and the Ninth Circuit isn't on her dance card. My guess is that her appeals attys are running with that argument anyway, because it was there and developed and because they know they're not going to win on the merits of anything else they have.

Another judge may not want to open the can of worms that Nurmi put on the table, that a high profile defendant can't get a fair trial because of social media/streaming/publicity, but because JSS lived through the trials, and bent over backwards for the defense (esp. at retrial), I do think it's possible she may give them an opportunity in a hearing to prove the outcome in the guilt phase may have been different had it not been for the 24/7 coverage.

There is a plethora of evidence of just how much coverage there was, HLN even made a new show (After Dark) because there wasn't time in the programming day for everything they wanted to say about the trial, twitter journalism practically sprung from the trial and became mainstream, hundreds of blogs devoted only to this case, not to mention how the media frenzy began, with In Session advertizing the upcoming trial like it was a new prime time crime show. I don't think they can prove a different outcome would have occurred without all of that but she may give them the chance to try, as she seemed in agreement during the penalty retrial by granting all of the secrecy motions/sealings/testimony, etc.

 

[Steve44]

Depends on what you mean by sex. There are plenty of mentions in texts about getting together for this or that, including Travis texting her- do you want to grind? Others about are you coming over, or her saying she was too tired to come over, these being in the early morning hours (1 or 2 AM).

There was a longish exchange in Jan where she was running around shopping for a romp costume, and that romp is the one for which she buys the spidies- it is a young girl costume of some sort

Sex was fundamental to their relationship. It was Travis' weakness and Jodi's main method of manipulation. They were only a 'couple' for five months, and in that five months Travis grew to dislike her more and more. Her personality proved more incompatible with his with each passing day, yet the sex continued, because it was the only thing Jodi could use to keep Travis in her life.

So in the end the sex had nothing to do with compatibility and everything to do with manipulation.

On that last day, manipulation played a key role.

 

[Steve44]

Another judge may not want to open the can of worms that Nurmi put on the table, that a high profile defendant can't get a fair trial because of social media/streaming/publicity, but because JSS lived through the trials, and bent over backwards for the defense (esp. at retrial), I do think it's possible she may give them an opportunity in a hearing to prove the outcome in the guilt phase may have been different had it not been for the 24/7 coverage.

There is a plethora of evidence of just how much coverage there was, HLN even made a new show (After Dark) because there wasn't time in the programming day for everything they wanted to say about the trial, twitter journalism practically sprung from the trial and became mainstream, hundreds of blogs devoted only to this case, not to mention how the media frenzy began, with In Session advertizing the upcoming trial like it was a new prime time crime show. I don't think they can prove a different outcome would have occurred without all of that but she may give them the chance to try, as she seemed in agreement during the penalty retrial by granting all of the secrecy motions/sealings/testimony, etc.

They may be able to show unprecedented media coverage, but where's the mechanism of influence that media coverage had on the actual process of the trial? The defense tried to provide that by parading a plethora of reluctant witnesses, but court provided remedies were offered, and refused.

Additionally, it was the defense, in particular the defendant, that largely created the media frenzy with Jodi's one-woman misinformation campaign, enthusiastically broadcasting it far and wide.

 

[Hope4More]

Another judge may not want to open the can of worms that Nurmi put on the table, that a high profile defendant can't get a fair trial because of social media/streaming/publicity, but because JSS lived through the trials, and bent over backwards for the defense (esp. at retrial), I do think it's possible she may give them an opportunity in a hearing to prove the outcome in the guilt phase may have been different had it not been for the 24/7 coverage.

There is a plethora of evidence of just how much coverage there was, HLN even made a new show (After Dark) because there wasn't time in the programming day for everything they wanted to say about the trial, twitter journalism practically sprung from the trial and became mainstream, hundreds of blogs devoted only to this case, not to mention how the media frenzy began, with In Session advertizing the upcoming trial like it was a new prime time crime show. I don't think they can prove a different outcome would have occurred without all of that but she may give them the chance to try, as she seemed in agreement during the penalty retrial by granting all of the secrecy motions/sealings/testimony, etc.

The argument about media denying her due process won't be made in the PCR process. It will (or won't be) in her appeal to the COA. If it has merit the COA will grant her a new trial. If it doesn't have merit the COA will rule that arguement doesn't have merit and reject it.

She can appeal the COA's ruling on the merits of that argument to the AZ Supreme Court. But she may NOT re-argue that basis of appeal in a PCR.

JSS will never be given the opportunity to rule again (thank goodness) on publicity and the killer.

 

[Hope4More]

They may be able to show unprecedented media coverage, but where's the mechanism of influence that media coverage had on the actual process of the trial? The defense tried to provide that by parading a plethora of reluctant witnesses, but court provided remedies were offered, and refused.

Additionally, it was the defense, in particular the defendant, that largely created the media frenzy with Jodi's one-woman misinformation campaign, enthusiastically broadcasting it far and wide.

How did media saturation affect the trial at all, much less deny her a fair trial is exactly what the COA will examine if this argument is included in her appeal.

The obvious way media coverage could have affected the trial would be if had tainted the jury before or during the trial. Before the guilt phase Nurmi argued for sequestration, before the penalty retrial he went so far as to essentially demand access to the jury's social media accounts.

Both motions posited that media saturation was so great as to make it impossible for the jury to avoid coming in contact with it. The problem for the killer's appeal is that the COA doesn't ponder theoretical possibilities. The trial record demonstrates that JSS asked the jury at every appropriate opportunity if they had been exposed to the media etc. , and the jury always replied no.

The COA will accept the query being made and the negative replies as grounds enough to reject that media coverage tainted the jury as the trial progressed.

Voir dire for both trials included questions about pretrial publicity. The COA (and appellate courts in general) presume jurors answered truthfully.

And I agree with Steve's assessment about the only other possible "tainting.." that of witnesses being so intimidated by media coverage they refused to testify.

Again, sadly for the killer, the COA signalled their rejection of that idiocy when they demanded the court be reopened and the killer be forced to testify in the light or crawl back under her rock.

She and other mitigation witnesses were offered all lawful accommodations as to how and where they could testify. Their refusal to testify was voluntary whether or not they conceded that point.

 

[samspace070]

About the PCR process. There is little chance she'll get a hearing at all. The first step is attorneys filing an argument that she deserves such a hearing. JSS (or replacement) will review that argument.

The argument made for ineffective counsel or new evidence has to be compelling enough to claim that the outcome of the trial would have been different if only but for her attorney, or if only had the new evidence been introduced. And BTW, she'd have to explain why the new evidence could not have been known at the time of the trial....

Only then would JSS take the next step and order an evidentiary hearing. Otherwise she can just essentially one word it- DENIED, and the process ends.

I agree with you that her attys want to play the media card as basis to argue for a new trial. I think that's been clear since during the guilt phase.

I believe that Nurmi knew she'd be found guilty and was pretty sure she would get the DP. The DT's job was to prevent her getting the DP and to lay down the basis for a DP appeal as they went along.

The Ninth Circuit, where her appeal would have eventually landed, is as a court anti-DP. They are wide open to being given appeals they can use to try to overturn DP convictions. The US Supreme Court chastises them on a regular basis for just that.

I think Nurmi's intent was to serve up the "novel" argument that the ubiquity of social media has fundamentally undermined the ability of high profile defendants to receive a fair trial.

Oops. But now she doesn't have those DP appeals lined up til kingdom comes, and the Ninth Circuit isn't on her dance card. My guess is that her appeals attys are running with that argument anyway, because it was there and developed and because they know they're not going to win on the merits of anything else they have.

I still don't see how she can claim she didn't get a fair trial because of media coverage and social media, SHE STARTED THAT BALL ROLLING AND KEPT IT GOING, even to the point she gave an interview within minutes after her guilty verdict, complaining about her attorneys not doing their job by not putting important facts into evidence, ie: picture of Travis, dressed as a priest, chasing a naked 4 year old around the room with a bible in his hands, also her so called missing witness that saw her bruises and knew about the abuse. She went on ad nauseam about how Travis abused her and how his wanting to have sex with a 12 year old was, BY DEFINITION, pedophilia. How she had pictures of her bruises on her hard drive. (the hard drive she destroyed). I can't see an appeals court giving her a new trial on those grounds. No defendant in history has given as many interviews as this woman did and would still give them if they let her. It would be different if she hadn't started the whole thing and got the public interested in the first place. And in two states no less.
One thing I am still curious about is that Helio phone. Why did she hide that phone in the first place. Was it because of the May texts where Travis called her a sociopath and evil? The truth does hurt. I am very curious about that. When the DT got a hold of it they tried to turn that long text into a name calling, character assassination triad of Travis. Willmot needs to read her dictionary about the definition of character assassination. Travis calling CMJA names to herself is not character assassination, it's telling her how HE feels about her. Character assassination, BY DEFINITION, is the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person. Now if he had had that rant with someone else about her they could claim character assassination, but not just him talking to her. ALV read the entire text he made to her, (eliminating what she said) and made him sound really mean. But I think it backfired, WHY would he say all of that??? If I was on that jury that is what I would want to know. As far as the worst thing that ever happened to him, that was prophetic of him. The DT knew that was a text that could hurt their client so they tried to spin it their way. What upset me was the Prosecutors expert witness, J Demarte, when asked by Willnot, about the text being character assassination, actually agreed with her. Demarte needs to read the dictionary also. She should have come back with, NO, not unless he tells someone else, otherwise it is just "The Truth Hurts" philosophy. At least Juan got to use it in his closing and it had an impact.

 

[Hope4More]

Sex was fundamental to their relationship. It was Travis' weakness and Jodi's main method of manipulation. They were only a 'couple' for five months, and in that five months Travis grew to dislike her more and more. Her personality proved more incompatible with his with each passing day, yet the sex continued, because it was the only thing Jodi could use to keep Travis in her life.

So in the end the sex had nothing to do with compatibility and everything to do with manipulation.

On that last day, manipulation played a key role.

I agree they had sex that day (though open to hearing compelling arguments they didn't), and agree she almost certainly manipulated him into it.

Splitting hairs over how he felt about her. He didn't dislike her more and more over those brief 5 months, and even after she moved to Mesa and barged into his daily life, how he felt about her zigged and zagged, but never remained long in the category of disliking her.

Even as late as a few days before she left Mesa, he told her that she was a better person than he was, that he loved her, and that he was to blame for their arguments.

What grew was his frustration with her, and his exhaustion, because she just would not leave him alone.

 

[Hope4More]

Sam---any possibility you can break up some of your points and put them in different posts? There's so much there, and on different topics, that its difficult (at least for me) to respond...

 

[Steve44]

Both motions posited that media saturation was so great as to make it impossible for the jury to avoid coming in contact with it. The problem for the killer's appeal is that the COA doesn't ponder theoretical possibilities. The trial record demonstrates that JSS asked the jury at every appropriate opportunity if they had been exposed to the media etc. , and the jury always replied no.

Nurmi's cynical attitude towards the jury will never pass muster with the COA, should her current attorney's care to argue it. Faith in the ability of jurors to be fair and impartial cannot be held hostage to the amount and extent of media coverage. It's a foolish argument that if affirmed undermines the foundation of our legal system. I expect no better from Nurmi, however.

 

[Steve44]

I agree they had sex that day (though open to hearing compelling arguments they didn't), and agree she almost certainly manipulated him into it.

Splitting hairs over how he felt about her. He didn't dislike her more and more over those brief 5 months, and even after she moved to Mesa and barged into his daily life, how he felt about her zigged and zagged, but never remained long in the category of disliking her.

Even as late as a few days before she left Mesa, he told her that she was a better person than he was, that he loved her, and that he was to blame for their arguments.

What grew was his frustration with her, and his exhaustion, because she just would not leave him alone.

I guess 'dislike more and more' is an ill-fitting phrase in light of Travis' character. "Saw her less and less as a potential long term partner" may be more accurate.

 

[Hope4More]

Nurmi's cynical attitude towards the jury will never pass muster with the COA, should her current attorney's care to argue it. Faith in the ability of jurors to be fair and impartial cannot be held hostage to the amount and extent of media coverage. It's a foolish argument that if affirmed undermines the foundation of our legal system. I expect no better from Nurmi, however.

The other possibility (if her attys are indeed pursuing this at all) is the more vague and subjective argument that the media coverage was so extensive that it permeated the trial to such an extent as to deny her a fair trial..

Other than permeation by an osmotic fog, I suppose they can just throw down a laundry list: from the extra efforts required to seat the juries on through a COA judge and the prosecutor writing about the trial before appeal briefs have even been filed.

 

[Hope4More]

I still don't see how she can claim she didn't get a fair trial because of media coverage and social media, SHE STARTED THAT BALL ROLLING AND KEPT IT GOING, even to the point she gave an interview within minutes after her guilty verdict, complaining about her attorneys not doing their job by not putting important facts into evidence, ie: picture of Travis, dressed as a priest, chasing a naked 4 year old around the room with a bible in his hands, also her so called missing witness that saw her bruises and knew about the abuse. She went on ad nauseam about how Travis abused her and how his wanting to have sex with a 12 year old was, BY DEFINITION, pedophilia. How she had pictures of her bruises on her hard drive. (the hard drive she destroyed). I can't see an appeals court giving her a new trial on those grounds. No defendant in history has given as many interviews as this woman did and would still give them if they let her. It would be different if she hadn't started the whole thing and got the public interested in the first place. And in two states no less.
One thing I am still curious about is that Helio phone. Why did she hide that phone in the first place. Was it because of the May texts where Travis called her a sociopath and evil? The truth does hurt. I am very curious about that. When the DT got a hold of it they tried to turn that long text into a name calling, character assassination triad of Travis. Willmot needs to read her dictionary about the definition of character assassination. Travis calling CMJA names to herself is not character assassination, it's telling her how HE feels about her. Character assassination, BY DEFINITION, is the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person. Now if he had had that rant with someone else about her they could claim character assassination, but not just him talking to her. ALV read the entire text he made to her, (eliminating what she said) and made him sound really mean. But I think it backfired, WHY would he say all of that??? If I was on that jury that is what I would want to know. As far as the worst thing that ever happened to him, that was prophetic of him. The DT knew that was a text that could hurt their client so they tried to spin it their way. What upset me was the Prosecutors expert witness, J Demarte, when asked by Willnot, about the text being character assassination, actually agreed with her. Demarte needs to read the dictionary also. She should have come back with, NO, not unless he tells someone else, otherwise it is just "The Truth Hurts" philosophy. At least Juan got to use it in his closing and it had an impact.

To answer one point,about the Helio. The May text fight wasn't on the Helio. The Helio had already been "lost" in any case, and the State didn't examine it until the penalty retrial.

The Helio was all about setting him up with real & doctored & manufactured evidence of sexual activity.

 

[Steve44]

The other possibility (if her attys are indeed pursuing this at all) is the more vague and subjective argument that the media coverage was so extensive that it permeated the trial to such an extent as to deny her a fair trial..

Other than permeation by an osmotic fog, I suppose they can just throw down a laundry list: from the extra efforts required to seat the juries on through a COA judge and the prosecutor writing about the trial before appeal briefs have even been filed.

That's the king of argument an attorney makes in order to fund a vacation, realizing that its merits begin and end there.

 

[samspace070]

Sam---any possibility you can break up some of your points and put them in different posts? There's so much there, and on different topics, that its difficult (at least for me) to respond...

Sorry, I get so carried away and have so many thought running thru my head at one time. Will try to do better.

 

[Hope4More]

Can't edit once the page is turned?

Wanted to clarify what I meant about pics taken or not taken that day being looked at first from the perspective of what her original intentions might have been, not solely from what actually happened.

She'd spent all May setting him up...fake MySpace posts, the sex tape, the video fantasy she sent to her herself. Wanting to plant fake photo evidence of sex at the murder scene is entirely consistent with what I believe was her plan--- not just to kill him, but to destroy his reputation....as a means of hurting all those who loved Travis that she hated- Deanna, Sky, family, etc.

That she ended up deleting photos can mean no more than she checked and saw the accidental photos and had to delete those, was out of time because she'd already taken hours longer to kill and leave than her alibi could account for , and had to deal with the roommate arriving any minute.

In other words, what might she have been planning with planted pics if things had gone according to plan, including more time and less blood everywhere.

 

[Hope4More]

Sorry, I get so carried away and have so many thought running thru my head at one time. Will try to do better.

((Sam))). You're fine. Its my muddled head that has difficulty sorting through a bunch of ideas all at once, but wanting to reply to you.

 

[samspace070]

To answer one point,about the Helio. The May text fight wasn't on the Helio. The Helio had already been "lost" in any case, and the State didn't examine it until the penalty retrial.

The Helio was all about setting him up with real & doctored & manufactured evidence of sexual activity.

I am really confused. What phone was the sex tape on? I thought it was on the Helio phone and that was why she was so worried about losing it. I know she said in her testimony that her phone had a recording feature on it but Travis's didn't so that was why she taped it and not him.

Didn't that idiot Gus give her the Helio phone in April after the fight CMJA and Travis had? I remember something about her getting a phone from him on her way back to Calif.

 

[Hope4More]

I am really confused. What phone was the sex tape on? I thought it was on the Helio phone and that was why she was so worried about losing it. I know she said in her testimony that her phone had a recording feature on it but Travis's didn't so that was why she taped it and not him.

Didn't that idiot Gus give her the Helio phone in April after the fight CMJA and Travis had? I remember something about her getting a phone from him on her way back to Calif.

The sex call was on the Helio. The May text blowup was not. And she did get the Helio from Gus after she left Mesa, while driving her U-Haul and going very much out of way get it from Gus rather than driving straight to Yreka.

He could have just mailed it to her.....

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Sex was fundamental to their relationship. It was Travis' weakness and Jodi's main method of manipulation. They were only a 'couple' for five months, and in that five months Travis grew to dislike her more and more. Her personality proved more incompatible with his with each passing day, yet the sex continued, because it was the only thing Jodi could use to keep Travis in her life.

So in the end the sex had nothing to do with compatibility and everything to do with manipulation.

On that last day, manipulation played a key role.

Travis tells Skye? or CL in a text ,when at the OKC trip ,that he and Jodi hadn't been an item for eight months. I think that was when they "broke up" in June 2007. She also tells the Alexanders, in her letter to them, that when she and Travis broke up in June 2007, she fled to Big Sur where MM lived and stayed with him. If that was the case she was only there what? thirty days before she moved to Mesa.

And Travis asks her to come over and grind. Why not actual sex? if they've done it before? Why just grind?

There is also a text exchange about Jodi doing an 4 hour work week while he, Travis, changes a tire and that was the first of February 2008. Then there is the text asking where he last bought tires because she was at Discount Tires and saw some wheels that would look good on his car. That was in March 2008 when he "palmed" his car off on her. She also texts Travis about trying to rent a Uhaul. That was the last week of March.

She also tells him in a text that you have to pump the brakes and to not burn them up. She had his car and he was driving her "ghetto" car as she called it.

Now I do remember Jodi writing in her journal that she was driving a new rental because her car was in the shop for repairs under warranty, but that was after the holidays IIRC.

 

[samspace070]

Is there a reason why Juan didn't subpoena Matt to testify about those fake letters. Does anyone know if the prosecution talked to him or deposed him? I believe the killer gave Matt those journals of Travis's in order to fake the letters. There is a program on the internet that will allow you to do that. Weather it was available at that time, 2008, I don't know but would assume it was or something similar. The fact that they were electronic copies says it all IMO.