State rests rebuttal case - thread #170

[Nali87]

http://gilli-land.blogspot.com/2013/02/developments-in-jodi-arias-death.html

(snipped)

The court finds the motion for a new finding of probable cause on the aggravating factor
is not timely. Defense counsel learned approximately one year ago that the testimony of
Detective Flores at the hearing held on August 7, 2009 was inconsistent with the testimony of the medical examiner Kevin Horn. The inconsistency relates to the sequence of the wounds inflicted on the victim on June 4, 2008. A motion for a new finding of probable cause should have been filed no later than 20 days prior to trial. Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also see Chronis v. Steinle, 208 P.3d 210 (2009), and Rules 13.5 and Rule 5, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.


The court further finds that, even if timely filed, the motion for new finding of probable
cause should be denied. The court finds the evidence relating to the sequence of the wounds was not material to the issue of whether there was probable cause to believe the offense was especially cruel under the theory the crime involved both physical and mental suffering of the victim. See minute entry dated August 18, 2009. The court’s findings in August 2009 support that court’s determination the victim suffered both physically and mentally regardless of when the wounds were inflicted, and that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer. In its ruling, the court noted the victim was stabbed 27 times, had defensive wounds from grabbing the knife and was shot on the right side of his head. The bullet lodged in the victim’s left cheek. The defendant told police the victim was unconscious after being shot but
crawled around and was stabbed. Based upon these facts, the court concluded the victim would have felt pain and mental anguish associated with the multiple wounds. The court finds the inaccurate testimony of Detective Flores at the hearing on August 7, 2009 would not have changed the court’s finding that the offense was especially cruel and was thus harmless error.
See Pitts v. Adams, 179 Ariz. 108, 876 P.2d 1143 (1994).
The court further finds that the evidence presented at trial in January 2012, including the testimony of Kevin Horn on January 9, 2012, established probable cause to believe the offense was especially cruel under the theory that it involved both physical and mental suffering of the victim. The court finds this evidence established probable cause the victim would have felt pain and mental anguish associated with the multiple wounds inflicted, and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer. See State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 259, 183
P.3d 503 (2008), State v. Sansing, 206 Ariz. 232, 235, 77 P.3d 30 (2003) and State v. William
Herrera Jr., 176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993).
IT IS ORDERED denying the oral motion for new finding of probable cause on the
aggravating factor the offense was especially cruel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the motion for mistrial based upon the inaccurate
testimony of Detective Flores at the hearing conducted on August 7, 2009.

Here is the court ruling some of us have been quoting.

 

[BritsKate]

I have read other killers stall [if on death row] with stays and appeals and all kinds of mumbo jumbo stalling..:fence:


Maybe the family of the TOT she babysat will speak once she is in jail forever? I want to know why she babysat anyway?

Appeals are often automatic. A convicted, condemned prisoner has to motion the court to have the appeals process lifted, if so desired, to fast track. Aileen Wuornos is one example. Stays are what halt executions, granted by an appeals court, governor, etc., and sometimes very temporarily. But honestly, I think I'd be stalling too.

 

[websurfer]

Considering her "issues", I personally think it was just a matter of time. She needs to be removed permanently from society, IMO

worked in the phone sex industry.I mean right? All this trial was about was sex...but no..she had to go and kill a nice guy...who was defensless in a shower..:stormingmad:

 

[leebee52]

LOL.. I'm still adjusting to the 2 spills and the burp....

I can't remember ever hearing a witness burp on the stand before. I was surprised that the whole courtroom didn't start laughing.

 

[missy1974]

OMG and his 6'2" thing last night had me laughing sooo hard! I think it was a dig at JA's tweets.

haha I was making supper at the time and was only listening, I was cracking up!

 

[gcharlie]

Mr. Martinez, I am putting my faith in you to deliver an incontrovertible closing argument that will leave no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the jury of JA's guilt in committing first degree murder.

As part of your closing, I would derive some satisfaction from you exposing those most vulnerable parts of JA's character and behavior which in turn elicit a strong outward reaction from her in court.

For whomever is operating the camera in court today, please use the split screen. I'm confident I'm not the only one who wants to observe her during this phase of the trial.

 

[DebinGA]

It really dosen't matter if the gunshot wound to the head would be fatal or not.
It's weather in the immediate seconds after the bullet traveled through the skull a person would have instant motor function or would be able to verbalise anything.
You have to remember we are talking in seconds here as to weather or not Jodis story about how the murder happend was true or not.
It would be highly unlikely at best that Travis would have been able to chase after Jodi or say to her( kill you b+++h ) immediately after having a bullet travel through his skull.
This would have been very traumatic to his brain and functions.
He may have lived if that was his only injury but that is not the point.
The point is if he could have functioned after being shot.

BBM
As inconceivable as it is that a just shot Travis could chase and threaten JA, imo it's equally inconceivable that he or anyone else would. The immediate reaction would be to seek safety and help asap, not waste rapidly diminishing strength in a futile pursuit.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

A quick statement and an important question to follow.
Regardless of if the projectile went through the frontal lobe or not, and whether or not it punctured any part of the brain, anyone who has walked down a basement stairway and whacked their forhead on the landing, knows you are dazed, your eyesight gets blurry etc.
I can think of a hundred instances over my almost 60 years on the green side of the sod that I have walloped my head while working under a car, wood flying off my lathe, snowball fights as a kid, etc. You just don't carry on as usual as if nothing happened. I can't imagine any juror even considering Travis took a .25 through his skull and it didn't phase him long enough for JA to make a run for it. It's just common sense.

now for my question. Who's bringing the sourdough donuts today?

 

[atm9533]

I'm not too worried about that. I question DH's assessment as to whether TA would or would not be immediately incapacitated. DH is too absolute imo on this. All this means to me though is that JA shot TA first then proceeded to stab him. I still see clearly that this was a premeditated murder that just didn't go as she planned it. It doesn't support her story to me in any way.

Will you please tell me what the jury question is that you all are talking about.

 

[ShadyLady]

Lol. For a while there I actually thought she was gonna pretend she was going crazy. Her coloring days when she asked JW to sharper her pencil for her.

I still keep waiting for Jodi to turn on the defense and stab one of them with a pencil...after all Jodi seems to be able to hurt the one she loves....

 

[Litigatrix]

This is part of the reason how some lawyers got the general rep of being akin to used car salesmen. How Willmott and Nurmi live with their conscience defending this pile and other criminals is disturbing. The disturbing part being that they are trying to get them off at all costs and muck up the system with endless appeals and delays.

I've always said this about Nurmi and Wilmott...we have an ethical obligation to defend our client's rights under the law and ensure that they receive fair treatment. That being said, if I (as a corporate defense attorney) have,(purely by way of example, an employer that DID discriminate against someone or DID sexually harass someone, then I am not going to go into scorched earth mode and travel to the ends of the earth to trash the victim or destroy and embarrass them. I may even encourage my client to settle for a fair amount if the case warrants it.

You can defend your client zealously without abandoning all morality....I think that they have done the profession and themselves a great disservice with the way that they have handled this case.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I hope we hear Juan refer to himself as, "The Prosecutor," one more time.

OMG didn't you just love his "is it a lie or exaggeration if the prosecutor says he is 6'2""

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

That was simply classic courtroom.

 

[Charterhouse]

I get the same thing, but mine is a 'message from the website' and I have to click OK to continue. It only happens when I hit the Thanks button but I've been getting it for months, and it happens at least 20 times a day. That's why I mention, every now and then, that I appreciate posts, in a post of my own since so many times I can't use the Thanks button.

I too want to thank you all. I can never get all the "thanks" I want in. Just know that I do thank everyone no matter what your opinions are. The variety of opinions is what makes WS great.

 

[websurfer]

Here is the court ruling some of us have been quoting.

It is helpful.The long dragged out trial and the approaches sorta watered down this truth.:seeya:

 

[Hatfield]

JMO

A few things as we wind down. First thanks to everyone for great discussions.

Yesterday was quite a strange day. Was a little disappointed in Juan. He seemed to get too excited and was pretty confusing at times when he stumbled on his own words. Just wish he would have made things clearer with his questions. But the significance of these last witnesses was so minimal in the big scheme of things, it should not matter much.

Nothing talked about yesterday helped disprove the premeditation aspects of the case.

The 1st witness was just ridiculous with him coming in all happy and smiling. It was just ridiculous and sad that him and Wilcott were having a joyful time it seemed. Totally unprofessional.

Wilcott needs to stop pretending she knows all about TMI tests and all the other tests. She has no clue about them and she also has no clue about autopsies and she tries to come across as an expert and it was ridiculous. She scored only 1 point which a juror actually found for her about the error in the report.

I wish the ME had just not tried to claim whether the shot came first or last. It did not matter one way or the other and I feel they could have just not tried to claim either was first. It did not matter since the killing was planned with the stolen weapon , gas cans, coverup, etc.

The last witness was good and she held her ground.

IMO, The judge should have been pushing the trial along the whole past months and not just yesterday. It seems someone must have told her to move things along. But it was much too late by now, so I feel she should have just extended to another day rather than rush it all in on one day. It seemed silly to just have 1 day like that when all the other weeks were short days, 4 days a week, 1 1/2 lunches, etc. What is one more extra day when that did not seem to matter before. Me thinks someone pressured her to finish this week which is strange because it never mattered before it seems. I think it was dangerous to handle it the way she did yesterday but none of the testimony seemed to amount to a hill of beans so hopefully it wont matter.

I think the jury gets it but I do worry about maybe 1 or 2 of them based on questions. Hopefully the concensus will prevail and they can turn around any naysayers.

Just hoping for justice for Travis which is all that matters.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

I think we're in for some scary times when the Guilty M1 verdict is announced. I don't think she's going to get verbal or even cry, but get ready for the scariest eyes and facial expressions you've ever seen in your life. I'm beginning to worry about myself here....it's kind of telling that I want to see that.... I can't deny it, watching her fascinates me. Guess it's the inquisitive, poking nature I have. That's why I love the split screen so much. Wish it would have happened more. We are learning so much about the real JA by her eyes, face and strange actions.

 

[Rocco]

I just wanted to give my take on the dura mater snafu.

If a juror needs a reason to not give the death penalty, this could be their excuse.

I hope everyone gets the verdict they desire.

For myself I have PTTD (Post traumatic trial disorder) from the CA trial so I am not expecting anything in particular.

The dura mater has nothing to do with pre-meditation or the horrific way she murdered him--IMO

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I've always said this about Nurmi and Wilmott...we have an ethical obligation to defend our client's rights under the law and ensure that they receive fair treatment. That being said, if I (as a corporate defense attorney) have,(purely by way of example, an employer that DID discriminate against someone or DID sexually harass someone, then I am not going to go into scorched earth mode and travel to the ends of the earth to trash the victim or destroy and embarrass them. I may even encourage my client to settle for a fair amount if the case warrants it.

You can defend your client zealously without abandoning all morality....I think that they have done the profession and themselves a great disservice with the way that they have handled this case.

I think they went to the Jose Baez School of Legal Ethics.

 

[aa9511]

I just wanna say that I thought Dr. Hayes was really good on the stand. Geffner goes in the same camp with Samuels and ALV...I had a lot of trouble believing anything he said. When will these people realize that the more they elaborate and go off into tangents, the more they seem like salespeople?
With the tiger/bear thing that Wilmott kept bringing up, I just thought it was so pointless b/c she was trying to get an answer relating to Jodi but based on pure hypotheticals. So yes, DeMarte answered differently than either Hayes or Geffner because she HAD ALL THE INFORMATION, or the "context" to use ALV's favorite term. Samuels and ALV were just hired guns, I'm basically resorted to just disregarding their whole testimony. But compared with Demarte, obviously neither Hayes nor Geffner had any information, they were just asked about hypotheticals, so of course their answers would have differences.

I do wish DeMarte had answered the question a little differently, then she wouldn't have given Wilmott so man chances to bring it up again. SHe could have said something like Hayes said, that if you had actually seen things like claw marks, etc., then you might give a normal person who otherwise has no pattern of lying the benefit of doubt. But you would still want to find the reason why they their answer was incorrect - did they lie or mistaken or couldn't remember or what? But if you did not see any physical evidence, and the person had a history of lying and was in a position of secondary gain, then you would have to disregard the test. And emphasized that the actual event is important, even if it's a difference b/w a tiger and a bear which we wouldn't normaly think the attack would be that different, but actually if you think more about it, it is important b/c triggers would be different, way and place of attack would be different,etc., etc.. I think b/c DeMarte went automatically to no, they're completely different, then it gave the opening to Wilmott to try to paint her like she was just pro-prosectution.

 

[SusieD]

In all likelihood it was typed it up from a tape recording. Medical transcriber. And yes, with something this important, an error like is huge and should result in firing. Spelling mistakes are inexcusable if that is your job. This wasn't a run of the mill autopsy, there was a serious crime involved. I've transcribed medical reports before and you have to be extremely accurate. There are a lot of terms that sound similar but are very different -otomy vs. ectomy for example. You are hyper aware of this and check and double check if necessary.

There's also a chance he mispoke if he were talking into a recorder, or what he said wasn't clear and the person transcribing typed exactly what he said.

bbm

I don't think any autopsies are treated differently because one may become high profile. And it's not technically a murder until the autopsy is finished. They are all done to the best of the ME's ability regardless of who it is. And when the autopsy happened Travis was a body on the table. That's all. He was no different from the other 5999 autopsies Horn has performed, nor was it treated "special." Horn had no idea the backstory or who Jodi was or if the case would even see a trial.


And no transcriptionist should be fired for a simple error. If someone needs to be held accountable it's the person who signs the report.