GUILTY AZ - Daniel Rodriguez, 29, fatally shot by Phoenix PD officer, 5 Oct 2010 #2

[josie1986]

Sorry to the juanettes but, as he should be, imo. I heard a snippet of his "questioning" on the local radio news tonight and was just like same old, same old. Improper, unprofessional, belligerent shouty "questions" that clearly and obviously violate the rules to the extent you have to conclude they were never intended NOT to violate them, imo. He's also otherwise unprofessional in the extreme, imo. And I'm talking about under the AZ rules of professional conduct and responsibility and the class on professionalism that every single attorney is required to take before they practice in AZ -- regardless of whether they'd been practicing for decades before it was deemed necessary.

Arizona made this change due to the deterioration of civility and integrity in the profession. Imo, Juan is a poster child for why it was necessary.I wish I could find the AZ Supreme Court Justice's video introducing the course. It explains why I find Juan's behavior so abhorrent. jmo

http://apaac.az.gov/events/view/77/7

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/July98/7-98a2.htm

http://www.legalspan.com/AZBar/cata...707539178144958&ItemID=20121029-314499-184815

If he is breaking all these rules why hasn't he been penalized?

I honestly don't see the problem,this is obviously his style of doing things. I'm sure if he suddenly came across all quiet and timid people would be all Oh he is being so condescending etc etc .

I see it as someone who has fire know their belly and believes in what they are doing.

If you think he is being 'shouty' I'd love you to meet my mother,you would be proper offended by her :floorlaugh:

Sent from my 'alternate reality' using my hippocampus

 

[Karmady]

If he is breaking all these rules why hasn't he been penalized?

I honestly don't see the problem,this is obviously his style of doing things. I'm sure if he suddenly came across all quiet and timid people would be all Oh he is being so condescending etc etc .

I see it as someone who has fire know their belly and believes in what they are doing.

If you think he is being 'shouty' I'd love you to meet my mother,you would be proper offended by her :floorlaugh:

Sent from my 'alternate reality' using my hippocampus

Oh, trust me. In my personal life I'm quite shouty lol And I have no problem if others choose to be that way in their personal lives. It's up to the people they interact with to decide whether that behavior is okay with them. In the public and professional sphere, it's not okay though. Especially for one with such extraordinary power as a prosecutor. I'm not sure why or if Juan is getting away with it, totally. The clip I heard was getting objections to his questions sustained, curtly. Typically, it requires extremely egregious conduct to be sanctioned, though. And I agree that it's up to the court to sanction him, and it has chosen not to in spite of its pr to the contrary. Imo, he should be sanctioned. And I do believe that under AZ's professional conduct program it would be more than justified. I'm sure that, unfortunately, his longevity in his position and some politics are at work. jmo

 

[josie1986]

Not a good start to the day already,getting dressed this morning,get my boots off get my extremely tight leggings over my foot boot back up and stand up to realize I have put them on back to front :floorlaugh:

Just went out that way too much effort to change. :Facepalm:

I hope trial and the stream goes more smoothly than my day

Sent from my 'alternate reality' using my hippocampus

 

[Jewels53]

Trial Diva Jen ™ ‏@TrialDivasJ 8h
Who Do You Believe? http://thetrialdivas.com/trials-on-your-time/#pd_a_7261086 … Results so far...68% Virgillo..32% Chrisman

 

[geevee]

In the Andrea Sneiderman trial, he showed a juror once....it was when they were walking in, it was the juror who sat on the edge closest to the camera. It's wasn't full view, but you could see a partial view.

I don't understand why the camera itself doesn't have a bar or bracket or something that keeps the camera from being able to accidentally pan far enough to show any jurors.

My goodness, we are the most technologically advanced nation on this planet and we still cannot make machinery work for us instead of against our wishes? We can solve this particular problem with a visit to a hardware store. So c'mon camera systems people, wake yer IQs up and stop the silliness.

 

[Jewels53]

I didn't realize there was a part 3 on Tuesday for the youtube so here it is:


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 3 - Part 3 (Juan Martinez Cross) - YouTube



Now 9/4:

Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 1 (Proffer - Partial) - YouTube


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 2 (Juan Martinez) - YouTube


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 3 (Juan Martinez) - YouTube


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 4 (Juan Martinez) - YouTube


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 5 - YouTube



This is through video 5 I will post the rest on the next post.

 

[Jewels53]

Continued from above:

Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 6 (Juan Martinez Re-Cross) - YouTube


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 7 - YouTube


Richard Chrisman Trial - September 4 - Part 8 - YouTube



I believe that is all. Sorry they are in piece's that is all I could find right now.

 

[geevee]

Thanks so much Jewels, I looked for them last night and none were up yet.

 

[geevee]

I hope the jurors remember that line 'He was willing to take one for the dog, right?' Yes, that is correct, Daniel was not trying to harm RC, he was trying to protect his dog, and if he had time to notice the gun being aimed at Junior and yell 'Don't shoot my dog!' things didn't happen quite as quickly as RC said.

Esp. after the LC trial and verdict (and many others before it), I'm not certain at all that most juries can find a cop guilty regardless of evidence, either out of fear or upbringing or whatever, but I think many of us have seen that evidence that would convict a regular Joe isn't as convincing for a police officer.

Jewels, we'll have to steady ourselves for such an outcome. And if another "Mrs." shows up to defend the defense, I won't panty around trying to make them 'out' themselves as the fraud I think they may be, I'll be much more direct (and Juanish).

 

[josie1986]

i wonder how RC thinks his time on the stand went.

has he been out on bail?

 

[josie1986]

I hope the jurors remember that line 'He was willing to take one for the dog, right?' Yes, that is correct, Daniel was not trying to harm RC, he was trying to protect his dog, and if he had time to notice the gun being aimed at Junior and yell 'Don't shoot my dog!' things didn't happen quite as quickly as RC said.

Esp. after the LC trial and verdict (and many others before it), I'm not certain at all that most juries can find a cop guilty regardless of evidence, either out of fear or upbringing or whatever, but I think many of us have seen that evidence that would convict a regular Joe isn't as convincing for a police officer.

Jewels, we'll have to steady ourselves for such an outcome. And if another "Mrs." shows up to defend the defense, I won't panty around trying to make them 'out' themselves as the fraud I think they may be, I'll be much more direct (and Juanish).

bbm

i will never understand that mentality....if i was on a jury for a case like this and the evidence and testimony points to the cop being guilty like it does imo here i would find it easier to vote guilty since cops are meant to be there to protect people not gun them down on a whim

 

[geevee]

bbm

i will never understand that mentality....if i was on a jury for a case like this and the evidence and testimony points to the cop being guilty like it does imo here i would find it easier to vote guilty since cops are meant to be there to protect people not gun them down on a whim

You would think logically it would be the opposite, huh? But from Rodney King to Levi Chavez, juries just have a hard time convicting a cop no matter how wrong their behavior was. I hope this jury will be different.

 

[josie1986]

just seen this on facebook and i am laughing to hard :floorlaugh:

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Sorry to the juanettes but, as he should be, imo. I heard a snippet of his "questioning" on the local radio news tonight and was just like same old, same old. Improper, unprofessional, belligerent shouty "questions" that clearly and obviously violate the rules to the extent you have to conclude they were never intended NOT to violate them, imo. He's also otherwise unprofessional in the extreme, imo. And I'm talking about under the AZ rules of professional conduct and responsibility and the class on professionalism that every single attorney is required to take before they practice in AZ -- regardless of whether they'd been practicing for decades before it was deemed necessary.

Arizona made this change due to the deterioration of civility and integrity in the profession. Imo, Juan is a poster child for why it was necessary.I wish I could find the AZ Supreme Court Justice's video introducing the course. It explains why I find Juan's behavior so abhorrent. jmo

http://apaac.az.gov/events/view/77/7

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/July98/7-98a2.htm

http://www.legalspan.com/AZBar/cata...707539178144958&ItemID=20121029-314499-184815

He's been prosecuting cases in Maricopa County for 25 or so years. Seems like his employer and his colleagues don't have a problem with his style in the court room. He's never had any disciplinary action taken against him, either.<modsnip>

Jodi Arias' attorneys are a better example of unprofessional and incompetent litigators. The constant side bars, disgusting lies that they perpetrated *and this is NOT what defense attorneys do--most have moral standards* were embarrassing to them and got their client convicted of the highest charge.

Chrisman is a methamphetamine user, a wife-swapper and a cold blooded RACIST. There's no need to sweetly ask this doped-up abuser (Trial Divas saw him taking pills before he took the stand the first day & his demeanor was drugged in my opinion) questions on the stand. He's a liar and he enjoyed that sickening killing.

As far as the jury being loathe to convict a cop, remember that Virgillo was on the stand in his uniform--and he was a great witness. Much more sympathetic than Chrisman.

 

[geevee]

Found these on twitter yesterday lol

 

[Jewels53]

I feel like my comment was taken wrong. I was replying to another poster, in how the judge was reacting to Juan.

I think this judge just simply doesn't either like Juan, and not for his technique in questioning witness's. He may just not like him. Maybe he is more on the cop side of things. I really can't put my finger on what i am seeing. all jmho

It is kind of like what some of us saw in the Levi Chavez trial a judge who always seemed to rule in favor of the defense.

Sometimes Juan makes me nervous with his pacing, but that is just that behavior like that makes me feel nervous.

 

[josie1986]

Found these on twitter yesterday lol

the first one has had me in tears :floorlaugh:

i got the feeling the feeling he was channeling jodi yesterday :floorlaugh:

 

[Zuri]

I really respect the other poster's impression of Juan, however for me personally I don't find him the least bit offensive. Perhaps, because I feel he is the voice of victim's everywhere. He gives me a voice. He gives them a voice. He gives those who are no longer here a voice. His tone expresses my outrage.

I have been in courtrooms where everyone was respectful and spoke in polite tones. I wanted to see the outrage. I wanted to feel the outrage. For this reason alone, I have respect for Juan Martinez.

I get that some don't like his style, and that cases could have the same outcome with more polite tones. I understand there is courtroom decorum. I don't consider myself a Juanette. I do consider myself an admirer of his brilliance and his voice for those who have none and have difficulty being heard. JMV

 

[aa9511]

Sorry to the juanettes but, as he should be, imo. I heard a snippet of his "questioning" on the local radio news tonight and was just like same old, same old. Improper, unprofessional, belligerent shouty "questions" that clearly and obviously violate the rules to the extent you have to conclude they were never intended NOT to violate them, imo. He's also otherwise unprofessional in the extreme, imo. And I'm talking about under the AZ rules of professional conduct and responsibility and the class on professionalism that every single attorney is required to take before they practice in AZ -- regardless of whether they'd been practicing for decades before it was deemed necessary.

Arizona made this change due to the deterioration of civility and integrity in the profession. Imo, Juan is a poster child for why it was necessary.I wish I could find the AZ Supreme Court Justice's video introducing the course. It explains why I find Juan's behavior so abhorrent. jmo

http://apaac.az.gov/events/view/77/7

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/July98/7-98a2.htm

http://www.legalspan.com/AZBar/cata...707539178144958&ItemID=20121029-314499-184815

Karmady, you are an attorney, correct? I wrote a post yesterday (on CMJA thread) that I think this judge just gets annoyed with Juan for his "flamboyant" ways. I also wrote that yes, Juan appears to be rude sometimes, for example, when the opposing counsel gives him an exhibit or paper or something, he doesn't even acknowledge them or say thank you or anything....like one time Mehrens was giving him a stack of papers, and Juan LITERALLY completely ignored him, and then Mehrenes said "well, do you want it?" and Juan (without ever looking up) said "yeah, just put it there." LOL. Sometimes I think he takes it too personally with the opposing counsel, I don't know if this is for the jury, or if he really feels that way.

But I still love him!

 

[MeeBee]

I don't consider myself a "Juanette" either. But I have come to respect and admire him and what he does and how well he does it. There are some who are so against his aggressive style that it clouds their judgment. I find his attention to detail and thorough knowledge of the cases he's prosecuting impressive. I find the fact that he never lets any detail get past him. You see prosecutors lose cases because they didn't make sure they were hitting every detail hard even though they had the stronger case (Casey Anthony comes to mind). And he keeps it all in his head to boot.

The fact is if Juan's questioning style was at all a problem he would have been reprimanded a long time ago. This judge, for instance, does not like Juan. No doubt if his style, which this DT has complained about as well, was an issue the judge would have smacked him down pronto. He can't because there's nothing wrong with it. I just don't see the problem with questioning a witness in a loud manner. Other lawyers do it too, to make their points. He is not there to be respectful or make friends. So what?

I respect the other poster's opinion, but I do have a problem with someone who hasn't even followed the case or the trial coming to the board for the sole purpose of complaining about Juan and trying to rile up the posters ("sorry Juanettes"). That's trolling.