Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #9

[ShadyLady]

How does somebody go about getting a job as a moderator on Websleuths ?

Do you fill out an application ? Is it something offered to longtime users by the current staff ?

Do you go to moderator school ?

I've always been curious about that, but I've never seen anybody talk about it.

Gotta say here...I love Lambie!!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, I respect your opinion and you are probably correct about JSS being excessively (my word) cautious.

However, I will never accept that a lower court Judge rules and conducts the business of justice in a criminal trial from a place of fear PERIOD. Especially, to such an extent that the State could not conduct any semblance of a cross examination.

I may be an average person when it comes to the justice system but for a trial judge to address and be singularly motivated by issues that are specific to appellate courts, is wrong. There are proceedures and processes in place for a reason, and to subvert those processes out of fear, unreasonable or otherwise, is not what I think Justice is about. IMO

Im good with a Judge that makes sure the Defendant is protected by law. I don't have any issue with that. I don't mind them being cautious of being overturned on appeal either. I also understand how emotional this case is and that JSS seemed to have lost a little control at one point. I still don't think that makes her a bad judge.

 

[AZlawyer]

Scarlett, I respect your opinion and you are probably correct about JSS being excessively (my word) cautious.

However, I will never accept that a lower court Judge rules and conducts the business of justice in a criminal trial from a place of fear PERIOD. Especially, to such an extent that the State could not conduct any semblance of a cross examination.

I may be an average person when it comes to the justice system but for a trial judge to address and be singularly motivated by issues that are specific to appellate courts, is wrong. There are proceedures and processes in place for a reason, and to subvert those processes out of fear, unreasonable or otherwise, is not what I think Justice is about. IMO

Actually, trial judges are supposed to be motivated by issues that are specific to appellate courts, namely making decisions that comply with the law. But I agree that if a trial judge is overly fearful about making a mistake in just one area of the law (defendants' rights), she is likely to end up making a mistake in another direction (e.g., media/public rights) as JSS did. I would have no problem at all if she had been super-paranoid about not making ANY legal errors.

 

[Ladylub]

I just tried Quinn_Michaels twitter and found:

Account suspended
The profile you are trying to view has been suspended. To return to your home timeline, click here.

Go through JA's page or search Jodi's art seller. Its still there.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Yes. Assuming she's not hiding any $$$ that affects her indigent status.

:skip: :skip: :skip:

 

[Mindmatters]

Actually, trial judges are supposed to be motivated by issues that are specific to appellate courts, namely making decisions that comply with the law. But I agree that if a trial judge is overly fearful about making a mistake in just one area of the law (defendants' rights), she is likely to end up making a mistake in another direction (e.g., media/public rights) as JSS did. I would have no problem at all if she had been super-paranoid about not making ANY legal errors.

Thanks AZL. Have you watched any of the retrial videos yet? I would love to pick your brain on what the legal rationale was behind many of her decisions during the retrial.

 

[FelicityLemon]

More monkey business regarding the fans:

"famed historian on Mormonism, D. Michael Quinn"

 

[LambChop]

Gotta say here...I love Lambie!!

:loveyou: you all, too.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Thanks AZL. Have you watched any of the retrial videos yet? I would love to pick your brain on what the legal rationale was behind many of her decisions during the retrial.

Especially the catwalk shimmy to the witness stand!

 

[Bravo]

I am absolutely on the edge awaiting Sheriff Joe's 2 binders on Jodith. Is that bad? LOL

 

[Nancy_Drew]

There was some discussion about PPL on the other thread. My first law firm signed up to be PPL providers for the Phoenix area about a year after I started there. My thoughts are:

1. It's not a scam. You do get something for your money.

2. It is for sure a pyramid scheme, although the "scheme" is open and obvious, so perhaps there should be a less "scheme"-y word for that.

3. It is impossible IMO to comply with the PPL rules and guidelines for attorneys and also comply with the AZ State Bar's ethical rules. Or at least it was in 1997. Therefore I refused to participate and left for another firm.

I brought it up b/c I think JA went to that PPL conference just to meet/"run into" TA... I think she heard about him, etc... And he became her target...

I mentioned it when someone posted that they thought that Troy could be her next target...

 

[Bravo]

Especially the catwalk shimmy to the witness stand!

LMAO your post reminded me of 1st Trial where Juan had her actually get up and show the Court how that line backer lunge went down. I still laugh to this day.

 

[Mindmatters]

I am absolutely on the edge awaiting Sheriff Joe's 2 binders on Jodith. Is that bad? LOL

I don't think so Bravo :thinking:. I'm interested in seeing what grievances she has filed--I think it will give much insight into how things are going to go for her in her new home. BTW according to BK, Arpaio's spokesperson told her the reports would be released the day of sentencing, or very soon after.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZL. Have you watched any of the retrial videos yet? I would love to pick your brain on what the legal rationale was behind many of her decisions during the retrial.

I don't really have time to watch them, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. And if I seem to be AWOL despite showing as "present" on the daily thread, feel free to post in the "Legal Questions" thread.

Especially the catwalk shimmy to the witness stand!

I think this situation is similar to the "secret testimony" ruling--JSS thinks that, if she gives in to defense demands, nothing can be overturned on appeal. But as JM pointed out, the law is more complicated than that. Sometimes the defense might demand something that inadvertently ends up harming the defendant--like walking to the stand and "accidentally" (accidentally on purpose IMO) showing your restraints. As JM said, sometimes even when the defense asks for a ruling, the appellate court can find that the ruling was "fundamental error" and overturn the conviction/sentence anyway.

 

[Paintr]

:loveyou: you all, too.

Then why, oh why, do you have a wooden spoon? :biggrin:

 

[Mindmatters]

LMAO your post reminded me of 1st Trial where Juan had her actually get up and show the Court how that line backer lunge went down. I still laugh to this day.

Yep, it was freaking hilarious. Not to mention, every time Juan told her (which was repeatedly) to "show me" how it went, she would start describing it with words but no demonstration--I'm sure the jury got a clue that this only happened in her head and her story was rehearsed lies.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

More monkey business regarding the fans:

"famed historian on Mormonism, D. Michael Quinn"

Wow! What a co-inky-dink THAT is!! ...so whoever was using it went searching for a good Twitter alias... (Good to know they but some thought behind it ;0)

 

[Nosey Parker]

I don't really have time to watch them, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. And if I seem to be AWOL despite showing as "present" on the daily thread, feel free to post in the "Legal Questions" thread.



I think this situation is similar to the "secret testimony" ruling--JSS thinks that, if she gives in to defense demands, nothing can be overturned on appeal. But as JM pointed out, the law is more complicated than that. Sometimes the defense might demand something that inadvertently ends up harming the defendant--like walking to the stand and "accidentally" (accidentally on purpose IMO) showing your restraints. As JM said, sometimes even when the defense asks for a ruling, the appellate court can find that the ruling was "fundamental error" and overturn the conviction/sentence anyway.

It's my firm belief she had plans to accidentally trip up the step to the stand. I can think of no reason why she would want to struggle to walk with any sense of normalcy. She is far too vain for that.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Yep, it was freaking hilarious. Not to mention, every time Juan told her to "show me" how it went, she would start describing it with words but no demonstrating--I'm sure the jury got a clue that this only happened in her head and her story was rehearsed lies.

Was she in restraints for this? Or did they remove them? I cannot remember

 

[Nancy_Drew]

It's my firm belief she had plans to accidentally trip up the step to the stand. I can think of no reason why she would want to struggle to walk with any sense of normalcy. She is far too vain for that.

I think these things she tried in this retrial might be loophole legal tactics she learned in the big house!