*graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial discussion #6

[Davia18]

OMG they do have the text ???
Then what was the point gggrrrrr of her saying they didn't get them

 

[my2sense]

I, too, like Juan, but he needs to reign it in. Not necessary and a dangerous gamble just to be splashy (or self-indulgent)

 

[nursebeeme]

He is letting defense get to him, he needs to stop that

The jury is out... I say rock on Juan!:rocker:

 

[BritsKate]

Juan is sounding very juvenile, maybe all Hispanics look alike! not very professional.

That isn't what he said. He said 'Maybe their names sound similar on the stand'.

 

[PASA]

Whoopsie. State drops the camera. Sorry but I am laughing over here.

bbm

Me too

 

[norest4thewicked]

We will soon see how "stupid or childish" dropping the camera was. The judge will rule one way or another on the mistrial. One strong point - the jury saw it. Can't take that back!

 

[Davia18]

he said names sound alike

the guy was referencing a guy that was not even testifying

LOL True

 

[nursebeeme]

Mr. L have you had these text messages for two years

yes


blah blah blah

 

[cindysnow3]

defense wants a mistrial, they need more time.... remember they wanted a continuance and it was denied.

 

[GobBluth]

That's all they got. Even if they get a mistrial, the prosecutor will just retry again and again and again - correct? The crime just doesn't go away.

Yes, I don't think that a mistrial at this point would even benefit the DT. Later on, it might, but not this early on. They wouldn't gain anything by starting over now, IMO.

 

[Mygirlsadie]

Big boy got butt hurt when Juan made that comment.. lmao that was funny sorry.

 

[BritsKate]

Judge: What prejudice does your client suffer as a result?

***Crickets.***

 

[nursebeeme]

what prejudice did your client suffer as a result?????

we have brady violations your honor

I have not had time to read this issue

there was direct hiding of exculpatory nature

 

[JSR]

LOL. what prejudice did your client suffer as a result.

-nada!

There is no exculpatory evidence she admits to killing him!!!

 

[ButForFortune]

Only a WS would sit for 8 months and take photos of every text. :lol:

:floorlaugh:

 

[TorisMom003]

Ummm, I don't know the answer to that question Judge. I'm not sure how it affects my client in a harmful way. But, but we still want a mistrial because we are loosing here and we need a freaking break!!!!

JMO of what he really means here with this mistrial request.

 

[TigerBalm]

:lol: :floorlaugh:

brady violation

defense made a funny

 

[nursebeeme]

ofgs!

in 2008 they did NOT have the technology

 

[Frigga]

Has it ever been proven that JA was, in fact, a professional photographer? For how long? How much business did she do? What were tax returns like for her business? The media and talking heads keep saying that "as a professional she would have known that these photos would not have been deleted"... blah, blah, blah. Was she a professional or was she an aspiring photographer, like the other aspiring photographer we know of?

 

[wenwe4]

Objection - evidence should not be ruined . . ie dropped.

State Atty - there was carpet there - dropped 1 or 2 feet - nothing improper - no more tests being conducted . . . no legal reason for Defense to cite

Defense - improper for State Atty to testify . . . doesn't make it ok for him to break it . . . . please admonish the State to not ruin anything = if you want to use evidence for demonstrative please approach . . . . (we cannot even write on evidence)

JA been asking for State to provide evidence . . . .

when Melendez was on the stand . . . . .he was asked

Judge asks witness to step down and return 10 min . . .

Apart from the State assertions that these didn't exist - reason for not providing them in discover - going on for a year now . . . on June 18th we were in front of Judge Duncan . . . text messages and emails - did you look through everything . . . yes - but you didnt

prior testimony in Jan - he went thru every single email . . . clearly now the testimony has changed . . . these text messages existed in 2008 - what he did with texts is in direct . . . . from testimony that he gave before.

We have to cede on the State's part re: these text messages . . . we put forth proseuctorial misconduct - we are renewing that now - we did that before in front of Judge Duncan - cumulative effect of misconduct is growing.

Keep in mind this has been litigated in front of Judge Duncan - at some point . . . why didn't he cite Det. Melendez . I don't know what he is talking about with . . . perhaps he thinks that all hispanic names sound alike - Objection your honor - I am not done.

He couldn't get the texts because he couldn't extract them . . . . he testified it would take too long to take photos . . . .after the technology developed 896 - between 25- 30 text messages per page - it would have been impossible to take pics of every text message - highly inflamatory comments. . . . . .

When the technology became available - 2 years ago - texts were made available to defense counsel - his inflamatory comments are demonstrative of prosecutorial misconduct. . . . .there was there nothing about technology . . . .refer court back to 1/10/10 and 4/20/10 - court can go back to records - we will see Det. Melendez did testify tosomething different he is testifying now . .. he did not talk about seeing all these messages - because back then that would have motivated testimony about what was in them . ..

State asserting motions in 2010- cumulative prosecutorial misconduct . . .

Have yu had these texts for 2 years - yes but that is not the point . . . in 2010 they were forced to turn them over . . . .

what did your client suffer as a result?

Defense - Brady violations your honor - I don't know . . . when there is direct violation of exculpatory . . . . sexual . . . took months of litigation for the State to turn over what they already had . . . tht is why we are doing trial in 2013 -

State back in 2008 did not come forward

Judge wasn't presiding over this in 2010 - she will look back over Duncan's motion - she will take motion under advisement - they will take a recess.

Whew!!!!