jodi Arias TAKES THE STAND #49 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[Lorelilly]

You can sneak but you will get caught. Been
there.:seeya:

You will get caught. I've been there too. :what:

 

[dani]

Just thinking out loud here…wondering if the knife she used on Travis was the same one she used during her tire slashing spree? I would think it takes a pretty stout knife to slash tires, especially if the slasher had to be quick about it to avoid detection. And she did 3 sets of tires on different days. Perhaps she kept a knife in her car???

 

[AZlawyer]

Hiya, everyone! Not sure if this has already been discussed...(oh, who am I kidding - you guys already thought of this, dissected it, and moved on, by the time it crossed my mind!) - but regarding the magazines she was attempting to give to her friend...

So given the description that she stated of the attempted transfer of property (magazines) the procedure appears to be similar to that in Cook County - you fill out a form, signing your property over to a friend/family member/visitor, who has already been cleared to receive the documents/papers/property (with a signature by a C.O.) A guard flips through the magazine and gives it to the visiting room officer (or fill in the proper title here...you get the gist)...and then the visiting room officer ALSO flips through/checks the property before handing it to the visitor (at the conclusion of the visit - on their way out. It is NEVER given in the room with the inmate.)

My question: Her friend, evidently, never received this property. At some juncture in the process, the writing was caught by an astute guard, who then would (according to Cook County Jail procedure, unsure of in AZ) notify the inmate that their property was being confiscated for..and there are a litany of things that could occur over (writing inside, thus attempting to pass a message...inappropriate photographs/nudity...sexual content...gang content...etc)

So, Jodi SHOULD have been ready for this (magazine thing). But she didn't seem to be. At least, her attorneys appeared to be taken aback. Did she simply forget/refuse to tell them? Or did she think that, sheerly by writing in the magazine (in Cook County, even writing 'I love you blah blah my little love muffin' would be grounds for not authorizing the property transfer, because all written correspondence MUST be properly checked by the officer in the mail room.). So, did she imagine it wasn't a big deal, that the prosecution didn't catch it? Did she bring up the notations she made, while on the visit with her friend - and then, the C.O. doing the monitoring of the visit checked out the magazine, after Jodi made reference to notes in that same item?

Basically, I'm thinking that her grandiose thinking did her in, in this instance - that she thought they didn't pick up on it, that she was free and clear. Otherwise, why didn't she try to come up with some b.s. to cover it, like she did, blaming the guard for the interview?

Thoughts?

JMO

The only thing I can think of is that she didn't tell her attorneys, and her attorneys somehow saw the magazines on the exhibit list but never figured out why they were on there? :waitasec:

 

[Love Never Fails]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, and I'm sure it has -- but I have been away from computer all day.

Does anyone know when the special action and motion for stay were filed?

It was posted earlier today that Beth Karas said the motion for stay was actually filed at the beginning of trial and the court just ruled on it today denying the stay. If I am wrong aboutthe timing, someone please correct me.

 

[minor4th]

Minor, I had a question about this motion. I think what they are arguing is that they want to postpone (until a full hearing) talking about the "aggravating" factors that would allow a DP sentence.

Does that mean they don't want to actually talk about the murder itself? That we're all agreed she killed him but we're not going to have question-and-answer about guns, knives, etc., until we have this full hearing?

I guess they wanted the trial to stop until they got a final ruling on their appeal, but that was denied.

 

[WhatsupAZ]

I can see December/January during the holiday season being a little slow but August? No way.

MOO

August definitely slows down here... if you are working at a resort in Paradise Valley. Denny's, Applebees, Mimi's cafe- not so much. Mesa isn't exactly a tourist town.

 

[AZlawyer]

I had to google what interlocutory appeals means, lol. I think I get it. Do you know what the special action they filed was about?

The special action is about wanting to get rid of the death penalty, because it was based on the detective's (wrong) testimony about the ME's conclusion that the gunshot was first but not disabling, and therefore Travis must have been in terrible pain for the remainder of the attack, and therefore the murder was "cruel."

IMO the reason that the argument has not been successful thus far is that the evidence is clear that, regardless of the order of injuries, Travis was alive and awake and defending himself while seriously, painfully injured for some period of time.

 

[minor4th]

The only thing I can think of is that she didn't tell her attorneys, and her attorneys somehow saw the magazines on the exhibit list but never figured out why they were on there? :waitasec:

I think they knew, but what can they do? There's no way to get it excluded.

 

[bobloblaw]

The jury instructions on self defense specifically say there is no duty to retreat if the person is there lawfully and not committing a crime. I guess it could be argued that Jodi was not there lawfully and was committing a crime - so the "no duty to retreat" rule would not apply to her.

I think that is part of the felony murder, the fact that once she assualted TA once, then she is there unlawfully thereafter. It is assumed TA would want her off his premises. (some talking head explained that weeks ago)

 

[G&AMom]

I guess they wanted the trial to stop until they got a final ruling on their appeal, but that was denied.

Thank you! Very nice to have attorneys here to answer our questions -- and mine are always so convoluted!:blushing:

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Hiya, everyone! Not sure if this has already been discussed...(oh, who am I kidding - you guys already thought of this, dissected it, and moved on, by the time it crossed my mind!) - but regarding the magazines she was attempting to give to her friend...

So given the description that she stated of the attempted transfer of property (magazines) the procedure appears to be similar to that in Cook County - you fill out a form, signing your property over to a friend/family member/visitor, who has already been cleared to receive the documents/papers/property (with a signature by a C.O.) A guard flips through the magazine and gives it to the visiting room officer (or fill in the proper title here...you get the gist)...and then the visiting room officer ALSO flips through/checks the property before handing it to the visitor (at the conclusion of the visit - on their way out. It is NEVER given in the room with the inmate.)

My question: Her friend, evidently, never received this property. At some juncture in the process, the writing was caught by an astute guard, who then would (according to Cook County Jail procedure, unsure of in AZ) notify the inmate that their property was being confiscated for..and there are a litany of things that could occur over (writing inside, thus attempting to pass a message...inappropriate photographs/nudity...sexual content...gang content...etc)

So, Jodi SHOULD have been ready for this (magazine thing). But she didn't seem to be. At least, her attorneys appeared to be taken aback. Did she simply forget/refuse to tell them? Or did she think that, sheerly by writing in the magazine (in Cook County, even writing 'I love you blah blah my little love muffin' would be grounds for not authorizing the property transfer, because all written correspondence MUST be properly checked by the officer in the mail room.). So, did she imagine it wasn't a big deal, that the prosecution didn't catch it? Did she bring up the notations she made, while on the visit with her friend - and then, the C.O. doing the monitoring of the visit checked out the magazine, after Jodi made reference to notes in that same item?

Basically, I'm thinking that her grandiose thinking did her in, in this instance - that she thought they didn't pick up on it, that she was free and clear. Otherwise, why didn't she try to come up with some b.s. to cover it, like she did, blaming the guard for the interview?

Thoughts?

JMO

Oh, I'm thinking she's going with the "I didn't write it" lie. IIFC she said something to the effect that she hadn't seen the writing before. So much for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[kscornfed]

i don't know why this just popped into my head, but remember jodi said she feared 2 things: guns and public speaking.

guess she's gotten over both!!

 

[Love Never Fails]

I

I still remember opine being the word during the on oj trial

Yes today Beth Karas said it was filed at beginning of trial or late January, as you say but today it was denied.

 

[minor4th]

It was posted earlier today that Beth Karas said the motion for stay was actually filed at the beginning of trial and the court just ruled on it today denying the stay. If I am wrong aboutthe timing, someone please correct me.

Here's my understanding of what has happened.

In January, after Flores testified, the Defense filed a motion to dismiss the death penalty as an option because of the conflicting testimony about the aggravating factor. The trial judge denied their motion, and the trial continued.

The defense then filed a special action to review the judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss the death penalty. This was filed with the Court of Appeals in January, and at the same time they filed a "motion to stay", which is a request that the trial be stayed or postponed until after a ruling on the special action. The Court of Appeals denied both the special action and the motion to stay.

Today, the Defense then field the same special action and another motion to stay with the AZ Supreme Court (kind of like an appeal of the Court of Appeals ruling denying the special action). The AZ Supreme Court has denied the Motion to Stay, so the trial will continue - and I'm not sure whether the court has ruled on the special action requesting that the death penalty be dismissed.

 

[minor4th]

I think that is part of the felony murder, the fact that once she assualted TA once, then she is there unlawfully thereafter. It is assumed TA would want her off his premises. (some talking head explained that weeks ago)

Yes, that is what's underlying the felony murder charge, but I guess it could also be argued that her unlawfully being in Travis' residence means that the "no duty to retreat" instruction should not be given.

 

[Lorelilly]

Yesterday when Juan brought up Ryan and the fact she was messing around with him the day after Travis was killed, she said, "I was single."

Who else finds this answer totally weird and disturbing?

 

[dani]

More "thinking out loud"…it's my understanding the jury isn't supposed to know that Jodi has been in jail for 4 1/2 years, but didn't they learn this via the "magazine" debacle yesterday?

 

[minor4th]

So iirc JM pressed JA to recall her luggage was already in the car and stating she was getting on the road would imply Travis expected she was leaving his home?
JA then claims the office incident happened and they went back upstairs which shows she was able to remain in his home by invitation.. hmm :waitasec:
sry am still confused on the 'felony murder' in AZ :doh:

I think the State's argument is that once she began attacking Travis, she was no longer an invited or welcome guest, and she was therefore unlawfully in his home.

 

[AZlawyer]

The AZ Supreme Court denied her stay, but it's not clear whether they have already ruled on her special action (interlocutory appeal).

I am not an Arizona attorney, but I have practiced in Arizona on a couple of cases by being admitted pro had vice (just means you're admitted to the AZ bar temporarily for a particular case). In the cases I was involved in, there were several special actions filed before there was a final verdict -- I think AZ makes it pretty easy to bring interlocutory appeals, so I would guess this is fairly common.

Maybe AZLawyer can speak about this more coherently.

The original special action petition was filed 1/28/13 with the AZ Court of Appeals and denied 1/30/13--the court decided not to wait for the state's response.

The case is not showing up on the AZ Supreme Court website yet, so I suspect the petition to review the Ct App's denial was filed along with the stay request today. I don't believe the AZ Supreme Court has actually denied the petition yet--I think they have only denied the stay request.

The stay request was just to prevent the penalty phase from going forward until there is a ruling from the AZ Supreme Court. The court might figure that, at the pace this trial is going, it will have plenty of time to rule before a verdict is reached.

 

[RadarLuv]

Maybe he could toss her some cheese every time she answers the right way.

This post literally made me laugh for a hot :great:minute. Aloud...and I am all alone! Comment of the day!