Jodi Arias Trial discussion, #4

[jacct]

Legal people---- what is going on? Is this normal? Is this a tactic? How likely is it that they'll succeed?

Yes, you need to calm some of us...

I'm not an attorney but this is serious and the judge could rule for a mistrial. Defense based their case on the information given in the Probable Cause hearing on 8-7-09 and the Court made a ruling that allowed the death penalty based on that hearing. To the defense this is"trial by ambush" as they were never told that the State have changed the "evidence" of the probable cause.

 

[TorisMom003]

This is kindof catty, but WTH is up with the defense lawyers tie?????? Did he really think that was a good look for him?

 

[popsicle]

I love this prosecutor

 

[JSR]

Anyone catch if they're requesting a dismissal with prejudice? or without?

 

[popsicle]

I'm not an attorney but this is serious and the judge could rule for a mistrial. Defense based their case on the information given in the Probable Cause hearing on 8-7-09 and the Court made a ruling that allowed the death penalty based on that hearing. To the defense this is"trial by ambush" as they were never told that the State have changed the "evidence" of the probable cause.

The defense has known for a year per arguments just now!

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Will the judge rule immediately or retire and think about it?

 

[polleypockets]

the defense is trying to get a mistrial right now? feed is back in

 

[belimom]

Anyone catch if they're requesting a dismissal with prejudice? or without?

Not watching it - but what's the difference? TIA!

 

[Curious Me]

The way I'm understanding it - Defense wants Mistrial because of Altered Theory. Defense was not prepared for the change in the sequencing of crime events. It has to do with the cruelty that warrants a Death Penalty case.

 

[popsicle]

and it isn't probable cause it is aggravating circumstances for the DP as I understand it

 

[belimom]

The way I'm understanding it - Defense wants Mistrial because of Altered Theory. Defense was not prepared for the change in the sequencing of crime events. It has to do with the cruelty that warrants a Death Penalty case.

In other words, whether or not the gunshot was before or after the stabbing? The one guy saying that he only said it came first b/c he misunderstood the ME? Or did I get confused on that? Thanks---

 

[GobBluth]

DT is claiming false evidence in Probable Cause hearing--perjured testimony.

 

[popsicle]

I feel like this was the defense's plan all along

 

[MsCharlieChan]

I'm not an attorney but this is serious and the judge could rule for a mistrial. Defense based their case on the information given in the Probable Cause hearing on 8-7-09 and the Court made a ruling that allowed the death penalty based on that hearing. To the defense this is"trial by ambush" as they were never told that the State have changed the "evidence" of the probable cause.

Thanks for explaining. Yes, this sounds VERY serious!

I mentioned earlier that I don't like the prosecutor. I don't like his brusk but unnecessary (arrogant) manner, and I don't think he's a crisp communicator.

Now, this makes it seem like he's tried to be slick. If this mistrials, it's on HIS head.

 

[jacct]

The defense has known for a year per arguments just now!

The defense is arguing prosecutorial misconduct as they did not supply to the Court or the defense a motion for change of probable cause. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules.

 

[popsicle]

bet she rules at a later date

 

[JSR]

Not watching it - but what's the difference? TIA!

If it's a dismissal with prejudice that means the state may not refile charges against her. Without prejudice means that charges could be refiled against her should she grant the dismissal.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Dufense-

The facts of this case are now shifting.......

Dang! The facts have been shifting since the beginning!!! Because your client and the truth are strangers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LotusPawprint]

Will the judge rule immediately or retire and think about it?

She can do either, depending on if she needs/wants to look at futher case law or look into it before issuing her ruling.

 

[my2sense]

I don't think it will fly. The judge looked way too calm during the whole pros/def questioning of Flores. If she seemed agitated, I'd worry more. This is just my opinion. She seems pretty unflappable in general, but, still...