Post Verdict -Working Out The Unresolved Questions

[LambChop]

JW and KN are defense attorneys. KN represents worse clients than JA all the time. So just because JA will not listen to them will not change her behavior does not give them an excuse to quit. She won't listen to any attorney. She's a convicted felon and their obligation is to defend her regardless. They signed on and they need to see it through to the end. They are not obligated to like her. No one is. jmo

 

[21merc7]

JW and KN are defense attorneys. KN represents worse clients than JA all the time. So just because JA will not listen to them will not change her behavior does not give them an excuse to quit. She won't listen to any attorney. She's a convicted felon and their obligation is to defend her regardless. They signed on and they need to see it through to the end. They are not obligated to like her. No one is. jmo

I fully agree with what you have said.

There are cases where "withdraw as counsel" is the only option though. Don't know if any Judge sees this as one of them. It does involve licenses to practice law and complaints. Maybe Tuba will know the breakdown, or anyone else that is knowledgeable. I've only seen it happen, and for much less than what CMJA has been doing by trying to tell the world her lawyers have repeatedly failed her in her defense. I don't know the specifics as to how or why Judges choose to allow it and new counsel appointed.

I think it is awful that they have tried this long to no avail. There clearly are issues and the attorneys are clearly aware of them. It is a bit late, but it happens. I'm guessing whatever issues they gave before were just not enough.

 

[gcharlie]

We may be getting ahead of ourselves here speculating about the defense team wanting to withdraw, but...

...could this possibly be a defense strategy or a true reflection of the relationship between defense counsel and their client?

A client is convicted of first degree murder with a hung jury in the penalty phase. The client sabotages any and all efforts of the defense team, leading them to request withdrawal from the case.

If the defendant is unwilling to cooperate with any defense team, can she possibly get a fair trial in the penalty phase? Remember, it is only a jury that can sentence her to death.

Has a catch 22 situation been created?

 

[21merc7]

True gcharlie. We do not know what the recent bout of paperwork is leading up to. We can only speculate.

As far as a client not being cooperative, that happens in every sort of criminal case, not only murder cases. I have no idea why Nurmi has continuously asked to be removed, other than lack of cooperation. Whatever it is, the Judge does not see it as an adequate reason to be removed, so he can stop sweating it. It must not be enough for any type of repercussions.

Hopefully, more will be revealed tomorrow.

 

[gcharlie]

True gcharlie. We do not know what the recent bout of paperwork is leading up to. We can only speculate.

As far as a client not being cooperative, that happens in every sort of criminal case, not only murder cases. I have no idea why Nurmi has continuously asked to be removed, other than lack of cooperation. Whatever it is, the Judge does not see it as an adequate reason to be removed, so he can stop sweating it. It must not be enough for any type of repercussions.

Hopefully, more will be revealed tomorrow.

BBM...tomorrow is just a formality. Either MCSO will have produced the required records or their agent will appear before the judge and indicate why they have not been produced. A discussion might ensue with some due date established for the delivery of the requested information. MCSO is a third party and is not privy to the purpose behind the record request.

 

[geevee]

Bringing this over from the Legal Questions thread:





I'll keep nosing around. Now that people are becoming aware of this subpoena, there seems to be a lot of head scratching.

Thanks gcharlie, it does sound like a kamikaze mission, I just don't see how anything they find could be beneficial for her defense. Maybe down the road as an appeal issue (depending on what's found and what that does to her case). I realize KN/JW just want to get out with their careers intact, I just hope they don't let desperation guide them.

 

[Tuba]

I don't understand why there isn't some good internet gossip about this subpoena or comment about it on the crime shows. Last night there was no coverage of it at all. Aren't people curious? Aren't the curious monkeys the ones who find a way out of the cage?

 

[geevee]

I was surprised too, maybe the calm before the storm?

 

[gcharlie]

Reporter have not picked up on a few things.

At the end of the court session, Nurmi does ask the judge about an ex parte (unintelligible).

Camille Kimball tweeted about Nurmi and Willmott in chambers after the court session ended. From her tweets, they came out around 9:00 am local time. The minute entry for that day does not mention in the in chambers meeting before court, nor does it mention the ex parte meeting with defense counsel only. Defendant was not present.

Is there any basis for an ex parte meeting by defense counsel that can specifically exclude the defendant's participation/attendance in that meeting?

 

[Liebchenmutti]

The 'unclothed' pics are another mystery to me; with the events that preceded his murder, it doesn't seem reasonable that Travis would invite her in and have that sort of encounter with her. We know he told at least one woman he was chatting with that he was afraid of JA's stalking behavior and even presumed she was reading their communications, would he forget all of that and invite her into his bed a week later? I find that difficult to believe.

And one glaring question about her trip - once she was out of Arizona and near Salt Lake City, UT, why did she refill the all of the gas cans? There was no financial benefit and with the extra weight of those 3 cans, it probably had a negative impact on her gas mileage, not to mention the smell and danger of carrying around so much gasoline. She had plenty of places to fill up, so why would she lug around gas when it wasn't necessary?



I hope this thread is alright with the mods.

Great thread!

I have to say that it is interesting that she filled the 3 gas cans in Utah, after the murder, after driving out of AZ--although it makes no sense to fill up there, it does prove that she used all 3 gas cans while driving thru AZ.

Was she planning another secret stop on her "road trip?"

The sex and naked pics just go to show Jodi's power over Travis--he was sexually compulsive (judging from the sex tape), and he seemed to have a problem saying No to Jodi & sex. He knew he wanted nothing to do with her, but he was also vulnerable to having sex with her--kind of like a drug. It was totally destructive, but he decided to give in.

His friends discussed Jodi's sexual aggression towards Travis--she was certainly not shy about any sexual topic in that sex tape. She would show up in the middle of the night and slip into Travis' bed naked--it seemed to be a pattern in their relationship. The fact that she told him that not being boyfriend/girlfriend and still having an intense sexual relationship was fine with her is illustrated in him allowing her into his bed that last time. Who knows what sob story she told him that night/early morning?

 

[Liebchenmutti]

JW and KN are defense attorneys. KN represents worse clients than JA all the time. So just because JA will not listen to them will not change her behavior does not give them an excuse to quit. She won't listen to any attorney. She's a convicted felon and their obligation is to defend her regardless. They signed on and they need to see it through to the end. They are not obligated to like her. No one is. jmo

I think that Jodi has a touch of Antisocial Personality Disorder mixed in with that Borderline & I would assume that she is impossible to work with as a client. She seems to care nothing of the consequences of having a Twitter account that features a disparaging comment about her prosecutor as well as advertisements for her sale of "art" and t-shirts for domestic violence.

She probably gets a kick out of making people around her angry--especially if they are forced to associate with her like Nurmi & Wilmott.

So there IS a bit of karma going on in that she makes her attorneys crazy angry. A little payback for us having to endure Nurmi's direct examination of Jodi! :floorlaugh:

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Reporter have not picked up on a few things.

At the end of the court session, Nurmi does ask the judge about an ex parte (unintelligible).

Camille Kimball tweeted about Nurmi and Willmott in chambers after the court session ended. From her tweets, they came out around 9:00 am local time. The minute entry for that day does not mention in the in chambers meeting before court, nor does it mention the ex parte meeting with defense counsel only. Defendant was not present.

Is there any basis for an ex parte meeting by defense counsel that can specifically exclude the defendant's participation/attendance in that meeting?

It seems likely that they were discussing the subpoena of Jodi's phone records...Maybe Jodi would not be happy about it?

 

[Tuba]

I definitely agree that Arias revels in frustrating her attorneys (& of course, the prosecutor) and also in creating the Catch 22s that gcharlie posted about. I also believe this is due to her perverse nature. None of this behavior benefits her in the long view but it does provide more opportunities to repeat creating problems.

 

[shiloh42]

Found a few things on the internet about a lawyer withdrawing from a case...

"However, abandonment may be acceptable even if it harms the client's interests, especially if the client has done something wrong. For example, a lawyer can walk away if the client is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, if he's using the lawyer to perpetuate his illegal scheme, or if the client asks the lawyer to do something illegal himself. Deadbeat clients also risk abandonment, as do those who refuse to cooperate in their own representation."

Then "Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to take the stand in their own defense. Occasionally, one of them tells his lawyer in advance that his entire line of testimony will be lies. This scenario presents what legal scholar Monroe Freedman famously referred to as the lawyer's "trilemma." The attorney has an obligation to fight for the client's interests, a responsibility to identify perjury to the court, and a duty to keep his client's secrets. Because the client has put the attorney in a situation in which it's impossible to fulfill all three professional obligations, some lawyers see this as a situation that demands withdrawal. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. As mentioned above, an attorney can't withdraw in the middle of litigation without the judge's permission, and it's indisputably unethical for an advocate to directly inform the judge that his client is a liar. What usually happens in these cases is that the lawyer approaches the bench and asks to beg off the case for vague "ethical reasons." The judge, knowing exactly what's going on, typically denies the request, because the jury would smell a rat if the lawyer were to disappear right before the defendant took the stand."

-Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/04/pulling_out.html

Also, much more prosaically, Wikipedia says a lawyer can *ask* if the financial burden on the lawyer is too great, or the client refuses to follow the advice of counsel, or engages in acts relating to the representation without informing the attorney or seeking the attorney's advice. (BBM).

I find that last one intriguing in the light of the subpoena. Could it be they know/suspect she's been in phone contact with someone and trying to get them to perjure on her behalf in the penalty phase or otherwise engage in something illegal? Hmmm.

Another web site put it a different way "..the client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent". Although I can't imagine anything KN would find repugnant..... (snark).

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Found a few things on the internet about a lawyer withdrawing from a case...

"However, abandonment may be acceptable even if it harms the client's interests, especially if the client has done something wrong. For example, a lawyer can walk away if the client is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, if he's using the lawyer to perpetuate his illegal scheme, or if the client asks the lawyer to do something illegal himself. Deadbeat clients also risk abandonment, as do those who refuse to cooperate in their own representation."

Then "Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to take the stand in their own defense. Occasionally, one of them tells his lawyer in advance that his entire line of testimony will be lies. This scenario presents what legal scholar Monroe Freedman famously referred to as the lawyer's "trilemma." The attorney has an obligation to fight for the client's interests, a responsibility to identify perjury to the court, and a duty to keep his client's secrets. Because the client has put the attorney in a situation in which it's impossible to fulfill all three professional obligations, some lawyers see this as a situation that demands withdrawal. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. As mentioned above, an attorney can't withdraw in the middle of litigation without the judge's permission, and it's indisputably unethical for an advocate to directly inform the judge that his client is a liar. What usually happens in these cases is that the lawyer approaches the bench and asks to beg off the case for vague "ethical reasons." The judge, knowing exactly what's going on, typically denies the request, because the jury would smell a rat if the lawyer were to disappear right before the defendant took the stand."

-Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/04/pulling_out.html

Also, much more prosaically, Wikipedia says a lawyer can *ask* if the financial burden on the lawyer is too great, or the client refuses to follow the advice of counsel, or engages in acts relating to the representation without informing the attorney or seeking the attorney's advice. (BBM).

I find that last one intriguing in the light of the subpoena. Could it be they know/suspect she's been in phone contact with someone and trying to get them to perjure on her behalf in the penalty phase or otherwise engage in something illegal? Hmmm.

Another web site put it a different way "..the client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent". Although I can't imagine anything KN would find repugnant..... (snark).

Interesting! And the fact that the ex parte meeting was sans Jodi, I'm wondering if Jodi has been illegally accepting funds for art work or something else.

It's clear that her own lawyers don't trust her--they subpoenaed her phone records because I guess Jodi doesn't share her case with her own lawyers.

I'm hoping that this next phase will make Jodi sorry that the first jury didn't send her to death row--I think more damaging things are going to find their way into this "mini-trial" that Jodi does not want anyone to know. *fingers crossed!*:floorlaugh:

 

[gcharlie]

Just posted within the last two hours online:

Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
8/29/2013 REQ - Request - Party (001) 8/29/2013
NOTE: DEFENDANT'S RENEWDED REQUEST TO SEQUESTER HER JURY

This is not unexpected. It would be more surprising not to see this request renewed.

I did have to smirk at the fact that the defendant is possessive about "her" jury. :floorlaugh:

 

[geevee]

Just posted within the last two hours online:

Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
8/29/2013 REQ - Request - Party (001) 8/29/2013
NOTE: DEFENDANT'S RENEWDED REQUEST TO SEQUESTER HER JURY

This is not unexpected. It would be more surprising not to see this request renewed.

I did have to smirk at the fact that the defendant is possessive about "her" jury. :floorlaugh:

It worked so well in the Levi Chavez case, but if she gets on the stand and starts calling them that I think I'll faint. lol

Do they ever sequester juries in AZ?

 

[MeeBee]

It worked so well in the Levi Chavez case, but if she gets on the stand and starts calling them that I think I'll faint. lol

Do they ever sequester juries in AZ?

An admin on the JJ fan page said that AZ juries are usually never sequestered due to budget constraints in AZ. But they said it's possible the judge could make an exception for this phase.

 

[Tuba]

From just her review of To Kill a Mockingbird, we see what she thinks of juries (who harbor their own resentments & vengeances) especially when we add that to the "disappointment" in her jury expressed on television. Any approach attempted now is patently phony; she's already spit her wad.

 

[gcharlie]

County Attorney Bill Montgomery spoke on this topic back in April, expressing concern about the amount of media attention. According to the article, Arizona seldom sequesters juries.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/21896089/2013/04/05/montgomery-sequestration-shouldve-been-considered-in-arias-trial

Depending on how opposing counsel agree to present the guilt and aggravation phases to the new jury, it is conceivable that the retrial could take considerably less time than the original trial. If CMJA does not take the stand, 18 days is already lopped off, which is almost one calendar month. ALV was on the stand for two weeks, and she has publicly stated that she will not appear in court again.

I'd be curious to hear some experts discuss this. Discuss, not yell over each other.