Post Verdict -Working Out The Unresolved Questions

[Tuba]

Reading expressions at the close of the August 26 moment in court, C.M. is smug in a vengeful triumph, "I sold you a bill of goods, J.W., and you more the fool, bought it." J.W. is solidly self-possessed but somewhat abashed from the available side views. I could say crushed and even hurt.

 

[Sweetiemom]

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:

Her Jury-her trial, her lawyers, What else does she have? Nothing, just a small cell with a bunk, desk, and toilet-and none of it is really hers. What a life!

 

[Tulessa]

Her Jury-her trial, her lawyers, What else does she have? Nothing, just a small cell with a bunk, desk, and toilet-and none if it is really hers. What a life!

Thank you sweetie. This makes my day that much more special, knowing I can sit on the deck, drink my peach tea, and yell howdy y'all, to my neighbors. :seeya:

ETA: There only three homes in the head of my hollow. :floorlaugh:

 

[geevee]

MaryEllen Resendez ‏@maryellenabc15 6m #jodiarias defense attysfile motion asking once again to sequester jury in retrial. AZ hasn't' sequestered jury members 4 over 80 yrs.
---

Odds look slim.

 

[PMLsmom]

Where are y'all reading these book reviews CM is giving??? TIA

 

[Tuba]

Just put Jodi's Page in your favorite search engine. Her pages are available to one and all.

 

[geevee]

Just put Jodi's Page in your favorite search engine. Her pages are available to one and all.

I don't see any tweets regarding the book club on her page anymore, wonder why they thought her posting that was a bad idea?

 

[shiloh42]

MaryEllen Resendez ‏@maryellenabc15 6m #jodiarias defense attysfile motion asking once again to sequester jury in retrial. AZ hasn't' sequestered jury members 4 over 80 yrs.
---

Odds look slim.

Um, the jury in the Pioneer Hotel Fire (1971) was sequestered.

 

[geevee]

Dr. Randle wrote an article on the subpoena and one of the commenters said the defense filed this so they could hear what the prosecution and State heard in the calls - when did the prosecution hear the calls? Wouldn't they have to subpoena them as well?

Some good points are made amoung the comments but I'm still curious about someone with a JD behind their name (and says they know the inner workings of a trial) thinking JM has already been privvy to all of JA's calls since the beginning of the trial. Can the prosecution just mosey over to the jail at will and listen to her phone calls?

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/why-does-jodi-ariass-defense-team-want-to-hear-her-phone-calls/

 

[LambChop]

Dr. Randle wrote an article on the subpoena and one of the commenters said the defense filed this so they could hear what the prosecution and State heard in the calls - when did the prosecution hear the calls? Wouldn't they have to subpoena them as well?

Some good points are made amoung the comments but I'm still curious about someone with a JD behind their name (and says they know the inner workings of a trial) thinking JM has already been privvy to all of JA's calls since the beginning of the trial. Can the prosecution just mosey over to the jail at will and listen to her phone calls?

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/why-does-jodi-ariass-defense-team-want-to-hear-her-phone-calls/

I'm thinking if there were some wrong doing on JA's part in her telephone conversations the jail would notify the State. If that were the case I would think defense would want to know what she said in all her conversations between January 1st and August 1st so they could be prepared to try to keep those conversations out of the next phase of the trial. I'm not sure how defense would be able to get them other than to subpoena them. jmo

 

[gcharlie]

Who would be able to answer questions about interactions between MCSO and the County Attorney's office? There are a lot of assumptions being made and we don't know the real answers here.

AZlawyer was surprised that the DT would subpoena these records; the response inferred that this opened the door for the prosecution to review all conversations, or stating it differently that the prosecution does not have automatic access to this information.

This makes sense to me.

The jail would be recording communication to protect staff and inmates, detect contraband and the like. They would not be doing this to gather information about pending court proceedings, IMO.

This makes me even more curious about why MCSO confiscated her journal(s) back at the beginning of April. They had to have had some basis for doing so, which would have been a jail rule infraction, or so it would seem. I never saw an answer to the motion, so I don't know what happened to the journal(s).

 

[Tuba]

The tweet that made me sit up and take notice was the invitation on her page to any producers who would like to make a film that told the truth unlike Dirty Little Secret. She would not have removed that on her own recognizance. Her attorneys may have given her a general warning about the content & nature of her tweets or they may have read that specific tweet. Then, they would want to know what other damaging material was going back and forth on the phone wires. For all they know she is angling for such a t.v. movie. They are not in the same position as the prosecution, which is an arm of the executive just as the sheriff is.

 

[MeeBee]

I was under the impression that the Sheriff's Dept. would turn over the calls to the state if there was something in them they thought they needed to hear just as they did with the magazine codes. They caught what she was doing and turned the mags over to the state. Wouldn't it be the same for phone records and recordings? Is this something the state can get from the MCSO without needing a subpoena? As lamb said, they both work for the govt. And pros. offices work in conjunction with LE, right?

 

[Tuba]

Correct.

 

[Tulessa]

The tweet that made me sit up and take notice was the invitation on her page to any producers who would like to make a film that told the truth unlike Dirty Little Secret. She would not have removed that on her own recognizance. Her attorneys may have given her a general warning about the content & nature of her tweets or they may have read that specific tweet. Then, they would want to know what other damaging material was going back and forth on the phone wires. For all they know she is angling for such a t.v. movie. They are not in the same position as the prosecution, which is an arm of the executive just as the sheriff is.

I didn't see this tweet. Do you have a link?

 

[LambChop]

This is a guess on my part but I would think that just normal chit chat or giving directions what to write in a tweet would not be reported to the State. However if the call were, for example to a person in order for them to do her a favor that was unlawful it would be reported immediately to the State. The magazines appears to have been an unlawful act in an attempt to influence a witness' testimony. Apparently JA has no fear of consequences which should be brought to the attention of a jury that is in charge of her sentencing. So could this be the major concern of her defense team right now? Are the doors open since she has been found guilty regarding evidence that was once considered "too prejudicial"? If she cannot control her behavior now it might be important information a juror needs to know regarding her sentencing and whether or not she should ever be set free. jmo

 

[gcharlie]

I didn't see this tweet. Do you have a link?

I'll look for a link...for now, here is the tweet:

#jodiArias can't get over herself! RT @Jodiannarias: I heard about Lifetime's hatchet job thinly disguised as "creative liberties." Any producers interested in making a film about the truth?

She deleted this tweet, so the best I will be able to do is find a retweet, if that. The tweet was made in early August, IIRC.

 

[MeeBee]

It's possible Juan asked for the recordings because he plans on bringing up her tweeting and just needs to make sure he has the indisputable proof. Or some such.

BUT if that were the case wouldn't these records and recordings be turned over to the defense on discovery anyway? So why the subpoena if Juan already has them? Unless he just hasn't turned them over yet and they can't wait. Or maybe they just want to beat Juan to the punch.

A lot of questions. Hope we get some answers soon?

 

[LambChop]

I'll look for a link...for now, here is the tweet:

#jodiArias can't get over herself! RT @Jodiannarias: I heard about Lifetime's hatchet job thinly disguised as "creative liberties." Any producers interested in making a film about the truth?

She deleted this tweet, so the best I will be able to do is find a retweet, if that. The tweet was made in early August, IIRC.

I thought we heard the truth from her for 18 days while she was on the stand?????

 

[Tuba]

We have to keep in mind that there is material the teamsters would not want their client publishing, even though the prosecutor were indifferent to it. The interests of the defense and of the prosecution are not the same. On the other hand, some matter that C.M. is involved in may be of concern to both sides. We also have to realize that the sheriff's dept. wants C.M. to comply with the rules but their monitoring is not legally sophisticated. They can't be expected to judge what is helpful or injurious to either side in terms of case implications.