Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/15 thru 1/20 Break

[Truth Detector]

Ya know, I have been thinking about this, anyone on the witness list can be called by either side, is that correct?

I know you can't 'spring' a witness on opposing council but can't you call someone from the opposing side also? I have been thinking that Juan would do exactly that- during his rebuttal, if he is allowed to.

AZL?

"Your honor, the Defense calls Detective Esteban Flores." ~ Jennifer Willmott

 

[ohreally]

I do wonder what will happen if Nurmi has the ability to subpoena witnesses, take audio or video interviews and he doesn't. We have seen posted links to verdicts that were overturned for not putting on a mitigating case. Nurmi has stated on record that he has fourteen mitigating witnesses l, and that he has done nothing to compel them to testify. I may be wrong, but IMO, I would think there is a strong case for ineffective counsel. IMO if he doesn't present evidence to the court that he has tried to compel these witnesses to testify then he has dropped the ball, and it would be big chance of retrial.

 

[LinasK]

If Juan called mommy or any other defense witness, he'd be requesting in short order that they be declared hostile witnesses (over vehement defense objections) so he could ask them leading questions. He might be counting on them to lie in a way that's obvious to the jury.

Okay, but that doesn't answer my previous question. So Juan's strategy might be to preempt them and discredit the "Phantom 14" including her family, but... how does Juan calling them have anything to do with avoiding the appeal issue of Ineffective Counsel by the DT not having called them as mitigating witnesses???

 

[LinasK]

I do wonder what will happen if Nurmi has the ability to subpoena witnesses, take audio or video interviews and he doesn't. We have seen posted links to verdicts that were overturned for not putting on a mitigating case. Nurmi has stated on record that he has fourteen mitigating witnesses l, and that he has done nothing to compel them to testify. I may be wrong, but IMO, I would think there is a strong case for ineffective counsel. IMO if he doesn't present evidence to the court that he has tried to compel these witnesses to testify then he has dropped the ball, and it would be big chance of retrial.

How would there be a retrial??? I just don't see it.

 

[Truth Detector]

Just seems odd wording is used.

Now....I am wondering why none of Jodi's family has been subpoenaed by either side.

Does she fear that William and Sandra will be as truthful as they were in their initial interviews with Det. Flores?

Perhaps they aren't the kinds of reliable liars the Defense feels it needs at this stage.

I'm just waiting for another Perry Mason moment like we had with the gas cans.

I don't care who blurts it, takes the bait, falls into it, etc...

 

[bsk]

Okay, but that doesn't answer my previous question. So Juan's strategy might be to preempt them and discredit the "Phantom 14" including her family, but... how does Juan calling them have anything to do with avoiding the appeal issue of Ineffective Counsel by the DT not having called them as mitigating witnesses???

Because the can ask them anything they want on cross. Could they be looking at disbarment if there is proof they lied to the judge (saying they would not testify was obviously false) and then refuse to question the witness once on the stand? That is 100x worse than where they are today it seems to me.

 

[Hez]

I do wonder what will happen if Nurmi has the ability to subpoena witnesses, take audio or video interviews and he doesn't. We have seen posted links to verdicts that were overturned for not putting on a mitigating case. Nurmi has stated on record that he has fourteen mitigating witnesses l, and that he has done nothing to compel them to testify. I may be wrong, but IMO, I would think there is a strong case for ineffective counsel. IMO if he doesn't present evidence to the court that he has tried to compel these witnesses to testify then he has dropped the ball, and it would be big chance of retrial.

I think JSS has made sure there is a record of all this witness BS that the defense team is trying to pull during this phase, so I don't think any ineffective counsel appeal on that issue will fly with the COA. The court has provided the defense with multiple remedies for this issue and if they ignore it, that is not ineffective assistance by counsel, that is just plain stubbornness and stupidity and not a valid appeal issue. :moo:

 

[bsk]

Does she fear that William and Sandra will be as truthful as they were in their initial interviews with Det. Flores?

Perhaps they aren't the kinds of reliable liars the Defense feels it needs at this stage.

I'm just waiting for another Perry Mason moment like we had with the gas cans.

I don't care who blurts it, takes the bait, falls into it, etc...

Who cares if they are truthful - if it gets their statements early on before the jury then it reflects terribly on JA.

 

[bsk]

I think JSS has made sure there is a record of all this witness BS that the defense team is trying to pull during this phase, so I don't think any ineffective counsel appeal on that issue will fly with the COA. The court has provided the defense with multiple remedies for this issue and if they ignore it, that is not ineffective assistance by counsel, that is just plain stubbornness and stupidity and not a valid appeal issue. :moo:

But it's not the poor defendant's fault her atty is stubborn. In fact she tried to get him removed and the judge refused, so she would certainly have grounds.

 

[T-4-2]

Hopefully we've all become pretty jaded about all the "who did what to whom, when, where, how, and how many times" sex talk... because I'm bringing it up again. I'm begining to suspect that not everything Jodi says is true. (Ha! Kidding.) So, in particular, this nonsense in her secret testimony about reciprocal oral sex a week after they first met. Regardless of what she may or may not have told Daryl about "saving herself for marriage, starting (checks watch) now," and regardless of what she thought was OK/not OK for Mormons or what she claims Travis may have told her...here's why There Could Not Possibly Have Been Oral Sex At The Hughes' House After Only Knowing Each Other One Week:

Travis loved and respected Chris and Sky. That is a fact not in dispute. As a guest in their home, he would not have gone sneaking around at night to have a sex tryst with another guest in their home, whose room, according to Jodi, was adjacent to Chris and Sky's. Because, first of all, ew. Second of all, Travis would never have behaved that way in his friends' house! With them on the other side of the wall! And with their kids in the house! Maybe people behave that way in Jodiworld, but thankfully that's not where we live. Might Travis sneak into the kitchen with Jodi for leftovers and a chat? Maybe. But anything even remotely sexual would have been disrespectful to Chris and Sky and even if just for that reason alone, not something Travis would ever have done.

Jodi says in the transcript that she and Travis left Las Vegas on Sunday, then she had "the talk" with Daryl that Thursday because she'd already been invited to Chris and Sky's house for the party that Saturday and she'd also been invited to spend the night and go to church with them the following morning, AND she thought Travis might be there AND she thought "something might happen" because "there's kind of an attraction" etc etc etc... As we know, Jodi the delicate flower/special snowflake would never cheat on a boyfriend, so she had to cut Daryl off before whatever "might happen" with Travis actually "happened." Basically, then, what she's saying is she showed up that Saturday ready for action? But it was Travis who came to her room, right next to Chris and Sky, only a couple of minutes after everyone disbursed for the night, Travis who started kissing her, took her clothes off, initiated sex...?

It's up to the jury, of course, to decide between LWOP and the DP for Jodi. I just wish they could also add a nice loud, flat-palmed slap in the face for the sheer stupidity of her lies. It would also be cool, especially in this case, if the prosecutor had "Right of Moe" over the defendant, defense witnesses, and defense counsel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U

 

[LinasK]

Because the can ask them anything they want on cross. Could they be looking at disbarment if there is proof they lied to the judge (saying they would not testify was obviously false) and then refuse to question the witness once on the stand? That is 100x worse than where they are today it seems to me.

Yeah they can ask them anything they want on cross, but how would that prevent the issue of Ineffective Counsel when they didn't call them in the first place??? It's not Juan's job to do their job for them, only if he feels a pre-emptive strike would be more effective to discredit these witnesses.

 

[LinasK]

But it's not the poor defendant's fault her atty is stubborn. In fact she tried to get him removed and the judge refused, so she would certainly have grounds.

She didn't have basis- she claimed he didn't visit her in jail yet she reported he tried twice, and she refused his visits! Also she wanted him gone so she could represent herself and get in phony evidence like the pedo letters and maybe the . Many defendants will try to fire their lawyers just as a delay tactic because it takes a long time to get a new lawyer up to speed.

 

[LinasK]

Hopefully we've all become pretty jaded about all the "who did what to whom, when, where, how, and how many times" sex talk... because I'm bringing it up again. I'm begining to suspect that not everything Jodi says is true. (Ha! Kidding.) So, in particular, this nonsense in her secret testimony about reciprocal oral sex a week after they first met. Regardless of what she may or may not have told Daryl about "saving herself for marriage, starting (checks watch) now," and regardless of what she thought was OK/not OK for Mormons or what she claims Travis may have told her...here's why There Could Not Possibly Have Been Oral Sex At The Hughes' House After Only Knowing Each Other One Week:

Travis loved and respected Chris and Sky. That is a fact not in dispute. As a guest in their home, he would not have gone sneaking around at night to have a sex tryst with another guest in their home, whose room, according to Jodi, was adjacent to Chris and Sky's. Because, first of all, ew. Second of all, Travis would never have behaved that way in his friends' house! With them on the other side of the wall! And with their kids in the house! Maybe people behave that way in Jodiworld, but thankfully that's not where we live. Might Travis sneak into the kitchen with Jodi for leftovers and a chat? Maybe. But anything even remotely sexual would have been disrespectful to Chris and Sky and even if just for that reason alone, not something Travis would ever have done.

Jodi says in the transcript that she and Travis left Las Vegas on Sunday, then she had "the talk" with Daryl that Thursday because she'd already been invited to Chris and Sky's house for the party that Saturday and she'd also been invited to spend the night and go to church with them the following morning, AND she thought Travis might be there AND she thought "something might happen" because "there's kind of an attraction" etc etc etc... As we know, Jodi the delicate flower/special snowflake would never cheat on a boyfriend, so she had to cut Daryl off before whatever "might happen" with Travis actually "happened." Basically, then, what she's saying is she showed up that Saturday ready for action? But it was Travis who came to her room, right next to Chris and Sky, only a couple of minutes after everyone disbursed for the night, Travis who started kissing her, took her clothes off, initiated sex...?

It's up to the jury, of course, to decide between LWOP and the DP for Jodi. I just wish they could also add a nice loud, flat-palmed slap in the face for the sheer stupidity of her lies. It would also be cool, especially in this case, if the prosecutor had "Right of Moe" over the defendant, defense witnesses, and defense counsel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U

This is my special snowflake smiley::snowflake:

 

[5bigfish5]

-

Does anyone remember the year Jodi Ann was hired at Ventana? TIA. Just an FYI, I have never believed that Jodi and Daryl waited until Daryl stepped down as her boss to start their affair, or that they waited an entire year after her hiring to begin sleeping together.

NO WAY Brewer's rendition of the time line is correct.

And Jodi's?? Nebbermind.

 

[T-4-2]

If Juan called mommy or any other defense witness, he'd be requesting in short order that they be declared hostile witnesses (over vehement defense objections) so he could ask them leading questions. He might be counting on them to lie in a way that's obvious to the jury.

If they lie about anything they told Det. Flores, couldn't JM bring Det. Flores back to the stand and/or show the tapes of the parents talking with him?

 

[5bigfish5]

ive always attributed the extra money she had on her to turning tricks whenever and wherever she needed it. i have also always wondered that before she went to mesa to fullfill her final chapter with travis, she borrowed money off of paul stern in that cafe, or whatever it was, and told him she needed to go to mesa and fix things with her boyfriend. on her way she made 3 deposits totalling what - $7-800 ? i've never read anywhere how she came up with the money to pay him back when she got back to yreka. he was on hln stating that she did pay him back. and we know there was only a short period of time before she was arrested, so its not like she was holding a job and earned that much money to pay him back. any ideas? maybe she hacked travis's bank accts after she murdered him, and if thats the case, wouldnt that be in the testimony? always wondered where she got the money to pay him back.

I will always believe Travis had a bit of cash, in anticipation of the Cancun trip. Lord knows Jodi had free rein in his house for a while.

She might have not only repaid Stern, but also bought the new gun with it.

Before you pooh-pooh the idea, remember, Travis was ONTO Jodi, he may have decided to ONLY use cash, so Jodi couldn't track his activities in Cancun, via his credit cards..

 

[ohreally]

How would there be a retrial??? I just don't see it.

I think that is what the appeals process does. If she gets the DP she will get an automatic appeal. It is my understanding that they will look through the case for any errors. The appeals court can uphold the conviction, lower the penalty or give the defendant a new trial. That is my understanding, but I am not a lawyer or even in the business of law.

 

[bsk]

Yeah they can ask them anything they want on cross, but how would that prevent the issue of Ineffective Counsel when they didn't call them in the first place??? It's not Juan's job to do their job for them, only if he feels a pre-emptive strike would be more effective to discredit these witnesses.

But doesn't it then switch from "DT says they refused to testify" to "they testified but DT refuses to ask questions". It seems to me to put much more pressure on the DT to act, because if they get brought before whatever the legal ethics board is over it, how could they defend refusing to ask questions? They can spend days and days of inane carp but they refuse to ask any key questions when the person is sitting in front of them? Would they be willing to put their license to practice in jeopardy?

She didn't have basis- she claimed he didn't visit her in jail yet she reported he tried twice, and she refused his visits! Also she wanted him gone so she could represent herself and get in phony evidence like the pedo letters and maybe the . Many defendants will try to fire their lawyers just as a delay tactic because it takes a long time to get a new lawyer up to speed.

Lawyers don't have to like their clients; they just need to defend them. Maybe this is why he's filing all these motions - to get the best of both worlds: He protests that he was effective "Hey look at all these motions!" while at the same time it's not his fault that he couldn't get witnesses to testify because of the judge's unfairness, the prosecution's yelling, the internet's meanness, etc.

 

[ohreally]

I think JSS has made sure there is a record of all this witness BS that the defense team is trying to pull during this phase, so I don't think any ineffective counsel appeal on that issue will fly with the COA. The court has provided the defense with multiple remedies for this issue and if they ignore it, that is not ineffective assistance by counsel, that is just plain stubbornness and stupidity and not a valid appeal issue. :moo:

I hope your right that she has crossed her t's and dotted her i's.

 

[Truth Detector]

Hopefully we've all become pretty jaded about all the "who did what to whom, when, where, how, and how many times" sex talk... because I'm bringing it up again. I'm begining to suspect that not everything Jodi says is true. (Ha! Kidding.) So, in particular, this nonsense in her secret testimony about reciprocal oral sex a week after they first met. Regardless of what she may or may not have told Daryl about "saving herself for marriage, starting (checks watch) now," and regardless of what she thought was OK/not OK for Mormons or what she claims Travis may have told her...here's why There Could Not Possibly Have Been Oral Sex At The Hughes' House After Only Knowing Each Other One Week:

Travis loved and respected Chris and Sky. That is a fact not in dispute. As a guest in their home, he would not have gone sneaking around at night to have a sex tryst with another guest in their home, whose room, according to Jodi, was adjacent to Chris and Sky's. Because, first of all, ew. Second of all, Travis would never have behaved that way in his friends' house! With them on the other side of the wall! And with their kids in the house! Maybe people behave that way in Jodiworld, but thankfully that's not where we live. Might Travis sneak into the kitchen with Jodi for leftovers and a chat? Maybe. But anything even remotely sexual would have been disrespectful to Chris and Sky and even if just for that reason alone, not something Travis would ever have done.

Jodi says in the transcript that she and Travis left Las Vegas on Sunday, then she had "the talk" with Daryl that Thursday because she'd already been invited to Chris and Sky's house for the party that Saturday and she'd also been invited to spend the night and go to church with them the following morning, AND she thought Travis might be there AND she thought "something might happen" because "there's kind of an attraction" etc etc etc... As we know, Jodi the delicate flower/special snowflake would never cheat on a boyfriend, so she had to cut Daryl off before whatever "might happen" with Travis actually "happened." Basically, then, what she's saying is she showed up that Saturday ready for action? But it was Travis who came to her room, right next to Chris and Sky, only a couple of minutes after everyone disbursed for the night, Travis who started kissing her, took her clothes off, initiated sex...?

It's up to the jury, of course, to decide between LWOP and the DP for Jodi. I just wish they could also add a nice loud, flat-palmed slap in the face for the sheer stupidity of her lies. It would also be cool, especially in this case, if the prosecutor had "Right of Moe" over the defendant, defense witnesses, and defense counsel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U

Yes, but ALV said that JA was vulnerable and had trouble with setting boundaries:

Willmott: Okay, and did she speak to you about her being uncomfortable with that type of sex?

LaViolette: She said she was uncomfortable because she thought it was too fast, too soon, but she didn’t exactly know how to stop it.

Willmott: Alright, and she ultimately went through with it, obviously, right?

LaViolette: She did, she did go through with it.

Willmott: The fact that she was uncomfortable with the too fast too soon, but then goes through with it, what does that, is that important to you?

LaViolette: Well, the way it would be important to me is to look at it in a broader context, but certainly I think, one of the things that happens is that for many young women, it is very difficult to say no, especially if they are attracted to someone.

Martinez: Objection, other folks.

Stephens: Sustained.

Willmott: With regards to your expertise, do you speak to other women about these types of situations?

LaViolette: Yes, I have.

Willmott: And what do you learn from these other women?

Martinez: Objection, relevance.

Stephens: Overruled.

LaViolette: That when they feel pressured, they’re not sure how to stand up for themselves. Now this certainly isn’t every woman, I’m not trying to say that at all, but when you’re a more vulnerable woman, when you’re not a real assertive woman, and maybe when your boundaries aren’t as good, you’re much more likely. And when people are vulnerable their boundaries tend not to be as good, then saying no can be a more difficult thing.

Willmott: Alright, you said a couple of things in there, vulnerable and boundaries. Does that, does this instance tell you anything about what Jodi might have been going through at this time, with regard to her vulnerability or setting boundaries?

LaViolette: It speaks to both of those things. That she was vulnerable, which was about coming out of that relationship, that she wanted stability which she talked about, that she met someone who appeared to be very stable, who was of a faith that really supported and appreciated family, and that she was probably not real strong with her boundaries, or her ability to say no. And some people are better at that than others.
​

Oh, you know.

JA was a victim of soikumstance.

[video=youtube;sxAk3B_zS5k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxAk3B_zS5k[/video]