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

[bsk]

I'm Canadian therefore never really studied American law except for some high-profile cases and ID Channel.

But, is it really up to the judge to do the DTs legwork? I mean, come on, she has given them "creative" options. It's not like she is not doing her best to accommodate.

IANAL but I would think it is incumbent upon the judge if she thinks counsel is telling her a lie and/or trying to set up for overturning by manipulating the system (all while collecting a fat paycheck) then I would think it's her duty to do *something*. We're well ionto AZL territory in this discussion - I hope she can offer some expert insight into duties and responsibilities and possibilities.

 

[LambChop]

:seeya:

Don't forget COURT tomorrow, Tuesday Jan 20 !

:waitasec: But then again, ya never know what may happen in this case.

Prediction: Nurmi will begin the day by screaming about something or file another frivolous motion :gaah:

Anyone remember what time it is supposed to start ?

TIA !

The judge said full days, so I'm thinking 9:30 AZ time.

 

[LinasK]

IANAL but I would think it is incumbent upon the judge if she thinks counsel is telling her a lie and/or trying to set up for overturning by manipulating the system (all while collecting a fat paycheck) then I would think it's her duty to do *something*. We're well ionto AZL territory in this discussion - I hope she can offer some expert insight into duties and responsibilities and possibilities.

We need the Bat Signal for AZL...

 

[KPinMN]

So, my question is why aren't they being subpoena'd? Or maybe they are?

Iirc, the defense has argued that if they're subpoenaed they won't be truthful. That argument seems like utter hogwash to me since most people fear/ respect the authority of the court and legal system, at least those I know do, so if they're subpoenaed they'd be just as likely to be truthful, if not more likely, than if they weren't subpoenaed and testified.

 

[knt42]

Since then judge stated in one of the motions, that they are permitted to recall John Smith again regarding having more time to analyse the 2008 copy of the Hardrive if more findings are found. Do any of you think that John Smith with replace Geffner tomorrow to testify on more of the porn on the computer issue to delay things further?

 

[ElleElle]

Iirc, the defense has argued that if they're subpoenaed they won't be truthful. That argument seems like utter hogwash to me since most people fear/ respect the authority of the court and legal system, at least those I know do, so if they're subpoenaed they'd be just as likely to be truthful, if not more likely, than if they weren't subpoenaed and testified.

Exactly. If I was subpoenaed to testify in a murder case, I would take it very seriously. Why would they lie? They should be able to answer the questions truthfully, and as well know, if they did that, it would contradict what Jodi says.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Keep your eyes open for a cast or a wrist brace!!! Or expect a migraine...

:hilarious: Yep ... maybe she'll show up in a full body cast ... lol

No doubt, she's been punching and kicking walls since those motions were denied !

 

[bsk]

Iirc, the defense has argued that if they're subpoenaed they won't be truthful. That argument seems like utter hogwash to me since most people fear/ respect the authority of the court and legal system, at least those I know do, so if they're subpoenaed they'd be just as likely to be truthful, if not more likely, than if they weren't subpoenaed and testified.

That didn't stop him from putting his client on the stand. :drumroll:

 

[KPinMN]

"The Court has indicated it's willing to consider creative ways to protect the privacy interest of potential witnesses...If a witness is unwilling to testify voluntarily, the defendant may subpoena that witness to testify to assure the jury has the benefit of the testimony. Alternatively, that testimony could be provided through an affidavit, videotaped statement or the testimony of the mitigation specialist or another witness."

http://ktar.com/305/1800120/Legally-Speaking-What-is-on-tap-next-in-the-Jodi-Arias-case

EXACTLY!!! These all seem like decent options for those truly afraid to testify in the traditional sense. When I read that in the ruling it made it crystal clear to me the defense argument is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the court. If people don't want to testify for fear things that reflect poorly on them will be revealed in cross, then I'd say they probably had little mitigation value considering the jury is less likely to give much weight to a shady appearing witness. Iirc, this is more or less what happened with Patty Womack.

 

[Truth Detector]

Oh yeah, she got posted an M.L.K. quote with a selfie tracing of her- it's posted in the Sidebar thread, that appears to me to be a subtle threat to the Phantom 14 if they don't testify for her...

"Friends"?

The TV show, perhaps?

"friends"?

What friends?

She has no friends.

 

[bsk]

Since then judge stated in one of the motions, that they are permitted to recall John Smith again regarding having more time to analyse the 2008 copy of the Hardrive if more findings are found. Do any of you think that John Smith with replace Geffner tomorrow to testify on more of the porn on the computer issue to delay things further?

Who knows with these guys. Maybe KN will say that he learned at 9:29am that Geff had come down with the flu and he didn't have any other witnesses ready.

 

[bsk]

View attachment 67761

"Friends"?

The TV show, perhaps?

"friends"?

What friends?

She has no friends.

She's in some deep caca now! The King heirs will be going after her for copyright violations. :gaah:

 

[mydirtysecret]

If i understand the constitution, Whether she puts up 14 witnesses or 1 charcter witness(es) is not substantive enough to argue ineffective counsel, a violation of her sixth amendment. She isn't required to put up any, and the abscense of character witnesses is not the absense of counsel. Now, if her attorney chose not put up ANY witnesses, especially experts to dispute things like DNA findings would be a potential appealable issue because it would be substantive in the outcome of the trial. But, the chance of Jodi arias 4 million dollar defense is zero to none to be successfully argued for ineffective anything. We are making mountains out of molehills for nothing on this witness situation.

 

[Love Never Fails]

What I truly found chilling was the article mentioned on his/her twitter(anyone want to send a copy to JA's mom/dad, perhaps it will resonate...):

"This may be what #JodiArias family was dealing with, to a greater or lesser degree"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ar-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

I have spent the last hour reading and trying to understand this article. Chilling! Thanks.

 

[KPinMN]

View attachment 67761

"Friends"?

The TV show, perhaps?

"friends"?

What friends?

She has no friends.

Geez, it's dinner time! I nearly lost my proverbial cookies looking at a jail selfie of CMJA using an MLK quote to describe her situation. She's so mind blowingly delusional!

 

[Truth Detector]

I have to recant the aspersions I cast about JA's lack of friends.

Upon further reflection, I think it entirely possible that Marissa DeVault and Casey Anthony would be willing to testi-lie on her behalf.

If they're not too frightened of her, that is.

 

[LinasK]

I have to recant the aspersions I cast about JA's lack of friends.

Upon further reflection, I think it entirely possible that Marissa DeVault and Casey Anthony would be willing to testi-lie on her behalf.

If they're not too frightened of her, that is.

Let's not give her any ideas. Casey probably laughs at Jodi thinking how much better of a liar she (Casey) is because she got off.

 

[MeeBee]

This is what i'm thinking is the strategy.

If they don't testify for whatever lame reason, Jodi won't testify.

If she doesn't testify, then, only then, she may say she never had a fair trial because she never had the chance to testify because her witnesses' couldn't.

Jodi's ability to testify is in no way dependant on if anyone else testifies. She has a right to testify and a right not to tesify. If the don't call these witnesses nothing is preventing her from getting back on the stand. She can only say she didn't get a fair trial if someone prevents her from testifyjng and no one is doing that. Besides Nurmi was probably never going to call these people anyway and she still testified.

 

[Luvrosco]

She's in some deep caca now! The King heirs will be going after her for copyright violations. :gaah:

Lol, I would love for that to happen.

 

[mydirtysecret]

She cited the quote. Im not sure she infringed upon their copyrights. But I digress