Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/29 thru 2/2 - Break

[krkrjx]

Upon reflection and reading other posters on this I have to agree with you. Nothing really bad about the questions just not having anything to do with mitigation. The sex life of DR and TA have nothing to do with JA killing him in such a brutal way. Also the religious questions don't seem to have anything to do with her mitigation either. It just confused me.:thinking:

Sorry, samspace, if I misunderstood one of your previous posts. I thought you were concerned about juror questions not being appropriate and I said not to worry because they coincided with testimony (based on what JW asked of DR). However, if your concern is that the questions asked by attorneys of the witnesses are not appropriate, I agree completely that they have little if anything to do with mitigation. And considering this is supposed to be a mitigation phase of trial, that does make the questions "bad" (inappropriate for what really should be happening in this phase).

 

[samspace070]

She is still pretending that she is being forced not to testify, yes. The ramifications are zero IMO unless the AZ Supreme Court collectively suffers a head injury.

If she gets the DP, the AZ Supreme Court is required to hear her appeal. There will no doubt also be a federal habeas petition down the line, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The point is that it does not violate her constitutional rights to have a public trial, so yes it will be an appeal issue but no it will not be a successful appeal issue.



Hearsay on both ends is allowed, which is why the Bishop was allowed to say that his family members told him they never saw Travis on that computer, and nephew Tommy told him that cousin Jake told him that Jake did something that caused the pop-up naked ladies on the computer.

I don't think there's any hearsay evidence that Jodi slashed Travis's tires. The problem with the tire-slashing is that there's no evidence at all against Jodi--just suspicion.

I seem to remember there was a text to JA accusing her of slashing his tires. She texted back she didn't do it and didn't know who would. Am I mis-remembering again?:thinking:

 

[Hatfield]

What is the name of JSS's next DP case? I hope KN and JW are not the attorneys. JM might need a break as well. I actually think JSS is a very smart cookie. She will have learnt a lot from presiding over the Arias trial. No doubt she will do some things differently the second time around: smart people sometimes just have to plough into things so they can figure it out for next time. JSS has had to do this without creating grounds for appeal. These cases must be a lot for a judge to handle. They must be physically and emotionally draining. (Before this is over, JSS will almost certainly get carpal tunnel syndrome from hitting the white noise button in her court castle.) JSS rarely seems to get sick: that's impressive. And did someone say JSS doesn't even have a clerk? Does she have paralegals? Assistants? I feel so sorry for her sometimes: it's easy to be critical while forgetting that she is privy to a whole lot more about JA than we are.

JMO
First I really like her as a person. She seems really nice and as a personal acquaintance she seems very nice.

With that said

I think she has done quite poorly in these specific areas:

1-She did not keep the LENGTH of the 2 trials down to a reasonable time frame.
Which has directly contributed to the huge cost of this trial. There are many things she could have done better to shorten the length of this trial.

Things like:
1A-not allowing the ridiculous number of sidebars
1B-rejecting a lot of Nurmi's items immediately from the bench, and not taking them under consideration overnight and in some cases days
1C-not allowing redundant questioning from the DT
1D-not allowing either side to go into totally unrelated material that had nothing to do with the trial.
1E-Scheduling court days MUCH MUCH more agressively. This 2 or 3 days a week has been ridiculous. And the days themselves were never full days.

2-She let the fear of future appeals dictate her decisions.
The perfect example was when she broke the Constitution and had to be corrected by Court of Appeals. She needs to be confident that so long as she follows the letter of the law, she can still be firm in her decisions to deny the DT whenever it is valid to do so. You cannot just agree to give the DT everything they ask for just because you are afraid of future appeals. Especially when that request is illegal to do so.

3-She needs to treat both sides fairly.
There were numerous instances where she did not give the Prosecution the same level of courtousy and fairness as she was giving the DT. A good example was when she let the DT totally ridicule Juan + Flores in front of the jury. Not acceptable for either side to do that.

4-She needs to be more considerate and respectful of the Jurors time and service.
Seldom do we see her acknowledging or respecting their time and service. Especially when there are numerous delays and special start times later than normal. The impression I get is that she tosses them around like baggage.

I am sure she will learn from this trial and I hope she can improve in these areas.

 

[Val1]

She is still pretending that she is being forced not to testify, yes. The ramifications are zero IMO unless the AZ Supreme Court collectively suffers a head injury.

If she gets the DP, the AZ Supreme Court is required to hear her appeal. There will no doubt also be a federal habeas petition down the line, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The point is that it does not violate her constitutional rights to have a public trial, so yes it will be an appeal issue but no it will not be a successful appeal issue.



Hearsay on both ends is allowed, which is why the Bishop was allowed to say that his family members told him they never saw Travis on that computer, and nephew Tommy told him that cousin Jake told him that Jake did something that caused the pop-up naked ladies on the computer.

I don't think there's any hearsay evidence that Jodi slashed Travis's tires. The problem with the tire-slashing is that there's no evidence at all against Jodi--just suspicion.

BBM - How about the written word? Iirc there is both TA accusing her of slashing his tires(saying he "knows" it was her) and of course JA's written denial... I would think just the fact that TA voiced his belief that it was her should have been allowed in and then let the jury decide, given the circumstances of when it occurred, as to whether JA's denial that although she admits to being all these other things TA called her, she's never been violent, has any merit.

 

[Irisha]

I went to the dark side, BRB going to dunk my head in a bucket of bleach.:banghead:

Is this greek goddess they speak of Cha Cha?:laughing:

AS far as I know, the only ‘Mormon warning’ letter was sent to Lisa Andrews.
I’ve always thought it was from someone being possessive of Lisa – she had an ex with a questionable reputation.
But our greek goddess Maria says it seems more a woman’s voice to her – so maybe Deanna?

 

[decemberbee45]

I went to the dark side, BRB going to dunk my head in a bucket of bleach.:banghead:

Is this greek goddess they speak of Cha Cha?:laughing:

AS far as I know, the only ‘Mormon warning’ letter was sent to Lisa Andrews.
I’ve always thought it was from someone being possessive of Lisa – she had an ex with a questionable reputation.
But our greek goddess Maria says it seems more a woman’s voice to her – so maybe Deanna?

Barf.

 

[Val1]

I went to the dark side, BRB going to dunk my head in a bucket of bleach.:banghead:

Is this greek goddess they speak of Cha Cha?:laughing:

AS far as I know, the only ‘Mormon warning’ letter was sent to Lisa Andrews.
I’ve always thought it was from someone being possessive of Lisa – she had an ex with a questionable reputation.
But our greek goddess Maria says it seems more a woman’s voice to her – so maybe Deanna?

I thought it was already pretty much unanimous that the sender/slasher was likely JA...

 

[AZlawyer]

I seem to remember there was a text to JA accusing her of slashing his tires. She texted back she didn't do it and didn't know who would. Am I mis-remembering again?:thinking:

BBM - How about the written word? Iirc there is both TA accusing her of slashing his tires(saying he "knows" it was her) and of course JA's written denial... I would think just the fact that TA voiced his belief that it was her should have been allowed in and then let the jury decide, given the circumstances of when it occurred, as to whether JA's denial that although she admits to being all these other things TA called her, she's never been violent, has any merit.

Accusations based merely on suspicion are not evidence, and neither are denials.

If TA had said, "I saw you run off down the street after my tires were slashed," that might be evidence. His "knowledge" that it was her was, as far as we know, just a very strong although likely correct suspicion.

 

[LinasK]

Can anyone think what the question about moving and what happens in the new temple are about? Is that juror thinking Travis only moved so he could get his recommend back?

Could be about Jodi. Wasn't she baptized in Riverside???

 

[bsk]

She is still pretending that she is being forced not to testify, yes. The ramifications are zero IMO unless the AZ Supreme Court collectively suffers a head injury.

If she gets the DP, the AZ Supreme Court is required to hear her appeal. There will no doubt also be a federal habeas petition down the line, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The point is that it does not violate her constitutional rights to have a public trial, so yes it will be an appeal issue but no it will not be a successful appeal issue.



Hearsay on both ends is allowed, which is why the Bishop was allowed to say that his family members told him they never saw Travis on that computer, and nephew Tommy told him that cousin Jake told him that Jake did something that caused the pop-up naked ladies on the computer.

I don't think there's any hearsay evidence that Jodi slashed Travis's tires. The problem with the tire-slashing is that there's no evidence at all against Jodi--just suspicion.

BBM - But what if Juan got this affidavit out of the blue from some secret witness who says he/she saw her do it? :thinking:

Then DeMarte could read it and say it factored into her thinking that JA is a dangerous BSD psycho, right? :dance:

 

[Amster]

FYI re: Supreme Court action on secret testimony
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/asccalendar.htm

What is this for? I thought they already ruled against JA?

 

[rose222]

I must have forgotten this little tidbit but I just watched an old interview with Deanna on Dr. Drew. The baking cookies thing happened AFTER the slashing tires incident. Poor Deanna. I'll never understand how Travis allowed a woman who slashed all four tires (and more than once) to corner him in the shower.

 

[bsk]

What is this for? I thought they already ruled against JA?

That was the Court of Appeals. The SC refused to issue a stay, but they still have to hear it - though refusing to issue the stay means they are 99% likely to reject JA's position.

 

[Dr. Know?]

I read a post saying BK said JSS had another DP case coming up. It's not the only murder cases JSS presides over. When I started checking her court calendar over the holidays, I found by spot checking some of her scheduled cases she had at least 4. Here is a link to the one I remembered. Christopher Licon murdered his brother and 6 year old nephew.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/christopher_licon_accused_of_m.php

You will probably need to verify at this link below and search his name. Scroll to his last case in the list. It does have the notice of intent for the dp.

2/28/2011 NID - Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

There were other capital murder cases but I've forgotten who they are. just saying...

 

[Amster]

IMO Beth has always been a prosecution leaning but fair reporter. I don't care if she speaks with a colleague (MK) who she sees daily in the courtroom.
She also had dinner with Katiecool and took pics with the Hughes and Deanna

View attachment 68444

That's nice....
I'm sure she is a very nice person. I was only giving my opinion of her as a media person. Agree to disagree, ok?

 

[cricket49]

JMO
First I really like her as a person. She seems really nice and as a personal acquaintance she seems very nice.

With that said

I think she has done quite poorly in these specific areas:

1-She did not keep the LENGTH of the 2 trials down to a reasonable time frame.
Which has directly contributed to the huge cost of this trial. There are many things she could have done better to shorten the length of this trial.

Things like:
1A-not allowing the ridiculous number of sidebars
1B-rejecting a lot of Nurmi's items immediately from the bench, and not taking them under consideration overnight and in some cases days
1C-not allowing redundant questioning from the DT
1D-not allowing either side to go into totally unrelated material that had nothing to do with the trial.
1E-Scheduling court days MUCH MUCH more agressively. This 2 or 3 days a week has been ridiculous. And the days themselves were never full days.

2-She let the fear of future appeals dictate her decisions.
The perfect example was when she broke the Constitution and had to be corrected by Court of Appeals. She needs to be confident that so long as she follows the letter of the law, she can still be firm in her decisions to deny the DT whenever it is valid to do so. You cannot just agree to give the DT everything they ask for just because you are afraid of future appeals. Especially when that request is illegal to do so.

3-She needs to treat both sides fairly.
There were numerous instances where she did not give the Prosecution the same level of courtousy and fairness as she was giving the DT. A good example was when she let the DT totally ridicule Juan + Flores in front of the jury. Not acceptable for either side to do that.

4-She needs to be more considerate and respectful of the Jurors time and service.
Seldom do we see her acknowledging or respecting their time and service. Especially when there are numerous delays and special start times later than normal. The impression I get is that she tosses them around like baggage.

I am sure she will learn from this trial and I hope she can improve in these areas.

:goodpost:

You bring up some excellent points.

Judge Belvin Perry would have taken on these defense attorneys and not put up with their nonsense. He was very respectful of everyone in the court, attorneys, witnesses, the defendant and above all the JURORS. This trial would have been sowed up in 2 months if he resided over this case. JSS could learn so much from way he handled his court cases.

 

[bsk]

I read a post saying BK said JSS had another DP case coming up. It's not the only murder cases JSS presides over. When I started checking her court calendar over the holidays, I found by spot checking some of her scheduled cases she had at least 4. Here is a link to the one I remembered. Christopher Licon murdered his brother and 6 year old nephew.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/christopher_licon_accused_of_m.php

You will probably need to verify at this link below and search his name. Scroll to his last case in the list. It does have the notice of intent for the dp.

2/28/2011 NID - Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

There were other capital murder cases but I've forgotten who they are. just saying...

AZL - It's easy for us to whine but what is the workload like for these poor judges? You've said they don't have clerks, so she has to spend many many hours outside of court doing research, writing stuff up, etc. Yikes! I don't want her job!

 

[LinasK]

I think there is something that non Christians and non Mormons aren't getting so I hope I can make the point for them. If there is ANY individual on earth who can recognize the sin of the person, hate it but still forgive and love them, it is a Christian. I am guessing that Mormons refer to themselves as Christians, I really do not know. We are not so judgmental and rigid as you might believe. All of us came from somewhere. All of us sin every single day! If we love Jesus, we also love that guy who hates us. You don't just love those that love you.

I am able now to recognize that Travis did some things that some would say are sinning. But Jesus would forgive him a thousand times, only by him asking forgiveness. And I certainly believe he was good and decent and had many qualities. I truly believe no Mormon is judging him right now. Listen to his friends who are Mormon. And even his Bishop wasn't there yesterday to condemn him.

I truly believe the persons on the jury who are asking the questions, if they are Mormon, are only doing so for clarification, to make sure they get it right. That's a good thing.

We have good friends who are Mormon and they have a large picture of Jesus up in their house and they identify as Christian as well as Mormon.

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - But what if Juan got this affidavit out of the blue from some secret witness who says he/she saw her do it? :thinking:

Then DeMarte could read it and say it factored into her thinking that JA is a dangerous BSD psycho, right? :dance:

Haha yes, but IMO Dr. DeMarte may decline to say that she relies on the hearsay rantings of anonymous lunatics.

AZL - It's easy for us to whine but what is the workload like for these poor judges? You've said they don't have clerks, so she has to spend many many hours outside of court doing research, writing stuff up, etc. Yikes! I don't want her job!

The workload is pretty tough. She has no legally-trained staff, so she has to work on those rulings herself.

 

[LinasK]

I had trouble processing this reasoning by Monica. Winning? What is she winning?

Maybe it's Charlie Sheen's definition of "winning", like when you get fired!!