Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[Hope4More]

(snipped for space)

I could not agree more! It is exactly what I said in the Anthony case when the defense was allowed to say anything they could dream up and point the finger of guilt at someone else. Not only does the defense have no responsibility to prove anything, what they say does not even have to be true, while the state must prove everything they assert every step of the way.

And another thing radically wrong with our system is the appeals process. If a witness says or does something they should not and it is objected to and the objection is overruled, one side has a right to appeal if they choose; the other has no such recourse. One side has legal right to pick apart every single ruling by the judge and every sideways glance by a juror and request a do-over, and the appeals courts more often than they should are willing to hear them out and go over every word of their claim with a fine-tooth comb looking for a reason to overturn.

The scales of justice are tipped to one side. It was not always this way but our system has morphed into something that is more about winning and less about justice and holding criminals responsible for their actions.

I think DP cases unavoidably turn the trial process upside down. We bend over backwards to protect the rights of the accused because we aren't barbarians, because we believe in the rule of law, and because our very country and system of government were founded in part out of deep suspicion of authorities with too much power.

IMO, those intentions are honorable and appropriate, especially when the State is proposing to take a life at trial's end. But, I think the weight of that responsibility does skew the process. Judges, afraid of appeals, tilt to the defense, giving the defense great latitude, just in case. The State has to make a case for guilt that goes beyond reasonable doubt; though not on paper, the standard is closer to "beyond any doubt at all."

DP jurors are asked to decide whether or not to allow the State to put someone to death. Who would want THAT responsibility? Every post conviction DP juror I've ever read about describes how agonizing the process is, what a terrible decision it is to make. Its no surprise at all that some who thought they could impose the DP just can't vote for death when that time comes.

And all that before the endless appeals, the years and years devoted to making sure the system got it right.

What happened to Caylee made me agree with the DP for the first time. CMJA's accusations of pedophilia and her relentless assault on Travis' family make me hope she gets the DP because I honestly believe she'll keep trying to hurt them til her last breath.

But.....After watching multiple DP cases play out now, I've come to think that the DP isn't worth the distortions and injustices it causes. Better to have an option of a special LWOP for the likes of CMJA. Life without parole, life never in the general population, life never allowed to communicate to the outside world other than directly to a pre-approved list of family. A life not taken, but a murderer permanently isolated from the rest of us. I think that would be true justice. Jmo.

 

[Hope4More]

I was wondering if you are in the jury pool, how much trouble would you be in if you refused to answer a question asked by JA or answered in an snarky manner. Does anyone know? I am sure you would not be selected for the jury.

I've wondered not about snark, but how it would feel to be a potential juror, trapped in a room, being forced to answer questions being asked by a convicted murder who killed with extra cruelty.

I don't think in those circumstances I'd be capable of snark. Honestly, I think what would come naturally is to do whatever it took to escape the situation ASAP. Even if that meant saying something I knew would keep me off the jury.

I wonder if the jury will be skewed for this reason alone.

 

[grammieto5]

I wonder what types of questions CMJA could ask a potential juror. I'm sure she will be allowed to ask anything you wants, but I would think/hope a juror could refuse to answer any question. I also wonder if jurors will be allowed to ask CMJA questions like they did in the first trial?

 

[G&AMom]

I think there's a good chance all of her re-investigating will backfire, and likely why JM isn't objecting at this point, instead of actually trying to find mitigation factors to persuade the jury not to give her the death penalty, she's wasting her time and spinning her wheels private-eyeing information she can't introduce into evidence because it pertains to the part of the case already decided. She can't relitigate her guilt, so nothing new found that doesn't fit into mitigation is just going to be objected/sustained away during retrial.

She may have decided she really doesn't care about the verdict this time as her main goal is to gain info for her appeal and try to win an entirely new trial, who knows, but there's nothing in Flores' personnel file or Travis' closet that could aid her in mitigation, I don't believe, nor do I think she believes so.

Think you hit the nail on the head, geevee. She wants to retry the guilt phase and I think is going to be surprised to find out what she can't present in court.

 

[katiecoolady]

I wonder what types of questions CMJA could ask a potential juror. I'm sure she will be allowed to ask anything you wants, but I would think/hope a juror could refuse to answer any question. I also wonder if jurors will be allowed to ask CMJA questions like they did in the first trial?

I hope Martinez has been practicing his squats because I see a lot of jumping up and down with objections.

 

[Hope4More]

What I most want to know....what will the new jury know/be told about first trial, and how will they be told? Or is their a "do over" by default before they move on to mitigation?

 

[krkrjx]

I think DP cases unavoidably turn the trial process upside down. We bend over backwards to protect the rights of the accused because we aren't barbarians, because we believe in the rule of law, and because our very country and system of government were founded in part out of deep suspicion of authorities with too much power.

IMO, those intentions are honorable and appropriate, especially when the State is proposing to take a life at trial's end. But, I think the weight of that responsibility does skew the process. Judges, afraid of appeals, tilt to the defense, giving the defense great latitude, just in case. The State has to make a case for guilt that goes beyond reasonable doubt; though not on paper, the standard is closer to "beyond any doubt at all."

DP jurors are asked to decide whether or not to allow the State to put someone to death. Who would want THAT responsibility? Every post conviction DP juror I've ever read about describes how agonizing the process is, what a terrible decision it is to make. Its no surprise at all that some who thought they could impose the DP just can't vote for death when that time comes.

And all that before the endless appeals, the years and years devoted to making sure the system got it right.

What happened to Caylee made me agree with the DP for the first time. CMJA's accusations of pedophilia and her relentless assault on Travis' family make me hope she gets the DP because I honestly believe she'll keep trying to hurt them til her last breath.

But.....After watching multiple DP cases play out now, I've come to think that the DP isn't worth the distortions and injustices it causes. Better to have an option of a special LWOP for the likes of CMJA. Life without parole, life never in the general population, life never allowed to communicate to the outside world other than directly to a pre-approved list of family. A life not taken, but a murderer permanently isolated from the rest of us. I think that would be true justice. Jmo.

I agree DP cases are a different animal. I firmly believe every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a fair trial in all cases but in particular in DP cases. There have been a few cases where a decade or so later new evidence is found and a death row inmate is released. That is extremely rare but nonetheless any innocent person being condemned to death is an atrocity.

However, in our quest to do a job without stepping on the rights of some we have become lax in protecting the rights of others. Lying in court should never be allowed yet in our courts the defense often lies without conscience to provide a rigorous defense--usually in cases where there simply is no other defense (Casey Anthony was one and Arias is one). Defense lies are not only allowed but condoned. It is only prosecutor lies that are not tolerated. Appeals have been won in cases where a prosecutor has been less than ethical. The problem is that the prosecution has little to no recourse when things go awry in court and the judge looks the other way.

Even though appeals have always been the right of only one side, decades ago our system was more efficient and fair, IMO. There will always be cases that do not go the way we expect but a defense based on lies should never be allowed just because one party, as the victim of a homicide, is unavailable to speak in court.

 

[LinTX]

I'm just not so sure that none of this will make into court, after reading about other cases, court decisions and what has been entered & used as mitigation. Hopefully not, but just thought it might be worth mentioning so that we're not completely taken by surprise if JSS allows some of it. Of course JM will get a chance to rebut what she is allowed to present and impeach witnesses, but since this jury will not have heard her in the other phases IMO it is a possibility that there are mitigators she could argue that do not have to do with whether she did it (not allowed), but rather the circumstances (allowed).

Mitigation is defined by our statute as evidence relevant to “any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.”

G. At the penalty phase, the defendant and the state may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. In order for the trier of fact to make this determination, regardless of whether the defendant presents evidence of mitigation, the state may present any evidence that demonstrates that the defendant should not be shown leniency including any evidence regarding the defendant's character, propensities, criminal record or other acts.

 

[Charterhouse]

I've wondered not about snark, but how it would feel to be a potential juror, trapped in a room, being forced to answer questions being asked by a convicted murder who killed with extra cruelty.

I don't think in those circumstances I'd be capable of snark. Honestly, I think what would come naturally is to do whatever it took to escape the situation ASAP. Even if that meant saying something I knew would keep me off the jury.

I wonder if the jury will be skewed for this reason alone.

This is really what I meant. You just said it much better.

 

[krkrjx]

I'm just not so sure that none of this will make into court, after reading about other cases, court decisions and what has been entered & used as mitigation. Hopefully not, but just thought it might be worth mentioning so that we're not completely taken by surprise if JSS allows some of it. Of course JM will get a chance to rebut what she is allowed to present and impeach witnesses, but since this jury will not have heard her in the other phases IMO it is a possibility that there are mitigators she could argue that do not have to do with whether she did it (not allowed), but rather the circumstances (allowed).

Let's hope the jury is not only able to see the elephant in the room but does not ignore it.

 

[janx]

I'm just not so sure that none of this will make into court, after reading about other cases, court decisions and what has been entered & used as mitigation. Hopefully not, but just thought it might be worth mentioning so that we're not completely taken by surprise if JSS allows some of it. Of course JM will get a chance to rebut what she is allowed to present and impeach witnesses, but since this jury will not have heard her in the other phases IMO it is a possibility that there are mitigators she could argue that do not have to do with whether she did it (not allowed), but rather the circumstances (allowed).

This penalty phase retrial is going to go into 2015. :facepalm:

 

[Hope4More]

I agree DP cases are a different animal. I firmly believe every possible precaution should be taken to ensure a fair trial in all cases but in particular in DP cases. There have been a few cases where a decade or so later new evidence is found and a death row inmate is released. That is extremely rare but nonetheless any innocent person being condemned to death is an atrocity.

However, in our quest to do a job without stepping on the rights of some we have become lax in protecting the rights of others. Lying in court should never be allowed yet in our courts the defense often lies without conscience to provide a rigorous defense--usually in cases where there simply is no other defense (Casey Anthony was one and Arias is one). Defense lies are not only allowed but condoned. It is only prosecutor lies that are not tolerated. Appeals have been won in cases where a prosecutor has been less than ethical. The problem is that the prosecution has little to no recourse when things go awry in court and the judge looks the other way.

Even though appeals have always been the right of only one side, decades ago our system was more efficient and fair, IMO. There will always be cases that do not go the way we expect but a defense based on lies should never be allowed just because one party, as the victim of a homicide, is unavailable to speak in court.

I understand what you're saying. I just am not sure that the dsyfunction is a product of our legal system itself.

Historically, the high water mark of anti-DP sentiment (and changes in federal law) occurred decades ago, in the early 1970's. Remember the 10 or so years the US put a moratorium on the DP? Significant reforms were made then so that the DP could continue and be considered constitutional (including the whole notion of mitigation, BTW). The rest of the western world had already abolished the DP. We were looking for ways to make it legal.

Since the late 1980's the pendulum has very much swung the other way. The Supreme Court has increasingly closed off types of and numbers of appeals, and legislation has increased the number of death-eligible offenses. No move towards mercy there.

IMO what's different is the mindset of the defense bar in DP cases. I think those qualified to defend in DP cases are likely universally opposed to the DP, and I think many believe the ends justify the means. In other words, I think they are willing to go to almost any lengths to "save" their clients from the DP, and I think they see this as virtuous.

As I learned from FCA's trial, pursuing defense attys for stepping over the lines is almost impossible because of what can be cloaked by atty-client privilege, and because attys have very little interest in policing themselves.

Not sure what kind of reform would change the system, but IMO it would begin by holding the defense bar to more ethical standards.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Hello Y'all !


Just found this thread so need to mark my spot !

lease: for Travis and His Family !!!

:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

This penalty phase retrial is going to go into 2015. :facepalm:

I totally agree !

:thinking: Hmmm ... maybe into 2016 :gaah:

:seeya:

 

[holidayy]

Is she allowed to be her own lawyer on death row for all her appeals?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Anyone want to venture a guess on when we're going to get a ruling on the latest motion about TV coverage?

:seeya: Hi janx ! I hope we get a ruling on the cameras soon !

JMO but I truly believe that JSS will grant JA her wish for cameras !

It's going to be a riot watching JA fall flat on her butt !

:moo:

 

[Hatfield]

This penalty phase retrial is going to go into 2015. :facepalm:

I totally agree.

And I dont mean to keep harping on this judge but why in the heck was there such a long delay before we even got started again. Here it is almost September. I saw no reason to have such a long delay from when the trial ended to this re-sentencing phase beginning. Surely some things could have gotten shifted on peoples schedules to fit this in sooner. Was it not important enough to try to get it started again.

 

[krkrjx]

I don't like the DP either. But some states have it and prosecutors pursue it. My personal opinion is that life in prison would be far worse. Death by injection where they feel nothing cannot win the eye-for-an-eye debate. And the argument that our system is better than in other areas of the world also doesn't cut it for me.

For me this is an issue not only of punishment but safety for the rest of society. Some perps need to be separated from society forever. When you break the rules you should lose something as a consequence and in violent or otherwise horrific cases, you should lose rights rather than have yours protected to the point where it tramples the rights of others.

No system is perfect and certainly DP issues complicate things. But I see serious problems with the system even in my own state, which does not have the death penalty.

If the DP could be imposed and then carried out I might feel differently. But it rarely is. Condemned people serve life for the most part. It just costs a whole lot more for them to serve it.

 

[Kensie]

You know that when the killer falters, it will not be her fault. She will blame it on mean men (JUAN) yelling at her and making her brain scramble.

 

[Hatfield]

You know that when the killer falters, it will not be her fault. She will blame it on mean men (JUAN) yelling at her and making her brain scramble.

Yes for sure.

I can almost guarantee that JA has somehow learned some legal process tricks from fellow jail inmates and I dont put anything past her at this point. She will try all the tricks in the jailhouse book of legal tricks. LOL

The good thing is Juan will be ready for each and every one of them. Im glad Juan is still on the case. I just hope he doesnt get too frustrated. There were times during the last trial that he seemed to be getting a little run down. Hopefully he will have renewed energy to catch any tricks she will surely throw out there.