Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[MeeBee]

So, if the DA decided to go for the Death Penalty and Martinez has no say in that--how is it that talking heads, etc., can accuse Martinez of grandstanding or looking for the spotlight?

Sounds more like anti-JM sentiment than anything real. I just wish people in general had common sense so they would not be so quick to believe everything they hear on HLN/CNN/FOXNEWS, etc.

It being said on TV does not automatically make it true but it takes good ole common sense to know that.

I have no idea really how it works. But there is a lot of anti-JM sentiment, especially among other lawyers. It's a bit frustrating.

 

[krkrjx]

If the convict does keep hammering on abuse (& it looks like that from here), it signifies that her position is an unacceptable non-sequitor. One, that, nevertheless, we know she endorses from her t.v. interview. If someone is abusive, I have the moral right to renew a finished relationship by traveling a thousand miles into the state where he lives and kill him.

I hope that in this phase of trial it is acceptable for JM to reiterate the 1,000 mile trip that she chose to make.

Jurors who have difficulty connecting the dots will need to be shown how she put herself there; a true victim of domestic violence who succeeded in being far away from her abuser would stay far away.

 

[krkrjx]

I have no idea really how it works. But there is a lot of anti-JM sentiment, especially among other lawyers. It's a bit frustrating.

They are defense lawyers. It is to be expected.

But giving them airtime does not help anyone.

 

[MeeBee]

They are defense lawyers. It is to be expected.

But giving them airtime does not help anyone.

Mostly defense lawyers but it's prosecutors too! The guy on Loni Coombs' show was a prosecutor, as is Coombs. A lot of it on HLN thought seemed to be fueled by sparking controversy. Still though.

 

[LinTX]

No, dropping the DP is the State's decision, but I will add that I don't think it's just JM's decision. He has a boss, who has a boss, etc. Plus the family gets a vote too.

I agree that JA is going to be her own biggest problem, not only because of her ego, but also because she seems unable to see how she comes across to people in general. I think she was probably shocked to hear how many of Travis' friends despised her and how many in the jury had her number. She's been somewhat shielded from general opinion for awhile now but has been getting visits and notes from her supporters & family - hopefully giving her legal advice and telling her how much they believe in her innocence. That will definitely benefit JM...I've read those people's opinions, LOL!

I think we'll see LWOP too because it only takes one person to either feel sorry for her or be unable to give a relatively young female death.

 

[krkrjx]

Well I would not know about that MeeBee. I never watch those talking heads. They are giving their OPINION only. But because they are lawyers people tend to believe they are speaking facts of law. LOL, oh how wonderful it would be if there were a COMMONS SENSE epidemic. America is desperate for one, IMO.

 

[Hez]

There will be little actual mitigation, IMO. There will be much continuation of blaming the victim. It matters not that it was never true--a juror or two believed the possibility in the guilt phase and that is good enough for the killer. She will try many things much of it not acceptable to this phase. Will the judge allow her to go off unbridled? It remains to be seen, but we may know the answer to that as soon as jury selection.

I'm not totally convinced that the convict will actually end up representing herself in this re-trial. I think the convict is just playing games to get more delays. I don't think we will have the 'privilege' of seeing her in action in that courtroom. I think she will wait until a week before the new trial date (let's say September 22) and file a motion to withdraw or whatever from representing herself, saying yet again that she is in over her head. Then, her 'real' lawyers will file another motion for another continuance, and round it round it goes. :gaah:

 

[AZlawyer]

Does JM need a plea deal in place in order to not continue pursuing the death penalty? Can he not just move to take DP off the table at this point and allow sentencing to happen without this retrial?

I do not think JM is grandstanding; I think he believes this case deserves the DP and intends to follow it through for that reason only. But my guess is that he could change his mind without agreement of the defense. I wish he would do that because I fear this being a retrial where jurors did not get to hear the entire case will muck things up later on even if they do vote for death.

Yes, the state can change its mind on the DP without the cooperation of the dissent. At that point, the judge would get to decide between LWOP and LWP.

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

Yes, although that would be even more monumentally stupid than representing herself at trial.

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?

She will be allowed to ask anything that is relevant to the jurors' qualifications or biases. Jurors cannot refuse to answer questions if they are approved by the judge.

If Jodi gets on the stand again, the jurors will be able to ask her questions.

You would probably be directed by the judge to answer, and admonished if you were snarky. But JA could be snarky with you and nothing would happen because she has rights that you would not have.

The judge should not permit JA to be snarky with the jury. That is not one of her rights as a criminal defendant.

 

[AZlawyer]

Mostly defense lawyers but it's prosecutors too! The guy on Loni Coombs' show was a prosecutor, as is Coombs. A lot of it on HLN thought seemed to be fueled by sparking controversy. Still though.

I know someone who has been a "talking head" defense attorney on HLN. She says they are given "talking points" ahead of time in which they are told what position to take to create the most interesting viewing experience. This is entertainment TV, not news or even opinion.

 

[krkrjx]

The judge should not permit JA to be snarky with the jury. That is not one of her rights as a criminal defendant.

How might the judge handle something like this? Admonishment there on the spot, or call a recess and then admonish? Thinking delays, here. (I am speaking mostly of during jury selection because certainly even JA would not be stupid enough to be snarky with a seated jury!)

JA will probably file a motion to have JSS removed from the case the first time she is admonished. (OK I am being a little sarcastic there, but only a little.)

 

[MeeBee]

I know someone who has been a "talking head" defense attorney on HLN. She says they are given "talking points" ahead of time in which they are told what position to take to create the most interesting viewing experience. This is entertainment TV, not news or even opinion.

I understand that and remember Jean Casarez all but saying this on the stand when she was called. She said they are told to say things for controversy.

 

[janx]

Wait, AZlawyer, JA could both represent herself and wind up on the stand? I'm fully expecting her to fold and call Nurmi and Wilmott back--in which case she could wind up on the stand again, but if she's playing lawyer, is there a way she could wind up on the stand again?

 

[rose222]

I read about a case in Arizona (sorry, don't remember which one) where the death penalty was dropped although the victim's family wanted it to be pursued. I think it depends on whether the prosecution team feels that the crime warrants death, whether or not they believe that they have a good chance of winning and also the wishes of the family In this case, I don't know whether Travis' family now changing their minds and saying they don't want the DP anymore would necessarily mean that DP would be taken off the table. And I don't think Juan has the last word either. The State has spent a lot of time and energy. I think they'll go all the way no matter what.

Here's an article on how prosecutors decide whether to go for death. In this article it is said that public opinion also plays a role.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...prosecutors_decide_whether_to_seek_death.html

 

[MeeBee]

Wait, AZlawyer, JA could both represent herself and wind up on the stand? I'm fully expecting her to fold and call Nurmi and Wilmott back--in which case she could wind up on the stand again, but if she's playing lawyer, is there a way she could wind up on the stand again?

She can call herself, in which case she would be questioned by one of her lawyers.

 

[krkrjx]

She can call herself, in which case she would be questioned by one of her lawyers.

Wouldn't that open her up to questioning by JM?

 

[janx]

She can call herself, in which case she would be questioned by one of her lawyers.

Thank you. How strange!

 

[krkrjx]

Hmmmm...I now recall it being said months ago that the talking heads are just reading script--not actually giving facts or even their own opinions.

Which makes it even more important for Americans to muster up some common sense.

 

[MeeBee]

Wouldn't that open her up to questioning by JM?

Of course.

 

[Hope4More]

If the convict does keep hammering on abuse (& it looks like that from here), it signifies that her position is an unacceptable non-sequitor. One, that, nevertheless, we know she endorses from her t.v. interview. If someone is abusive, I have the moral right to renew a finished relationship by traveling a thousand miles into the state where he lives and kill him.

Except that I don't think her claims of abuse will be ruled a non sequitur. From discussions I've had with attorneys, it would seem she will have a great deal of freedom to make a case about being abused. She won't be allowed to argue directly that the murder wasn't premeditated... any argument of that can be objected to on the grounds of relevance (because of first jury 's verdict).

But my understanding is that she she will be allowed to argue abuse as a mitigator, and as related to the "circumstances of the crime."

I think she'll severely alienate most of the jury by bashing the victim she's been convicted of murdering, but it only takes one juror. As you know about last jury....she convinced at least 2 that she was abused and that because of the abuse she should be spared.

 

[Hatfield]

I do agree that JA may be using this as just a delay tactic. That is very possible.

If JA is going to proceed as her own attorney, then it may go similar to this one below:

http://www.omaha.com/news/serving-a...cle_7687bee8-3e4c-51cb-b2d7-f41a73730047.html