Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[ohreally]

I believe that Jodi wants to be her own lawyer in order to further harass Travis' family and friends. She may also want to introduce fake evidence (like she did with the letters). Here's my questions. Can she choose to question Travis' family and friends and have the other attorneys question the expects and such? Also if Wilmont and Numri know that she is sneaking in fake evidence are they required to let the judge know? Fake evidence is not the proper term, I just don't know what it is called.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.)

The judge would probably try to admonish her in private--maybe on the spot, but maybe during the next recess.

 

[AZlawyer]

I believe that Jodi wants to be her own lawyer in order to further harass Travis' family and friends. She may also want to introduce fake evidence (like she did with the letters). Here's my questions. Can she choose to question Travis' family and friends and have the other attorneys question the expects and such? Also if Wilmont and Numri know that she is sneaking in fake evidence are they required to let the judge know? Fake evidence is not the proper term, I just don't know what it is called.

She can't bounce back and forth between having her attorneys handle witnesses and handling witnesses herself. She has already changed her mind about representing herself once, and the judge told her this is her last chance--if she changes her mind, that's it.

Her advisory counsel cannot sit by and let her present evidence that they actually know is false. But they cannot do anything if they just suspect the evidence is false. IMO if she has any false evidence to produce, she will make sure they don't know much about it.

 

[Hatfield]

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

I was curious about this too if she wanted to question herself, then how would that occur. I found this reply on the internet about it.

"One who is pro se would typically tell his story in the narrative form and then be subject to cross-examination in Q&A form. "

I guess that means she can just tell a story however she wants to tell it. And we all know too well that she can tell a good story. LOL

We may be in for quite a treat if she starts talking in 3rd person and going on a wild rant. LOL

I even had to lookup what speaking in narrative form meant because I really did not know. Here is the definition below:

"narrative form is when a story is being told about YOU from YOUR point of view."
example:
"There I was, standing alone in the park. I was just enjoying the day when the day took an unexpected turn."

 

[Hope4More]

She can't bounce back and forth between having her attorneys handle witnesses and handling witnesses herself. She has already changed her mind about representing herself once, and the judge told her this is her last chance--if she changes her mind, that's it.

Her advisory counsel cannot sit by and let her present evidence that they actually know is false. But they cannot do anything if they just suspect the evidence is false. IMO if she has any false evidence to produce, she will make sure they don't know much about it.

Her advisory council are quite aware that last time she represented herself she tried to have forged letters introduced into evidence. They know she's a pathological liar and a cold blooded murderer with no remorse and shall we say, an inflated sense of self worth.

They must know she's capable of just about any stunt imaginable. She really is a defense atty's worst nightmare.

 

[grammieto5]

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

But then would they be allowed to only ask questions she has approved of. And then Juan Martinez can cross?

 

[katydid23]

Oh My Lord. This is shaping up to be a bigger circus than her last trial. And that is saying something. :nuts:

 

[Hatfield]

Her advisory council are quite aware that last time she represented herself she tried to have forged letters introduced into evidence. They know she's a pathological liar and a cold blooded murderer with no remorse and shall we say, an inflated sense of self worth.

They must know she's capable of just about any stunt imaginable. She really is a defense atty's worst nightmare.

I agree that Nurmi and Wilcott most likely knew she was a bold faced liar. That may have been why Nurmi had so much problem with her.

I imagine most lawyers are very careful to never want to hear the defendent admit to guilt if they are going to try to defend them. In this case, I suspect that JA blurted out some things that the attorneys did not want to hear her say to them.

I can see them being very careful with her and making sure to instruct her to never tell them certain things however I bet she blurted out some things before they could stop her from saying them.

They probably put their hands on their ears and went "na na na na na na I didnt just hear that". LOL

 

[grammieto5]

So could JA put herself on the stand, and have Nurmi or Wilmont say, "in your own words tell this jury what happened in the closet? Just an example. Or "tell this jury how you had to defend yourself against Travis Alexander by stabbing him in the back"
If I get picked for this jury that's one question I would ask CMJA.

 

[Hez]

I agree that Nurmi and Wilcott most likely knew she was a bold faced liar. That may have been why Nurmi had so much problem with her.

I imagine most lawyers are very careful to never want to hear the defendent admit to guilt if they are going to try to defend them. In this case, I suspect that JA blurted out some things that the attorneys did not want to hear her say to them.

I can see them being very careful with her and making sure to instruct her to never tell them certain things however I bet she blurted out some things before they could stop her from saying them.

They probably put their hands on their ears and went "na na na na na na I didnt just hear that". LOL

BBM - She blurted out things nobody wanted to hear during her interminable 18 days on the stand. :facepalm:

 

[rose222]

I hope that during jury selection they can find individuals who not only say that they can vote for the death penalty but will actually do so once that time comes. Hopefully those who believe in the death penalty only for cases involving serial killers, repeat offenders, feeble victims and so on are weeded out. I just cannot imagine a person saying that he/she believes in the death penalty in general yet will not vote for death in this case. JA is the worst of the worst of the worst. The crime was heinous beyond imagination, she has attempted to tarnish the victim's reputation and justify the murder by making up horrendous lies, she has no remorse and she will be a danger to society if let outside. What more do you need to vote for death?!

 

[LambChop]

Personally, I think she has a very bad temper and JM will get her goat. Let's hope she snaps and shows the jury exactly what was the last thing that Travis saw. LOL jmo

 

[rose222]

Personally, I think she has a very bad temper and JM will get her goat. Let's hope she snaps and shows the jury exactly what was the last thing that Travis saw. LOL jmo

I'd give half my savings to see her lose her temper and go crazy right there in court! I can also picture the poor Judge, with her soft and soothing voice, saying 'Ms Arias, please just answer the question' while Juan shakes his heads and glances at the jury with the ' do you see what I have to put up' look. Lol.

 

[ohreally]

AZ thank you for answering my questions. I am so hoping that she figures out how stupid it is to represent herself before she gets the chance to ask the first question to Travis' family and friends. As much as I want to see her self destruct I don't think I could watch her question Travis' family and friends. I think she would get too much joy out of knowing the questioning is televised and further hurting them. If live or short delay feeds are allows.

 

[elementary]

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).

I believe she will try to cram in every lie and supposition, directly or indirectly, knowing that once said, they cannot really be erased from jurors' memories. The judge will admonish her over and over again. Yet she will continue to be given appalling latitude because she is representing herself. She will continue to smear Travis' reputation and deliberately cause agony to those whom he loved and who loved him. And the judge will allow it. It will be a retrial.

 

[Tuba]

Of course, we know the convict will offer abuse to the jury as mitigator. She relied on it in her murder trial and devoted more time and energy to abuse than any other defense. In this sentence re-trial, the rules of evidence do not even apply to her mitigation. Limitations are extremely lax.

Since premeditation is proven, these legal wails about Travis abusing her cannot be argued to show he induced or provoked her to stab him 29 times, slice his throat or shoot him in the head. She had already decided, and came prepared, to take his life. Time and distance served nothing to dull her vengeful urge or weaken her determination. Provocation and inducement contemplate factors at the scene, not what is decided in cold blood in May regarding a murder in June. All of this is moot, we have a verdict that says otherwise.

Revisiting abuse, as she will, can only shed light on her twisted and fiendish motive. This motive had to do with jealousy and a woman scorned mentality, more like--not abuse. Not abuse, because there is to date no corroboration of it and plenty of contradiction of it from her own mouth. Protests that he was generous, helpful and aside from a few mean words, kind as well. But if her crime is said to be defensive, due to his physical attacks, it is not self-protective to go to the attacker. And if instead her crime is pay-back and retribution, the law does not provide nor allow for that, Miss Arias. That went out with The Furies three thousand years ago.

 

[gcharlie]

I totally agree with you. Does anyone know if the jury will be able to ask questions like they could at the trial? This will be interesting to watch.

Yes, the jury can ask questions. They did at the Bryan Hulsey trial which just closed arguments today for the penalty phase. Martinez is the prosecutor in this case.

Interestingly, the jury submitted questions of an expert who had been on the stand for almost two days and none of the questions could be asked. While the judge does instruct the jury that nothing should be read into this, human nature has to come into play when something like this happens.

 

[katiecoolady]

Of course, we know the convict will offer abuse to the jury as mitigator. She relied on it in her murder trial and devoted more time and energy to abuse than any other defense. In this sentence re-trial, the rules of evidence do not even apply to her mitigation. Limitations are extremely lax.

Since premeditation is proven, these legal wails about Travis abusing her cannot be argued to show he induced or provoked her to stab him 29 times, slice his throat or shoot him in the head. She had already decided, and came prepared, to take his life. Time and distance served nothing to dull her vengeful urge or weaken her determination. Provocation and inducement contemplate factors at the scene, not what is decided in cold blood in May regarding a murder in June. All of this is moot, we have a verdict that says otherwise.

Revisiting abuse, as she will, can only shed light on her twisted and fiendish motive. This motive had to do with jealousy and a woman scorned mentality, more like--not abuse. Not abuse, because there is to date no corroboration of it and plenty of contradiction of it from her own mouth. Protests that he was generous, helpful and aside from a few mean words, kind as well. But if her crime is said to be defensive, due to his physical attacks, it is not self-protective to go to the attacker. And if instead her crime is pay-back and retribution, the law does not provide nor allow for that, Miss Arias. That went out with The Furies three thousand years ago.

Love Juan Martinez but I wish you could deliver the closing argument.

 

[Tuba]

Yes, it's anybody's guess the jurors that will be selected at the end of next month. That is, if there are no surprises before the 29th. Just because a lot of Sleuths and much of the public think the Arias claims of domestic violence are pure spinach, among those who are called & survive voir dire may be people predisposed to believe men are curs. I've met a few who are quite excitable when examples of bad male behavior are brought up & who enjoy piling on with generalizations of their own. The point being that the bent is not obvious on the surface. And then there is the hardened type, married to a whole belief system based on men as dominating rotters, and who can conceal their bias at will.

On the other hand, we have foreman Z, who sees a pitiable woman and new jurors who may share his view of Arias. She is very practiced at appearing vulnerable and pathetic, as we remember from her tearful whining in the masked intruder Confession #2 interrogation, the rolling tears in court and her emotional collapse on the stand. Far be it from me to claim those were faked. I believe they occur when she knows she is caught out and is clearly perceived for what she is and what she has done.

So the upcoming selection is a game of chance and there are no funds on either side for a keen eyed jury consultant to shift the odds. Who do you think Arias and Martinez will seat? Any guesses?

 

[Hope4More]

Tuba....

It's impossible to use jury #1 to accurately predict if gender will play the same role as on #1, or if gender was determinative at all.

That said, I think women are more likely to be unsympathetic to her, and much more likely this time around to respond harshly if they think she's being manipulative.

Imo age matters. Middle-aged women are preferable than 20-somethings who might identify with her underachieving, unambitious, drifting lifestyle.

If I were a jury consultant I would also be looking for jurors who seem at least somewhat self righteous or overly firm about their own beliefs, because I think they'd be least tolerant of a murderer willing to blame or smear the man she slaughtered.

PS....just because she's been convicted of premeditated murder doesn't mean she won't try to argue that the jury got it wrong. Remember during her allocution when she held up the survivor T-shirt? To the jury who had convicted her?

And said (I paraphrase)- " I know you don't all believe me that I was abused- that is your right-- but DV is a personal issue for me and one I care greatly about. "

I predict lots of too clever by half, smarmy , manipulative, self pitying play-victim assertions like that.