Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[MeeBee]

What did he do?

He was the one accused of killing the drunk driver after plowing into his sons.

 

[MeeBee]

I read somewhere that Judge Stephens forgot to read some of the jury instructions during the penalty phase. I don't remember that. Perhaps that would have been grounds for appeal?

I also vaguely remember Juan talking to the jury about Arias getting out of prison one day if she gets life. I remember some trial watchers saying that he wasn't supposed to do that and that it would be grounds for appeal.

I didn't pay attention to much of what the foreman said post-trial but if he did wonder why Travis' family gave victim impact statements then.... :gaah: That would be most shocking and disturbing. I think he's pro-life. I remember reading somewhere that he wanted to be famous (perhaps his son said this--I don't remember). He wanted to 'save' Arias from the death penalty. And then interview her and be her hero of sorts. There isn't any other explanation (well maybe he was enamoured by her) for his callousness towards Travis and his family (I think he referred to Travis as 'the dead guy') and his devotion towards Jodi Arias.

I vaguely remember something like that, but I think the lawyers corrected the mistake and she read the portion she forgot.

I think the issue with Martinez saying she could get out in 25 years if she got LWP is that it isn't actually true at this point in time because there's no procedure in place to allow first degree murderers to be paroled, anyway, even if there's the option for it, and that the statement was misleading. He did correct by saying there's no procedure now, but there might be at some point.

I think it was our AZLawyer who'd said this might be an appealable statement.

And yeah, I don't know if it's that he's pro life so much as it's that he's taken with Jodi. His questions show he found every excuse in the sun to exonerate her despite overwhelming evidence. I think it's pretty cold to do that, in the face of the victim.

 

[Love Never Fails]

He was the one accused of killing the drunk driver after plowing into his sons.

Sure I remember. Would like to read about that. Is there a link?

 

[LinTX]

The portion she brought the jury back in to hear was the LWP vs LWOP statement. IIRC it was really before the jury had had time to deliberate, so I doubt it would make an appeal issue. JSS read it then gave both sides a few minutes to speak to it, and IMO I think it was actually JW who was stating what was not true. She said more than once that if she got life, she would never get out, she would die in prison. JM corrected that to say that yes, there is no parole procedure in place now, but that doesn't mean that if she was sentenced with that option that after 25 years the option would not be there then.

 

[MeeBee]

Sure I remember. Would like to read about that. Is there a link?

Sure! This gives a good summary on the trial and why he was acquitted.

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Jury-to-get-Texas-road-rage-murder-case-5714826.php

 

[gcharlie]

He was the one accused of killing the drunk driver after plowing into his sons.

Glad they found him not guilty. He was tried with virtually no evidence and the situation was horrifically traumatic for him. IMO, this never should have gone to trial.

 

[MeeBee]

Glad they found him not guilty. He was tried with virtually no evidence and the situation was horrifically traumatic for him. IMO, this never should have gone to trial.

Completely agree. I don't think there's any other way this could have gone. Aside from the sympathy I feel for him, there is no evidence against him. The lack of gunpowder residue is the most compelling.

AND NOW enough of me hijacking the thread.

 

[rose222]

Completely agree. I don't think there's any other way this could have gone. Aside from the sympathy I feel for him, there is no evidence against him. The lack of gunpowder residue is the most compelling.

AND NOW enough of me hijacking the thread.

I agree.

I enjoy your posts MeeBee.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Sure! This gives a good summary on the trial and why he was acquitted.

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Jury-to-get-Texas-road-rage-murder-case-5714826.php

Thanks MeeBee. Going to read now. glad he was found not guilty.

 

[AZlawyer]

I vaguely remember something like that, but I think the lawyers corrected the mistake and she read the portion she forgot.

I think the issue with Martinez saying she could get out in 25 years if she got LWP is that it isn't actually true at this point in time because there's no procedure in place to allow first degree murderers to be paroled, anyway, even if there's the option for it, and that the statement was misleading. He did correct by saying there's no procedure now, but there might be at some point.

I think it was our AZLawyer who'd said this might be an appealable statement.

And yeah, I don't know if it's that he's pro life so much as it's that he's taken with Jodi. His questions show he found every excuse in the sun to exonerate her despite overwhelming evidence. I think it's pretty cold to do that, in the face of the victim.

The portion she brought the jury back in to hear was the LWP vs LWOP statement. IIRC it was really before the jury had had time to deliberate, so I doubt it would make an appeal issue. JSS read it then gave both sides a few minutes to speak to it, and IMO I think it was actually JW who was stating what was not true. She said more than once that if she got life, she would never get out, she would die in prison. JM corrected that to say that yes, there is no parole procedure in place now, but that doesn't mean that if she was sentenced with that option that after 25 years the option would not be there then.

They were both wrong, IIRC. JW was saying she would never get out, and JM was saying that, if she got LWP, she would be "entitled" to a parole hearing so the state would have to put the procedure in place even if there wasn't one in place before then. Ultimately, I think the AZ Supreme Court would agree with JM, but at this point it's just an unresolved question of AZ law. Since it's a legal question, IMO it was inappropriate to let the lawyers argue the issue in front of the jury.

 

[LinTX]

They were both wrong, IIRC. JW was saying she would never get out, and JM was saying that, if she got LWP, she would be "entitled" to a parole hearing so the state would have to put the procedure in place even if there wasn't one in place before then. Ultimately, I think the AZ Supreme Court would agree with JM, but at this point it's just an unresolved question of AZ law. Since it's a legal question, IMO it was inappropriate to let the lawyers argue the issue in front of the jury.

No, he said she would legally be entitled to be "considered for early release after 25 years" "if" there was "at that point" a procedure in place. That is true and so is "just because there’s no procedure now, doesn't mean there isn't going to be a procedure when that come up." IMO, JW was attempting to insert the 'no future danger' mitigation that is often used when LWOP is the only sentencing option to death, and that is not appropriate in this case. If she had simply let them know that at present there is no procedure in place, that is true, but she actually stated it was "fact" in the judges instruction that she would never get out and would die in prison and that the only choice they had to make was "do you sentence her to die in prison or be sentenced to kill her". She went too far, IMO, and those statements needed to be corrected.

 

[MeeBee]

No, he said she would legally be entitled to be "considered for early release after 25 years" "if" there was "at that point" a procedure in place. That is true and so is "just because there’s no procedure now, doesn't mean there isn't going to be a procedure when that come up." IMO, JW was attempting to insert the 'no future danger' mitigation that is often used when LWOP is the only sentencing option to death, and that is not appropriate in this case. If she had simply let them know that at present there is no procedure in place, that is true, but she actually stated it was "fact" in the judges instruction that she would never get out and would die in prison and that the only choice they had to make was "do you sentence her to die in prison or be sentenced to kill her". She went too far, IMO, and those statements needed to be corrected.

It actually did start with Juan, in his closing. He said if she got life she could get out one day, in a nut shell. Then Wilmott interrupted and said, no, that's not true, there is no procedure in place for parole for first degree murderers so if she got life there's no danger of her getting out. THEN Juan said there was no procedure now but there could be in the future and if Jodi got LWP there'd be an opportunity for her to get out. They were both a little disingenuous, leaving out certain facts to make their point, though Juan corrected himself and, in the end, was probably more right. No, there's no procedure now, but there could be, so don't take that risk. Wilmott saying she'd never get out is pretty misleading. No, she probably won't...but she could.

 

[MeeBee]

The Bryan Hulsey jury has a reached a verdict and will be read at 11:45! I think it'll be death.

 

[rose222]

MeeBee, during the penalty phase we were not told that there was a verdict. We thought it was a question but when the jury came in Judge Stephens did say to them 'I understand you've reached a verdict..' It was so confusing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-VC4efUqrg

 

[MeeBee]

Thanks rose!!! I admit I only watched the video once a long time ago (and won't watch again) and didn't actually watch the announcing of it, only after (couldn't do it), so I didn't know she said that. Whoopsie! That's my bad.

 

[RR0004]

A month from now, we'll once again be sitting here and waiting for justice to be served. Praying that the jury will do the right thing.
Sending love your way today, dear Travis.

 

[AZlawyer]

No, he said she would legally be entitled to be "considered for early release after 25 years" "if" there was "at that point" a procedure in place. That is true and so is "just because there’s no procedure now, doesn't mean there isn't going to be a procedure when that come up." IMO, JW was attempting to insert the 'no future danger' mitigation that is often used when LWOP is the only sentencing option to death, and that is not appropriate in this case. If she had simply let them know that at present there is no procedure in place, that is true, but she actually stated it was "fact" in the judges instruction that she would never get out and would die in prison and that the only choice they had to make was "do you sentence her to die in prison or be sentenced to kill her". She went too far, IMO, and those statements needed to be corrected.

It actually did start with Juan, in his closing. He said if she got life she could get out one day, in a nut shell. Then Wilmott interrupted and said, no, that's not true, there is no procedure in place for parole for first degree murderers so if she got life there's no danger of her getting out. THEN Juan said there was no procedure now but there could be in the future and if Jodi got LWP there'd be an opportunity for her to get out. They were both a little disingenuous, leaving out certain facts to make their point, though Juan corrected himself and, in the end, was probably more right. No, there's no procedure now, but there could be, so don't take that risk. Wilmott saying she'd never get out is pretty misleading. No, she probably won't...but she could.

OK, I went back to the old posts on the lawyer questions thread and refreshed my memory about this situation. It seems that JM did not say that Jodi would be entitled to a parole hearing "if" a procedure was in place. He said she WOULD be entitled to a parole hearing if she got a sentence of LWP, even if there was NO procedure in place. In other words, he implied that the state would have to GET a procedure in place if they didn't already have one.

I initially thought JM was right--that she would be entitled to a parole hearing in 25 years, so the state would need to figure out a procedure to allow her to have one.

Then I reviewed the actual sentencing statutes and decided JM might have been wrong after all, because the sentence would not actually be "life with eligibility for parole after 25 years." Instead, it would be "life with NO eligibility for parole until AT LEAST after 25 years." To me, there's a big difference there: one sentence implies entitlement to a parole hearing in 25 years. The other only implies that you can ask for parole after 25 years IF there's any kind of procedure in place.

So my ultimate opinion (subject to review by the AZ Supreme Court lol) was that JM was incorrect and the jury should not have been allowed to hear this information.

ETA: The argument in which JM made the IMO incorrect statement was the one after the "missed" jury instruction was read to the jury.

ETA2: Here's the exact statement by JM, thanks to LinTX for transcribing the mini-argument last year:

"[O]nce the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years...at that point she can have a legal right- a legal right- to be considered for release after 25 years."

 

[geevee]

Is my thinking correct that at this point is isn't an appealable issue for JA since no sentence was handed down from that jury?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is my thinking correct that at this point is isn't an appealable issue for JA since no sentence was handed down from that jury?

Yes, you're absolutely correct. I think the reason we were discussing it back then is that it made some people feel better about the mistrial in the last penalty phase if there was a potential appeal problem based on that mini-argument about the possibility of release.

 

[krkrjx]

Well, looking at Hulsey at least we know it is possible to get a DP jury verdict in AZ.

And I am very pleased that that jury took some time deciding.