Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[geevee]

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.

Okay, thanks AZ, I was a bit concerned that it might still carry some bearing on the retrial, glad to be sure it won't.

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay, thanks AZ, I was a bit concerned that it might still carry some bearing on the retrial, glad to be sure it won't.

As long as they don't make the same mistake this time, it won't.

 

[LinTX]

AZLawyer, I won't do a point by point, but I disagree with you on your interpretation of his remarks. Apparently JSS did too because JW objected when he made his statement. JSS overruled her and allowed him to continue. Also you include what you describe as the exact statement, but what you quoted is a fragment of two sentences of his remarks. The transcript, including those fragments, reads:

JM: The jury instruction speaks for itself. You don’t need any of us to tell you that when the instruction says (begins reading from instruction here) “If you unanimously find the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years."

The decision as to whether or not it’s going to be a natural life sentence, without the possibility of release or an eligibility after 25 years is the judge’s, not yours. And there is a mention there that there is no procedure, however once the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years – just because there’s no procedure now, doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be a procedure when that comes up if a defendant is vested with that right to be considered for release after 25 years. Because, she can have a legal right – a legal right - to be considered for release after (JW:Objection) 25 years.

JW: Improper argument, misstates the law.

JSS: Overruled

JM: And that being the case, that’s an issue for another day – what procedure is going to be used at that time. However, the sentence is clear, or the statute and the jury instruction is clear that it’s the judge’s province – it’s the judge’s role to decide whether or not the defendant be eligible for release at the expiration of 25 calendar years, or whether the defendant will spend natural life. It doesn’t say that automatically if you say life, it’s going to be a natural life sentence. It just doesn’t say that, thank you.

Remember too, this was after JW 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".

 

[HMSHood]

Has there been a case were someone is found guilty, but the punishment phase was deadlock and the punishment phase had to be retried again?

 

[Truth Detector]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Arias-Alexander-forum&p=10906139#post10906139

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, I won't do a point by point, but I disagree with you on your interpretation of his remarks. Apparently JSS did too because JW objected when he made his statement. JSS overruled her and allowed him to continue. Also you include what you describe as the exact statement, but what you quoted is a fragment of two sentences of his remarks. The transcript, including those fragments, reads:

JM: The jury instruction speaks for itself. You don’t need any of us to tell you that when the instruction says (begins reading from instruction here) “If you unanimously find the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years."

The decision as to whether or not it’s going to be a natural life sentence, without the possibility of release or an eligibility after 25 years is the judge’s, not yours. And there is a mention there that there is no procedure, however once the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years – just because there’s no procedure now, doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be a procedure when that comes up if a defendant is vested with that right to be considered for release after 25 years. Because, she can have a legal right – a legal right - to be considered for release after (JW:Objection) 25 years.

JW: Improper argument, misstates the law.

JSS: Overruled

JM: And that being the case, that’s an issue for another day – what procedure is going to be used at that time. However, the sentence is clear, or the statute and the jury instruction is clear that it’s the judge’s province – it’s the judge’s role to decide whether or not the defendant be eligible for release at the expiration of 25 calendar years, or whether the defendant will spend natural life. It doesn’t say that automatically if you say life, it’s going to be a natural life sentence. It just doesn’t say that, thank you.

Remember too, this was after JW 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".

Oh, yeah, I definitely agree that JW was wrong also. And JM was completely correct to say that a jury verdict of "life" did not necessarily mean life without parole.

But JM did say that once JA was "vested" with the right to a parole hearing, she would have a "legal right" to be considered for parole. That was, IMO, erroneous. Although as an appellate lawyer I will acknowledge that the AZ Supreme Court has once in a while disagreed with me.

 

[rose222]

I've just been glancing through the book 'The Death Penalty in the United States' (on Google books for free) and came across something I did not know:

"As a general rule, any relevant evidence may be introduced during the penalty phase. Wide latitude is granted to parties in introducing evidence in aggravation and mitigation during the capital penalty phase. The evidence, generally, need not satisfy the more restrictive rules of evidence that govern the guilt phase. " I always figured it was the other way around...that the evidence would be greatly restricted in the penalty phase. :thinking:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...ge&q=jury deadlocked in penalty phase&f=false

I am dreading the circus that awaits us! :scared::gaah:

 

[krkrjx]

I've just been glancing through the book 'The Death Penalty in the United States' (on Google books for free) and came across something I did not know:

"As a general rule, any relevant evidence may be introduced during the penalty phase. Wide latitude is granted to parties in introducing evidence in aggravation and mitigation during the capital penalty phase. The evidence, generally, need not satisfy the more restrictive rules of evidence that govern the guilt phase. " I always figured it was the other way around...that the evidence would be greatly restricted in the penalty phase. :thinking:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...ge&q=jury deadlocked in penalty phase&f=false

I am dreading the circus that awaits us! :scared::gaah:

Also interesting that it sounds like both sides have wide latitude not just the defense, for a change.

 

[LinasK]

Maybe, I'm not sure. But, you're right, he probably thinks this case is and this murderer is deserving of the DP and is going for it. Arizona has the DP and this case is DP eligible. So I'm probably wrong in that he would rather be done with it. He's doing it because it's what she deserves. She may not get it, but she deserves it.

Absolutely! If anyone deserves the Death Penalty, it's Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, and Joran Van Der Sloot! It's not up to Juan to take the Death Penalty off the table- that's his supervisor's call and the Alexander family has repeatedly stated it's their wish she get the Death Penalty, so we also need to honor the victim's wishes.

 

[LinasK]

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.

Professional jealousy- they wish they had his track record of wins, that's all! Plus alot of talking heads are paid to play devil's advocate and take the opposing side. I've seen Jean Casares switch sides. Makes for good TV, more drama.

 

[LinasK]

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.

BBM. And there you have it...

 

[Ricki]

From a few days ago, did I read right, that they want to unseal JAs purse. Wonder if the contents was ever looked at. Is there a hearing today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quiet Time]

It would be great to be a fly on the wall as JA prepares her defense. I can just imagine some of the crazy things she has discussed already.

Juan's job may be real easy if JA miserably fails as I am expecting her to.

Ya, i'm w/you. I see her failing terribly thanks to JM...imo

 

[LinTX]

Oh, yeah, I definitely agree that JW was wrong also. And JM was completely correct to say that a jury verdict of "life" did not necessarily mean life without parole.

But JM did say that once JA was "vested" with the right to a parole hearing, she would have a "legal right" to be considered for parole. That was, IMO, erroneous. Although as an appellate lawyer I will acknowledge that the AZ Supreme Court has once in a while disagreed with me.

If he had said "parole", I'd agree with you, but JM never used that word. He used "possibility of release" or "right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years". JSS in her jury instructions used “parole” only when she advised there was currently no procedure for it, but she told them her two options of life sentencing were either “without possibility of release” or “with possibility of release after 25 years”. JW is the only one that used "parole" in that way when she misstated the instructions by substituting that word instead of JSS’s actual wording of “release”. The wording makes a difference, IMO, because statute reads “If the defendant is sentenced to life, the defendant shall not be released on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years “. The “any basis” for release could be established by legislature by the time she became vested, but it’s an unknown at this point in time. What is known is that if she is sentenced to “life with the possibility of release after 25 years” and they do establish some basis for release in the future, she will be eligible for consideration once vested – and that is the point he was making.

 

[Tuba]

Intimations the killer will descend into pettiness in motions, arguments and objections. That makes sense when you remember how she would cavil and pick on the stand. Maybe a motive now is to drag this phase on. In addition to her natural tendency, that is. She may value this small minded trifling as a way to show off and impress too, although it doesn't.

 

[LinTX]

From a few days ago, did I read right, that they want to unseal JAs purse. Wonder if the contents was ever looked at. Is there a hearing today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A minute entry was posted in sidebar from Feb, which said the handbag had not been inventoried, but that could mean by the court exhibits dept.? I also wasn't sure if that was the entry that the newest minute entry was sealing though. Confusing, isn't it? :dunno:

eta: YESorNo's posting is #965 in Sidebar.

 

[LinTX]

Also interesting that it sounds like both sides have wide latitude not just the defense, for a change.

Yes, except that the State is restricted to statutory aggravators while the defendant's mitigation can be almost anything she decides to use. But the State does get to rebut her mitigators without rule of evidence restrictions. The wider she goes, the wider the State can follow, if I'm understanding it correctly.

 

[Tuba]

Conspicuously, the killer has no compunctions about using fictitious evidence, she relies on her concocted abuse drama. Now she is desperate to find support for The Bruise Lies. Matt McCartney as percipient witness was a false move that blew up under cross examination. Is she going to turn to her sister or brother for such testimony? Nurmi & Willmott would have told her long ago that relatives are seen as interested witnesses.

 

[Hope4More]

Intimations the killer will descend into pettiness in motions, arguments and objections. That makes sense when you remember how she would cavil and pick on the stand. Maybe a motive now is to drag this phase on. In addition to her natural tendency, that is. She may value this small minded trifling as a way to show off and impress too, although it doesn't.

Whatever else she is or isn't , CMJA is a human being no more or less vulnerable to solitary confinement than anyone else.

Fact is she's been isolated 23/24 for over a year, with very little access to anything or anyone based in reality. For someone whose natural habitat is other than reality anyway, that's a very long time.

Everything I've read about solitary confinement says that it causes paranoia, obsessive thoughts and thinking disorders. None of those disturbances bodes well for her being able to represent herself well.

I agree that even with a sounder mind she might well have buried herself in irrelevant asides and petty grievances. With over a year of solitary weighing her down, I think the potential for her to look and sound whacked is very real.

In the abstract, I kinda doubt the wisdom of allowing convicts locked up long in solitary to represent themselves.

 

[LambChop]

Whatever else she is or isn't , CMJA is a human being no more or less vulnerable to solitary confinement than anyone else.

Fact is she's been isolated 23/24 for over a year, with very little access to anything or anyone based in reality. For someone whose natural habitat is other than reality anyway, that's a very long time.

Everything I've read about solitary confinement says that it causes paranoia, obsessive thoughts and thinking disorders.

To be emotionally affected by solitary confinement JA would have to have a soul. She has none. There is nothing there but an intelligent being with no spirit. She never reacts normally. Ever. JMO