Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/01/14 In recess

[krkrjx]

It's not a statute, it's U.S. constitutional case law re: waiving the right to remain silent.

Is there a statute governing a defendant not benefiting from a situation they created? IOW, exercising her right to remain silent but then motioning the court to dismiss (in this case the intent to seek DP) due to the defendant's inability to give a proper plea for her life. Or does the constitution cover that as well?

Either way, JSS could cite it in her reason to deny the motion to dismiss. And then instruct the DT to call their next witness, or JM to cross-examine the secret witness.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is there is no real need for oral argument on this that I can see. Nurmi can argue til he's blue in the face, it won't change the constitution. JSS could rule on this without further arument, IMO, and cite laws that govern situations like this--it wouldn't matter if it was statute or constitution that she cited.

Still, something tells me she will do this in a more round-about fashion, as if everyone involved including the jurors have unlimited days, weeks (months?) to devote to Ms. Arias' right to mitigate her aggravators.

 

[Nali87]

I hope JSS doesn't decide to wait on the Court of Appeals to give their arguments before deciding on Nurmi's motion. That could take a long time right?

It seems to me the COA gave a quick, short ruling that most of all says "OK! Cut the BS. Get on with the trial.".

 

[RR0004]

This retrial makes me so darn mad.
It should take half-day max for this-- JM pleads why JA needs to die, JA pleads for her life and JM rebuts.
What's all this other carp?

So true. And it wasn't the media that turned this into a spectacle (as KN would like the Court to believe). No siree, JA and her DT only have themselves to thank for that. Their pity party filled with delay, after delay, after delay, has kept all the sordid details of the murder in public view for almost 7 years!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there a statute governing a defendant not benefiting from a situation they created? IOW, exercising her right to remain silent but then motioning the court to dismiss (in this case the intent to seek DP) due to the defendant's inability to give a proper plea for her life. Or does the constitution cover that as well?

Either way, JSS could cite it in her reason to deny the motion to dismiss. And then instruct the DT to call their next witness, or JM to cross-examine the secret witness.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is there is no real need for oral argument on this that I can see. Nurmi can argue til he's blue in the face, it won't change the constitution. JSS could rule on this without further arument, IMO, and cite laws that govern situations like this--it wouldn't matter if it was statute or constitution that she cited.

Still, something tells me she will do this in a more round-about fashion, as if everyone involved including the jurors have unlimited days, weeks (months?) to devote to Ms. Arias' right to mitigate her aggravators.

I'm not sure what you mean by the defendant not benefiting from a situation the defendant created. I've never heard of that before.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

So true. And it wasn't the media that turned this into a spectacle (as KN would like the Court to believe). No siree, JA and her DT only have themselves to thank for that. Their pity party filled with delay, after delay, after delay, has kept all the sordid details of the murder in public view for almost 7 years!!

That and filing a motion every other day to dismiss the death penalty. There should be a limit to how many times he can put a motion for this up, but I know there probably isn't.

 

[5bigfish5]

I have a question for AZlawyer and thanks for all you do here.

Isn't there some kind of ethics rule that states attorneys can't put someone on the stand if they KNOW they're going to lie? Am I just kidding myself?

Apparently not.

Jodi basically lied for 18 DAYS.

BUT, while in that "FOG" of representing herself...she remembered EVEN more. Apparently she forgot a few details.

UP jumps a pedo confidant in NZ. How does Nurmi file this stuff with a straight face?

Oh, I forgot...YES Maam that check is written to me by Maricopa County and I have been cashing them for 6 years...are you new?

Here's my ID.

I'll be back!

 

[mydirtysecret]

thank you to everybody who posted links to the mcgee potential witness. This guy will be ripped to shreds on cross, it also appears jodi and he are two peas in a pod.

 

[Cracka*Jaxx]

It's so crazy that this trial just goes on and on, at the financial expense of AZ taxpayers, and the emotional expense of the victim's family. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment ... It's unconscionable how JSS is letting Jodi victimize us all once again. Someone needs to stop the insanity.

Even if this jury gives her the death penalty, the case will go on for 20 more years with never-ending appeals. She'll be getting constant attention and feel like a big shot in prison. And after that, the governor will probably commute the sentence, anyway. I know it's not in his nature, but maybe JM should just settle for LWOP with no opportunity to be relocated to a less secure (cushier) prison situation.

I don't care how many fan letters she may receive over a lifetime in prison, she'll still be miserable. A narcissist like her does not want to wear prison garb for the rest of her life. She'll never again be able to travel, drive a car, go to the beach or date. The days will drag on while she beats herself up over her lot in life. Eventually, no one will pay her any mind. Believe me, this will be punishment.

 

[krkrjx]

I'm not sure what you mean by the defendant not benefiting from a situation the defendant created. I've never heard of that before.

She claims she is not being allowed to adequately plead for her life. But she decided to exercise her right to remain silent. Why should the judge allow argument for a motion to dismiss DP based on a situation that the defendant created herself? And is there not some written law that addresses defendants claiming they are being harmed by a situation that would not exist were it not for their own action (or inaction, as the case may be)?

 

[mydirtysecret]

So one of those links led me to Sandra Webers blog, who still believes in the church cover-up. Or the ninjas, ghosts did it, the dog did it story. Ooh and ashley reeds husband did it too. Everybody except the person who has confessed committing the murder, pictured committing the murder and DNA proves she committed the murder all by her lil' ol' self. But, those in Jodiland STILL hold onto those stories.. Ooooy vey, it makes my head spin

 

[salberg7]

Might as well jump in here. This is my first post but I've lurked through Casey Anthony, Alexis Murphy, and all the way through this trial.

I agree it was breathtakingly stupid of her to talk to the police without lawyering up, not to mention the shocking stupidity of appearing on television. At the same time, she is obviously intelligent, albeit without even a high school diploma. Her use of the English language is above average and it's obvious she read a lot when she was a child. So...she is cunning like a child who steals candy in a store....but can't see past her own nose well enough to keep from getting caught, just like the child in the store.

She is really a fascinating specimen of a true criminal mind.

By the way, hi neighbor. I'm from Southern Maryland.

MarVa, and what a mah-va-lous first post, neighbor!

 

[Susza]

I did say almost, but on a more serious note, I can't help but feel that a DP conviction in the current political climate is a less secure sentence than LWOP.

BBM - Hi Steve, what are you refering to? Why would it be less secure?

 

[Hope4More]

Gayla Lynch She was on Dr. Drew's show, BUT is afraid for her life to to testify??? I call BS

How ironic that I was googling something last week about JA and happened to come across this "ex coworker" who was on Dr. Drew last year (by phone)

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1302/05/ddhln.01.html


Then today I remembered when I saw that an ex co worker was on JA's bull$chit list. Looks like Gayla got a postcard from JA thanking her for speaking on her behalf.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/29/dr-drew-mentioned-postcard-jodi

Googling Gayla brings up some interesting things she's posted online about CMJA. Btw, Gayla worked with the murderer at a Denny's in Yreka. CMJA was sleeping with a Denny's cook then.

Favorite Gayla-ism.....she describes CMJA as being taken over by evil personalities, whom CMJA would refer to in the 3rd person. OK then.

 

[Zinvestigator]

Thanks for the link!

 

[5bigfish5]

Hmhm, you're right. There's one thing she fears though: the Death Penalty. :jail:

I do not believe that for one second.

Jodi fears isolation.

We ALL KNOW the DP wouldn't be carried out for years and years...IF ever.

Jodi is IMO, not afraid of the DP in and of itself.... that would involve new Attys., new Experts and whatever...time out of her cell, etc.

BUT!!!! IF on Death Row...she could no longer spin webs, scheme and do her magic.

PLUS, out in the open...she has SO much money coming in, she can REALLY buy whatever she needs.

Too bad Travis didn't buy himself a Kevlar vest to shower in..............how sick is that?

His OWN home.

Evil with skin is Jodi Arias. MOO

 

[gcharlie]

Nurmi absolutely does not have three viable civilian witnesses. This is just more smoke and mirrors.

The defense has come up with nothing more in greater than 18 months, because there is nothing to find. Remorse would be a good start, but Jodi ain't buying it. Somehow she thinks she can still bash the victim and be remorseful, but that is looking through her warped lens.

He has perhaps one witness, from Cali. We don't know who that is, but my educated guess would be Darryl Brewer.

 

[AZlawyer]

She claims she is not being allowed to adequately plead for her life. But she decided to exercise her right to remain silent. Why should the judge allow argument for a motion to dismiss DP based on a situation that the defendant created herself? And is there not some written law that addresses defendants claiming they are being harmed by a situation that would not exist were it not for their own action (or inaction, as the case may be)?

She did not exercise her right to remain silent. She waived it by testifying.

If she HAD exercised her right to remain silent, of course, the result would be the same. Whichever way she chooses, it's her choice--no one is forcing her to exercise or not exercise her right.

The motion claims that the situation causing harm to Jodi (the threat to witnesses) was created by the public and media, not by Jodi.

I'm just still not sure what your question is about creating a situation and then claiming harm from it. I don't think it applies here, but maybe what you're thinking of is estoppel? Where you are precluded from taking one position, benefiting from it, and then complaining about the results? If so, that is not a written law; it's part of the "common law," which is decided by judges.

 

[Hatfield]

She claims she is not being allowed to adequately plead for her life. But she decided to exercise her right to remain silent. Why should the judge allow argument for a motion to dismiss DP based on a situation that the defendant created herself? And is there not some written law that addresses defendants claiming they are being harmed by a situation that would not exist were it not for their own action (or inaction, as the case may be)?

I think I see what you mean. When she is saying she doesnt want to testify unless private and then turning around and saying if you dont allow the privacy then I cant adequately plead the case.

I am convinced the DT has been trying to do that this whole case. Cause something to happen themselves and then turn around and use that in either a current or future appeal or motion.

Like with the length of the trial, the poor legal representation, and other examples.

 

[Nali87]

She claims she is not being allowed to adequately plead for her life. But she decided to exercise her right to remain silent. Why should the judge allow argument for a motion to dismiss DP based on a situation that the defendant created herself? And is there not some written law that addresses defendants claiming they are being harmed by a situation that would not exist were it not for their own action (or inaction, as the case may be)?

For example seeking attention from the media and giving tons of interviews but then turning around and saying the media is harmful? OR Demanding to view a harddrive but then breaking it and then claiming the harddrive being broken is the prosecution's fault and harmful to my case?

 

[5bigfish5]

But it's there. And she doesn't want to die. She doesn't want to live the life that comes with being on death row. That part isn't just about control. No one would want that. It's about self preservation. I still remember the look on her face when the hung jury was announced. It wasn't fake like before, it was pretty genuine. The idea that there are people out there who actually voted for her death is probably pretty harrowing.

She does probably view not getting the death penalty as a win, because every time she loses she has to create a new competition in her mind until she gets a "win."

This is IMO. It's a complicated thing. But basically, she doesn't want to die.

Then she shouldn't have premeditated the BRUTAL murder of Travis Victor Alexander! A person. A Brother. A Friend.

Steal my purse...trash. Steal a name..TRASH. She SLAUGHTERED him 9 ways from Sunday!

Now, she is calling him everything in the world except (fill in the____________) , and getting people to get on the stand and LIE, just like she did for 18 days. MOO

She should have stayed in her little room in Yreka and taken her lumps like the rest of the world does.