Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/3 -12/04 In recess w/hearing

[geevee]

Why not? It would have been a brilliant strategy to avoid the postconviction relief petition complaining that Nurmi provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to subpoena the witnesses.

I thought it was a brilliant move as well, I keep checking the docket for any sign of subpoena activity, so far the only thing posted today was a 'Supplemental Noitce of Witness For Penalty Phase' but as usual, can't tell who filed it.

 

[Hope4More]

Why not? It would have been a brilliant strategy to avoid the postconviction relief petition complaining that Nurmi provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to subpoena the witnesses.

And that's why a roar of laughter and approval went up when the rumor first sprang into the last thread.

 

[bznbear]

Well said. My only guess is that she's so in the weeds, so overwhelmed, that she's checked out in some fundamental way.

I can only hope that she's still afraid of a mistrial, and that losing another juror stiffens her resolve enough to close Nurmi down whenever appropriate.

Telling him no to a sidebar request was at least one eensy weensy step in the right direction.

You know, I was just thinking JSS is scared sh**less, and as a result is totally ineffectual in this trial. IDK why she is, but that's what I think.

 

[bznbear]

I feel for her because this is a high profile crime and she has to make absolutely sure nothing can be overturned on appeal. However, that being said. This isn't her first trial and she should have developed skills for keeping the defense in line while protecting the defendants rights. JMO

She was a prosecutor before becoming a judge. If this case is representative of her abilities, well, that's just sad.

ETA: I also think her laissez faire attitude could cost her some respect. She told Nurmi he was to stand when making an objection, but he stays in his seat. He obviously doesn't respect her.

 

[cindymac]

Huge crisis at work today and then I came here to speed-read and catch up. Sounds like it was a crazy day!

Yay, you're here!

I have a question, regarding the endless succession of virtually back-to-back sidebars.

I've always assumed (as a complete layman) that if an attorney has an objection, there's a standard legal basis or reason for that objection. By "standard", I mean some established and well-known grounds. So, it seems to me that there would be no need for secrecy - what's up for debate (if debate be necessary) is whether or not there are sufficient legal grounds (e.g. hearsay, foundation) for sustaining the objection. Or in other words, nothing that impacts the jury.

So, my question is, what need is there (in this trial) for a sidebar after each and every objection? Why can't the basis for the objection be stated openly, and argued openly?

ETA: Sorry you had a hard day, but imagine you overcome all!

 

[katiecoolady]

I feel so outta the loop with you guys and missed posting with you today. I only have my ipad and it was a movin kinda slow at the Junction and I was having a rantfest on Twitter reacting and gagging over this nauseating witness. I got so distracted with her petulant and nasty courtroom responses that I really didn't get to focus on jury questions either.
I will say that this Dr. Fonseca has forever linked herself to this cold blooded murderer and, as someone who advocates for victims, will forever remember her blatant abuse of ALL of the victims in this case through her victim-abusive style of "assessement" or whatever term she tries to hide behind.
I'm adding her to the list of Alyce La Violette and Richard Samuels who are willing to sell their $oul to the highest bidder at the end of their careers. I will make sure her name is remembered as well.
I'm landing on the motivation being far from just money for these two-- that the misandry (correct word?) is so steeped in their very being that they are looking for places to spew it out and this prosecutor gives them a sparring partner as well. I think this is for SPORT for them and their own venomous hatred of men has to have somewhere to go so they figure they might as well get paid for it.
As far as Samuels, I more see him as a bit of a nere do well person who probably didn't save money for retirement and I believe his motives were/are 1000% money motivated which is still disgusting but not quite in the same league as these women who are projecting their bs all over the courtroom at the expense of TRUE victims. SHAME ON THEM.
I'm not saying any of this is conscious either but this is the place Im landing in tonite as I try to restore some order to my own sense of well being and balance in this topsy turvy trial world.

 

[Truth Detector]

You know, I was just thinking JSS is scared sh**less, and as a result is totally ineffectual in this trial. IDK why she is, but that's what I think.

Do you recall ever having seen someone totally new in a responsibility, and clearly out of his element?

Maybe a substitute teacher in grade school whose class runs all over her?

That's exactly how she strikes me.

 

[Steely Dan]

Commentary, pictures and jury questions/answers from today:

http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-defense-expert-is-finally.html?spref=tw

Thanks here's a jury question and answer I find particularly appalling:

Q: If Jodi saw Travis looking at child would it change their relationship?

A: Yes. yes it would change. It's like finding your husband cross-dressing.

I think the better analogy would be It's like finding your husband molesting a little boy. After all that's almost what CMJA saw, right? I don't put cross dressing in the same area code as a child molestation. It's actually offensive to use that as an analogy.

 

[AZlawyer]

Yay, you're here!

I have a question, regarding the endless succession of virtually back-to-back sidebars.

I've always assumed (as a complete layman) that if an attorney has an objection, there's a standard legal basis or reason for that objection. By "standard", I mean some established and well-known grounds. So, it seems to me that there would be no need for secrecy - what's up for debate (if debate be necessary) is whether or not there are sufficient legal grounds (e.g. hearsay, foundation) for sustaining the objection. Or in other words, nothing that impacts the jury.

So, my question is, what need is there (in this trial) for a sidebar after each and every objection? Why can't the basis for the objection be stated openly, and argued openly?

The basis should be stated openly, in one or two words. If that's enough for the judge to rule, and 80% of the time it is, then there is no need for a sidebar. If not, a sidebar (ON THE RECORD AND WITH THE TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE) is a reasonable way for the judge and lawyers to be able to discuss the proposed (possibly inadmissible) evidence without revealing to the jury exactly what the evidence is.

 

[MeeBee]

To be fair, we don't yet know if she was dismissed. She could have been excused for health reasons. There's just a lot of conjecture because of her age and, apparently, weird and numerous juror questions.

It had nothing to do with her age, she just happened to be older. It was mostly her nodding in agreement in times that worried me. For instance, the doctor said the Hughes told Travis it wasn't cute to still be playing make out past the age of 25, and she nodded at that. There was another instance that her nodding seemed to be agreeing with the doctor. And there were some questions before that were weird, worrisome, and oddly worded.

 

[katiecoolady]

Hi AZL, this has likely been asked/answered today and I know it has in the past and I'm just not remembering.

Will we ever see the juror questions that were not used in court?

 

[bsk]

I wonder why Juan didn't just say to her "How would you characterize what you said?"

He did at one point as I recall and she didn't answer that either.

 

[bznbear]

Thanks here's a jury question and answer I find particularly appalling:

Q: If Jodi saw Travis looking at child would it change their relationship?

A: Yes. yes it would change. It's like finding your husband cross-dressing.

I think the better analogy would be It's like finding your husband molesting a little boy. After all that's almost what CMJA saw, right? I don't put cross dressing in the same area code as a child molestation. It's actually offensive to use that as an analogy.

Thank you. I wear my husband's stuff all the time!

 

[JSR]

What she didn't like was being asked to explain herself. Accusing JM of this and that was petulance on an epic scale, and a pathetic attempt to make JM look like a bullying villain.

Petulant ....yeah that's a perfect word to describe this "Doctors" entire testimony. A very good word to describe it.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZL, this has likely been asked/answered today and I know it has in the past and I'm just not remembering.

Will we ever see the juror questions that were not used in court?

Yes, if the court is playing by the rules :floorlaugh: they will be filed with the clerk and available to the public.

 

[Hatfield]

Why not? It would have been a brilliant strategy to avoid the postconviction relief petition complaining that Nurmi provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to subpoena the witnesses.

I agree and am still hoping Juan will supeona them. If nothing else to get them scared and realize they had better not lie under oath.

 

[daisydomino]

Thanks here's a jury question and answer I find particularly appalling:

Q: If Jodi saw Travis looking at child would it change their relationship?

A: Yes. yes it would change. It's like finding your husband cross-dressing.

I think the better analogy would be It's like finding your husband molesting a little boy. After all that's almost what CMJA saw, right? I don't put cross dressing in the same area code as a child molestation. It's actually offensive to use that as an analogy.

Yes, it really is!!!

I hope that answer cleared away any doubt the jury might have had after these 7 agonizing days: the incident in question never happened, and the expert witness has no idea what she's talking about.

 

[Hope4More]

You know, I was just thinking JSS is scared sh**less, and as a result is totally ineffectual in this trial. IDK why she is, but that's what I think.

She's a person first and a judge second.

By all accounts she was well respected and considered fair and knowledgeable going into this trial. She seemed to have plenty of confidence all the way through the first trial.

I think AZL had it right awhile ago that she started down a path towards here when she began agreeing with Nurmi about the perils of media and witness intimidation. One step then another then swoosh , down the rabbit hole when she agreed to evict the media.

The very public smackdown from the COA must have been humiliating for her. And more. She has tried so hard to avoid giving grounds for a successful appeal, and before the retrial is even over her judgement has been called into question by the COA.

She looked so defeated and exhausted when court first reconvened afterwards. I don't think she's scared. I think she might be paralyzed because of self-doubt and the prospect of losing her seat on the bench come next election.

 

[bsk]

I did pick up on a certain ironic theme in my speed-reading today. It appears that Dr. M-F does not like people taking her words out of context or mischaracterizing them?

It's pretty rich isn't it, given that it's coming from a person who knows exactly what everyone she refused to interview (or in one case couldn't interview since her client murdered him) was thinking at any given point in time?

 

[katiecoolady]

Yes, if the court is playing by the rules :floorlaugh: they will be filed with the clerk and available to the public.

thank you! If I have to go down to the courthouse myself to view public records I will see them...I want to see what she disallowed. And I did note your little sneaky :lol: there.