Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #2

[bobloblaw]

I want to know if the social media ban is for JA as well.

Arias is not tweeting, she tells one of her friends through mail or visits what to tweet for her. Obviously inmates don't have access to twitter.

 

[LinTX]

Today was a prime example of why our courts need to be wide open to the public. I guess we can be thankful we don't have to wait for a rider on horseback to come into our villages with the news, but I'm not sure we'd not get more details that way. This is pathetic, and unnecessary. And probably headed to a change of venue. If so and if possible, hopefully with a new judge.

 

[Nali87]

Arias is not tweeting, she tells one of her friends through mail or visits what to tweet for her. Obviously inmates don't have access to twitter.

That is what I meant to say. Will the ban be imposed on her account as well? She's tweeting - even if it's indirectly.

 

[gcharlie]

Jeff Gold is on a rant because Judge Stephens was very vague about the role of the jury and impartiality when it comes to this case. She did not make it clear that a previous jury has found Arias guilty and the only role of this new jury is the sentence. They are needlessly excluding jurors without understanding why, because the question about impartiality was not posed within the proper context.

 

[T-4-2]

For ALV and Samuels, the money's not bad if you're between gigs.

But good Lord! I know they got a pile of money, but they sold their souls. Yes, they're grown ups who make their own decisions and have to face the consequences of those decisions, but they were both just such utter disasters on the stand, I can't help but think that they didn't know what they were in for. And that they didn't know what they didn't know, as the saying goes. I think Nurmott kept important information from them and that they were there just to muddy the water, not to actually contribute their so-called "expert opinions" in any meaningful way. Did they score any points for Jodi? Not that I could tell. By the time Juan had finished burying them in Reality, neither they nor their opinions really mattered anymore. Basically I think they were both used and manipulated -- which doesn't change the fact that they're grown ups who make their own decisions and have to face the consequences of those decisions.

eta: Aw... My rescue cat, who spent about 6 months under the couch, only coming out at night to eat and poop, is sitting on my lap (he's been doing this for awhile) and giving me my first cat bath. I didn't even realize my right forearm needed cleaning! Way off topic, just wanted to share.

 

[Nore]

-

IMO, it doesn't matter what a potential juror thinks of her guilt/not because a jury who 100% agreed Jodi was guilty also could not agree on the sentence. So, all they have to do is sentence her.

I still find this process fascinating, but believe she will never be given the DP by a new jury.

--------
TartLemon. The only thing I can see is if I felt the person was NOT guilty I could not bring myself to vote DP. or LWOP.. This is why they must be instructed that she IS already found guilty. Anyone who feels she is innocent should not be on the jury. They are doing this 1/2 azz backward. I seem to remember on the Dunn case opening last week(?) this was explained by the Judge. Similar situation. I think JM will lay down the law,
unless this is the way they do it.

 

[krkrjx]

Today was a prime example of why our courts need to be wide open to the public. I guess we can be thankful we don't have to wait for a rider on horseback to come into our villages with the news, but I'm not sure we'd not get more details that way. This is pathetic, and unnecessary. And probably headed to a change of venue. If so and if possible, hopefully with a new judge.

Would a change of venue be enough? If it comes with a new judge, probably. I think JSS is and has been in way over her head. She is being too cautious in areas where she should bring the hammer down and being stubborn in areas where she should be more lax, IMO. I am beginning to worry if the guilty verdict is even safe anymore because there is probably much fodder for appeal from a judicial error standpoint. I do not pretend to know the law in AZ but good grief I have never seen a jury selection process where people are just let go without pertinent, real questioning.

Granted, I didn't see this one. So have to go on what was reported...but even with reporting errors I bet the number of jurors reported as being dismissed was accurate.

 

[Becky Sharp]

@ericksonvision: Kirk Nurmi, the lawyer for #jodiarias, is almost unrecognizable from last year. He grew out his hair, he's thinner. #3TVArias

I hope he has also lost his finger-up-the-nose habit. (Probably not.)

 

[Becky Sharp]

Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 8s

One of the jurors mentioned his job as being in fraud protection. Or was it frog protection?? #jodiarias
---

I'm betting it's fog protection.

I hope it's fog detection.

 

[krkrjx]

-
--------
TartLemon. The only thing I can see is if I felt the person was NOT guilty I could not bring myself to vote DP. or LWOP.. This is why they must be instructed that she IS already found guilty. Anyone who feels she is innocent should not be on the jury. They are doing this 1/2 azz backward. I seem to remember on the Dunn case opening last week(?) this was explained by the Judge. Similar situation. I think JM will lay down the law,
unless this is the way they do it.

The part I bolded is what makes me believe things were not totally as reported. If it were going the way it appears to us at this point, wouldn't JM speak up? I mean, the judge asking evasive questions of potential jurors and letting them go just for the asking doesn't sound like it can be real. OR...is it at a stage where the attorneys are not questioning anyone yet? Maybe the judge weeds people out to fill out a second questionnaire...and then the attorneys get involved? Because I just do not understand how the process as it was reported today is acceptable to EITHER side.

 

[Becky Sharp]

On break at work and reading here. Looks like this is going to be a very long process. Ugh!!! Wonder what JA is thinking.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder what she's thinking? How about: "ME . . . me . . . Me Me ME ME MEE MEEEE . . . [etc.]."

 

[Hope4More]

JM wouldn't allow JSS to eliminate good potential jurors because of poor word/question choices. We're missing something.

 

[AZlawyer]

The part I bolded is what makes me believe things were not totally as reported. If it were going the way it appears to us at this point, wouldn't JM speak up? I mean, the judge asking evasive questions of potential jurors and letting them go just for the asking doesn't sound like it can be real. OR...is it at a stage where the attorneys are not questioning anyone yet? Maybe the judge weeds people out to fill out a second questionnaire...and then the attorneys get involved? Because I just do not understand how the process as it was reported today is acceptable to EITHER side.

The attorneys wouldn't be questioning anyone yet, BUT they can certainly object and go up to the bench to say UM JUDGE WHY ARE WE WEEDING OUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE PREJUDGED HER GUILT?

Which is why I think (I hope anyway) that there is something wrong with the reporting rather than with the process.

For example, perhaps they were asked the very normal question whether they could set aside whatever they've seen in the media and whatever conclusions they've reached and judge the issues solely based on what they are told in THIS proceeding? And they said, no, I can't just forget what I already know.

That would be OK, but then if the jurors said, I can't set aside what I know, the judge should have followed up with, "OK, but you will be told to accept as fact (1) guilt and (2) cruelty. Could you set aside everything else besides those 2 conclusions?" Or something similar. And wouldn't JM be jumping out of his chair if that wasn't happening??

Again, this is the problem with tweet-bites as "news."

 

[T-4-2]

Hi Nore ! I was thinking along the same lines... I dont think little missy thought that gag was going to include her as well... I bet she was pizzed when she figured it out....

lol... Gag. Very fitting word for Jodi.

• Noun -- Could someone please put a gag on that woman?

• Transitive Verb -- No, seriously, someone needs to gag her right now.

• Intransitive verb -- Just hearing her voice makes me gag.

 

[bobloblaw]

That is what I meant to say. Will the ban be imposed on her account as well? She's tweeting - even if it's indirectly.

Its not her account. Its her friends account.

How do you propose to stop that? Anyone can open a twitter account and claim its Arias or any number of nefarious characters. There's lots of that on twitter. That's why they have verified accounts for famous folks...

 

[gcharlie]

JM wouldn't allow JSS to eliminate good potential jurors because of poor word/question choices. We're missing something.

I don't think we're missing anything. I listened to Jeff Gold's spreecast tonight and he was very clear about how superficially she introduced the case to prospective jurors. Jeff is a criminal defense attorney; on his spreecast he did a very good job of making distinctions between his legal knowledge and his opinions. He did say one possible explanation for the judge not giving the jury pool more information could be that this was something that had been presented in a motion before the court. While he does not agree with this, it could help to explain how things went with jury selection.

 

[Nore]

The part I bolded is what makes me believe things were not totally as reported. If it were going the way it appears to us at this point, wouldn't JM speak up? I mean, the judge asking evasive questions of potential jurors and letting them go just for the asking doesn't sound like it can be real. OR...is it at a stage where the attorneys are not questioning anyone yet? Maybe the judge weeds people out to fill out a second questionnaire...and then the attorneys get involved? Because I just do not understand how the process as it was reported today is acceptable to EITHER side.

----------
I agree! I cant believe JM. is just letting this float by as it's being reported. With C.A. case, Judge went with the change of venue. Questions being asked as they are now change wouldn't make a difference. I am fed up. I don't plan on paying as close attention as I did with the first. Something is not right. Being judges first DP is no excuse. Aren't their "court monitors" to make sure she does right? She should KNOW or be removed.
can you tell I am p.o'd. This is a sick situation. Also on the tweets~F.B. whether she typed it herself or someone else did it is going against a court order! The whole ban should be lifted. As I said, something is not right...Take care, :tyou: for listening.

 

[gcharlie]

I need to get rid of Judge Judy with her eye roll from my signature. It is driving me crazy!!!!

Dear ol' Mom, who is no longer with us, was a Judge Judy fan. As much as I loved my mother, she did not have very discerning taste in what she would watch on TV. Yup, Jerry Springer, Montel, all and I mean all the judge shows and on and on and on.

Miss you, Mom. I don't miss Judge Judy.

 

[neesaki]

Lol! The excuses right? I would just stand up and say "Your honor, let's hang her right now!", that would surely get me off..

Me too, or... well.... on the other hand, I might just say.... Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. Impartial ? Why, of course I am . :wink: :woohoo:

 

[krkrjx]

Its not her account. Its her friends account.

How do you propose to stop that? Anyone can open a twitter account and claim its Arias or any number of nefarious characters. There's lots of that on twitter. That's why they have verified accounts for famous folks...

True, but I would be willing to bet that if someone opened a twitter account in the name of one of the jurors at any point in the process, the defense would move for that juror being dismissed. Regardless of how the powers that be would like us to believe the legal process is without bias, reality is that it is to some degree slanted in favor of the defendant. As I see it, this sometimes flies in the face of what is a "fair trial." I mean, how can something slanted in favor of one side be deemed fair?