Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #2

[Love Never Fails]

If there's a deadlock, the judge is not allowed to give JA the DP.

Thanks Nali. Didn't know that. Well that's done.
in the article from AZ Republic on other thread, it says no live tweeting from court. So we get nothing.

 

[Nore]

Who is Mrs. Mitchell???

...........Hi YESorNO!!! I just said that!! :lol: never heard of her, I am PO"d but it doesn't surprise me..:dunno::whoosh:

 

[Nore]

Thanks Nali. Didn't know that. Well that's done.
in the article from AZ Republic on other thread, it says no live tweeting from court. So we get nothing.

---------
I THought Judge said tweets were permitted. Just read it here or at sidebar. I hoped for at least that much..

 

[Zuri]

I thought the media was allowed to tweet, a fixed camera, and each station can record proceedings to be played after the verdict.

 

[Zuri]

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/22/2014 8:00 AM

09/18/2014

RULING
The Court has considered the Request for Camera Coverage and Modification of May 21,
2014 Ruling filed August 21, 2014 and the oral argument conducted on September 15, 2014.

In the request, various media outlets seek a court order authorizing broadcast of video
coverage of the court proceedings each trial day to begin 30 minutes after the conclusion of each
trial day’s proceedings. The State does not object to the motion. Defendant objects for reasons
stated during oral argument on September 15, 2014 and in sealed proceedings and pleadings
previously filed on the issue of live media broadcast of the trial. The Court previously ruled on
the issue of live broadcast of the trial by sealed minute entries dated November 14, 2013 and
May 21, 2014.

During oral argument on September 15, 2014, counsel for the defendant stated the
mitigation witnesses for the defendant had been assured there would be no live broadcast of the
penalty trial. He further stated that if the penalty trial is broadcast, most of the defendant’s
mitigation witnesses will not participate in the proceedings for fear of being harassed and/or
threatened. Defense Counsel also orally requested the Court revoke the media’s intervenor status.

The Court affirms all finding made in its rulings dated November 14, 2013 and May 21,
2014. The minute entries containing these rulings were sealed to protect the witnesses, jurors,
attorneys and the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury for the penalty phase retrial. This
Court believes the orders contained in those minute entries provide for the least restrictive media
access to the trial that will protect the defendant’s right to a fair penalty phase retrial. Nothing
presented on September 15, 2014 alters the findings made in those minute entries.

A broadcast delay of 30 minutes after trial has finished each day will not diminish or eliminate the likelihood
of harm noted in the court’s previous rulings. In fact, the avowal by defense counsel regarding
the participation of mitigation witnesses if the proceedings are broadcast supplements the court’s
findings in its previous orders.

The Court is mindful of its obligation to allow public and media access to the trial. That
access should not include live broadcast of the trial prior to a verdict for the reasons addressed in
previous sealed proceedings. The public and media may attend the penalty phase trial each day.
The media will be permitted to videotape the trial each day using their own equipment. The
videotaped recordings may be played after a verdict has been reached. During the trial, Court
policy allows the media to “tweet” from the courtroom. A still camera has been authorized to be
in the courtroom during the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court’s FTR recordings will
be available to the public following a public record request and payment of required fees. In the
event there are insufficient seats in the courtroom, Maricopa County Superior Court
Administration has authorized an overflow room for those who wish to view the trial.
For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Request for Camera Coverage and Modification of May
21, 2014 Ruling filed August 21, 2014.

The Court finds revoking the media’s intervenor status is not appropriate or necessary.

IT IS ORDERED denying the defendant’s request to revoke the media’s intervenor
status.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6491668.pdf

See the BB part. Tweeting is permitted.

 

[Love Never Fails]

---------
I THought Judge said tweets were permitted. Just read it here or at sidebar. I hoped for at least that much..

Nore, I read that on sidebar. But the news article said no live tweets. No live facebook. No cameras. Te article is linked at sidebar. I just googled Jodi arias and it was the first article fom AZ Republic. Some journalist names Laurie.

 

[Love Never Fails]

See the BB part. Tweeting is permitted.

Guess AZ Republic needs to re-write. Thanks. I was bummed.
i tried to copy and paste but I use an iPad and it wouldn't work for me. Sorry.

 

[T-4-2]

During oral argument on September 15, 2014, counsel for the defendant stated the mitigation witnesses for the defendant had been assured there would be no live broadcast of the penalty trial. He further stated that if the penalty trial is broadcast, most of the defendant’s
mitigation witnesses will not participate in the proceedings for fear of being harassed and/or
threatened. Defense Counsel also orally requested the Court revoke the media’s intervenor status.

OK, just popping in for a sec and have not read all new posts, so sorry if this has all already been discussed.

Was an actual list of actual mitigation witnesses ever actually submitted? Actual human people who know what "mitigation" means and who are willing to speak on Jodi's behalf? In court? Where they'd have to have direct dealings with Nurmi, Willmott, and Juan Martinez?

Hey, here's a thought. Call me a cynic, but maybe there's no list and never was. If the judge allows live broadcast, Jodi can say her mitigation witnesses all scurried back under their various rocks because they're scared of death threats, haters, possibility of arrest on outstanding warrants, and on and on and on... Basic Jodi sob story. Nurmi fails to mention why live broadcast specifically would be so much worse than delayed broadcast, but maybe he's still speaking and just hasn't reached the end of that sentence yet.

Despite Jodi's protestations to the contrary, I suspect she does actually want the new Fall season of her show to air live. (Too bad the title American Horror Story: Freak Show has already been taken.) How totally awesome for her if she not only gets the celebrity treatment, but also gets to say that she doesn't want the media coverage, that it's unfair to her, and that it damages her case. The best part, for her, is that it allows Nurmi to play the "fear of being harassed and/or threatened" card, thus explaining to the new jury why this wonderful "girl" has no witnesses willing to take the stand in her defense.

 

[janx]

OK, just popping in for a sec and have not read all new posts, so sorry if this has all already been discussed.

Was an actual list of actual mitigation witnesses ever actually submitted? Actual human people who know what "mitigation" means and who are willing to speak on Jodi's behalf? In court? Where they'd have to have direct dealings with Nurmi, Willmott, and Juan Martinez?

Hey, here's a thought. Call me a cynic, but maybe there's no list and never was. If the judge allows live broadcast, Jodi can say her mitigation witnesses all scurried back under their various rocks because they're scared of death threats, haters, possibility of arrest on outstanding warrants, and on and on and on... Basic Jodi sob story. Nurmi fails to mention why live broadcast specifically would be so much worse than delayed broadcast, but maybe he's still speaking and just hasn't reached the end of that sentence yet.

Despite Jodi's protestations to the contrary, I suspect she does actually want the new Fall season of her show to air live. (Too bad the title American Horror Story: Freak Show has already been taken.) How totally awesome for her if she not only gets the celebrity treatment, but also gets to say that she doesn't want the media coverage, that it's unfair to her, and that it damages her case. The best part, for her, is that it allows Nurmi to play the "fear of being harassed and/or threatened" card, thus explaining to the new jury why this wonderful "girl" has no witnesses willing to take the stand in her defense.

That occurred to me too. The judge may have just called their bluff--again.

 

[Bernina]

Guess AZ Republic needs to re-write. Thanks. I was bummed.
i tried to copy and paste but I use an iPad and it wouldn't work for me. Sorry.

Hey, Arizonan's call it the "Arizona Repugnant", so that tells you what we think about our state wide major news corporation. They also run AzCentral. They've gone "entertainment news" for the most part, and their anchors think they're "celebrities".:facepalm:

 

[Bernina]

That occurred to me too. The judge may have just called their bluff--again.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Hey, Arizonan's call it the "Arizona Repugnant", so that tells you what we think about our state wide major news corporation. They also run AzCentral. They've gone "entertainment news" for the most part, and their anchors think they're "celebrities".:facepalm:

Bernina, sadly that is every station everywhere. The journalists now aren't journalists. They are news readers and their favorite stories are about entertainment. Very sad.

 

[Love Never Fails]

OK, just popping in for a sec and have not read all new posts, so sorry if this has all already been discussed.

Was an actual list of actual mitigation witnesses ever actually submitted? Actual human people who know what "mitigation" means and who are willing to speak on Jodi's behalf? In court? Where they'd have to have direct dealings with Nurmi, Willmott, and Juan Martinez?

Hey, here's a thought. Call me a cynic, but maybe there's no list and never was. If the judge allows live broadcast, Jodi can say her mitigation witnesses all scurried back under their various rocks because they're scared of death threats, haters, possibility of arrest on outstanding warrants, and on and on and on... Basic Jodi sob story. Nurmi fails to mention why live broadcast specifically would be so much worse than delayed broadcast, but maybe he's still speaking and just hasn't reached the end of that sentence yet.

Despite Jodi's protestations to the contrary, I suspect she does actually want the new Fall season of her show to air live. (Too bad the title American Horror Story: Freak Show has already been taken.) How totally awesome for her if she not only gets the celebrity treatment, but also gets to say that she doesn't want the media coverage, that it's unfair to her, and that it damages her case. The best part, for her, is that it allows Nurmi to play the "fear of being harassed and/or threatened" card, thus explaining to the new jury why this wonderful "girl" has no witnesses willing to take the stand in her defense.

I share your cynicism. I call it "BS".

 

[cindymac]

Oh but they'll surely losely on that point, won't they? I can't think of how the media could have influenced this case. Jurors were supposed to ignore all media right? And when it comes to witnesses, couldn't some have chosen to testify without camera's being there like in the Husley trial?

Arias already took a stab (excuse the terminology) at this issue back in November last year, when she petitioned for a change of venue for the retrial of the penalty phase - and failed miserably. She failed because she was unable to show that publicity had, or would have, an impact on the trial. Judge Stephens ruling against a change of venue was very firm and, given her habitual caution, most likely unassailable.

And, as you say, there is no requirement that jurors have lived in a cave - only that they are able to put what they know aside, and attend only to the facts presented at trial.

Or, as she cites in the ruling: "Even knowledge of the case or an opinion concerning the defendant's guilt will not disqualify a juror if the juror can set aside such knowledge or opinion in evaluating the evidence presented at trial.”

Although this ruling relates specifically to a change of venue, the case law does not, and as you can see, proving that publicity has deprived a defendant of a fair trial is extremely difficult.
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112013/m6041523.pdf

 

[Nore]

We are lucky to have the tweets, and they have started for this hearing.

---------Yes janx lets thank God for small favors..:happydance:

 

[T-4-2]

And when it comes to witnesses, couldn't some have chosen to testify without camera's being there like in the Husley trial?

Or like Darryl Brewer, who was allowed to testify in court without cameras showing his face. I think he said this was in some way about protecting his son.

Darryl had no such concerns, of course, during his subsequent TV interviews. I guess the money he made from these will allow him to protect his son even more.

 

[janx]

Or like Darryl Brewer, who was allowed to testify in court without cameras showing his face. I think he said this was in some way about protecting his son.

Darryl had no such concerns, of course, during his subsequent TV interviews. I guess the money he made from these will allow him to protect his son even more.

The hands! The hands! Yikes!

 

[Love Never Fails]

Or like Darryl Brewer, who was allowed to testify in court without cameras showing his face. I think he said this was in some way about protecting his son.

Darryl had no such concerns, of course, during his subsequent TV interviews. I guess the money he made from these will allow him to protect his son even more.

He was afraid of another cross by JM.

 

[salberg7]

I am disappointed because now it can be assumed that the killer didn't get a fair trial the first time around, with cameras. So, JSS has essentially set up an appeals issue. At this point, however, I couldn't care less, as it is time to just get this retrial done, put the killer in Perryville, & watch her hair get gray. I will satisfy myself with the daily tweets. And if the trial is on YouTube afterwards, I will watch it. I do think JSS has set a dangerous precedent for First Amendment rights, though. Again, the criminal gets more rights than a regular citizen. Regular citizens that, I may add, pay for this trial with their hard earned tax money. Let's get on with it!

 

[atthelake]

I have in my calendar there is something going on today with jodi? Can someone remind me of the time and what is going on tia

ETA :duh: i see now it was yesterday. I need to quit depending on my phone calendar lol . Thank you everyone for the tweets. And most of them in this thread or in the sidebar?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2