Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 10

[katiecoolady]

The prosecution side?? This trial, or just in general?

This trial, but I do have a few minor stalkers who follow me around online like gnats. Most on ignore here.

 

[katiecoolady]

Aw, KCL I am sorry. Tell us more. Inquiring minds and all that...

It's ok, it didn't bother me but sometimes this is what speaking out about something engenders. I have two "causes" I'm tweeting about this trial on: one is the trashing and revictimization of murder victims in court and the second is the lengthy and ridiculous and expensive death penalty appeals process. Both needing reform and I'm using my voice to at least bring awareness. Someone doesn't like I'm doing that. And they clearly don't understand my personality if they think that shuts me up.

 

[katiecoolady]

@jeffgoldesq: #JodiArias. The word "emergency" is not used in legal matters usually. Legal issues are are sometimes "emergent" as with the COA stay.

That was my sense when I heard "emergency". That this was something personal with one of the main players.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I appreciate the brainstorming. I don't have answers or solutions but I think opening the door to conversation and outright shouting from the rooftops of how this violates and revicitimizes victims is a start. Otherwise it just grows and grows as it has unchecked like a malignant tumor in the courtroom.

(to others I'm talking about victims being trashed and revictimized in court by attorneys willing to bring witnesses to state as fact information ONLY gleaned from the sick mind of a sociopathic killer who's a known pathological liar on trial for their life)

Agree. How is it constitutional that this be allowed in a court of law? I don't think that is what our founding Fathers had in mind, AZ.

 

[Hope4More]

BK has so much more info/better notes than what gets passed along via Twitter! Well worth the few dollars.

 

[MeeBee]

BK has so much more info/better notes than what gets passed along via Twitter! Well worth the few dollars.

Now I'm tempted to put up.

 

[Love Never Fails]

It's ok, it didn't bother me but sometimes this is what speaking out about something engenders. I have two "causes" I'm tweeting about this trial on: one is the trashing and revictimization of murder victims in court and the second is the lengthy and ridiculous and expensive death penalty appeals process. Both needing reform and I'm using my voice to at least bring awareness. Someone doesn't like I'm doing that. And they clearly don't understand my personality if they think that shuts me up.

I agree with you on both and I speak my mind on here all the time. I don't use Twitter but girl, go get 'em!

 

[Steve44]

I appreciate the brainstorming. I don't have answers or solutions but I think opening the door to conversation and outright shouting from the rooftops of how this violates and revicitimizes victims is a start. Otherwise it just grows and grows as it has unchecked like a malignant tumor in the courtroom.

(to others I'm talking about victims being trashed and revictimized in court by attorneys willing to bring witnesses to state as fact information ONLY gleaned from the sick mind of a sociopathic killer who's a known pathological liar on trial for their life)

Perhaps a simple statement, at the beginning of the trial, explaining to the jury the nature of hearsay evidence, and that it does not necessarily reflect an accurate picture of the victim. It is only opinion, albeit expert opinion, and other and different interpretations may be as, or more, accurate. The jury is to use their common sense and their own experience to interpret all testimony, no matter the source.

This may seem self-evident to some, but if it were a required statement made to every jury, it may serve to emphasize the nature of the testimony to be heard and attenuate any blatantly inflammatory testimony, no matter the source.

 

[LambChop]

Again, please take the personal chit chat over to the Sidebar. This thread is for discussion of the retrial.

 

[AZlawyer]

Agree. How is it constitutional that this be allowed in a court of law? I don't think that is what our founding Fathers had in mind, AZ.

It's very constitutional--in fact, constitutionally required. But as I mentioned above, with some brainstorming we could come up with ways to minimize the damage.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Now I'm tempted to put up.

She does but she really goes out of her way to remain neutral. I would like it more if she was more on the side of the victim. I am not saying she is not, she is just a fair journalist.
and I don't want her to be!!!!!

 

[LambChop]

Could the judge have asked for the calendars because she wants to start having court on Fridays? They seem to be constantly running behind and this is a real risk for losing jurors.

 

[katiecoolady]

Agree. How is it constitutional that this be allowed in a court of law? I don't think that is what our founding Fathers had in mind, AZ.

I've watched many trials over the last couple of decades and I've seen this particular style of defense escalate out of control in murder trials. It's always been an issue in sex assault (still not right) but it's really exploded in murder trials. Not only is the DEAD victim totally denigrated but the surviving victims, as defined by law, are revictimized having to listen to this fabricated garbage. If it can escalate, it can deescalate in my opinion.

 

[AZlawyer]

Perhaps a simple statement, at the beginning of the trial, explaining to the jury the nature of hearsay evidence, and that it does not necessarily reflect an accurate picture of the victim. It is only opinion, albeit expert opinion, and other and different interpretations may be as, or more, accurate. The jury is to use their common sense and their own experience to interpret all testimony, no matter the source.

This may seem self-evident to some, but if it were a required statement made to every jury, it may serve to emphasize the nature of the testimony to be heard and attenuate any blatantly inflammatory testimony, no matter the source.

They are told to use common sense, etc. As for the other points, it is JM's job to make the weaknesses in the testimony clear for the jury.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Perhaps a simple statement, at the beginning of the trial, explaining to the jury the nature of hearsay evidence, and that it does not necessarily reflect an accurate picture of the victim. It is only opinion, albeit expert opinion, and other and different interpretations may be as, or more, accurate. The jury is to use their common sense and their own experience to interpret all testimony, no matter the source.

This may seem self-evident to some, but if it were a required statement made to every jury, it may serve to emphasize the nature of the testimony to be heard and attenuate any blatantly inflammatory testimony, no matter the source.

I like this.

 

[katiecoolady]

I think of things like this: a known murderer's prior offenses, even things they've been convicted of, are often disallowed in their prosecution to protect their "rights" yet the very same murderer can sit there and make heinous things up out of thin air about their victim, uncorroborated, and it is allowed. I may just be a lay person and a victim's sister but I know WRONG and UNFAIR when I see it.

 

[Gwen6275]

All the secrecy in this trial is driving me insane.

The secrecy is so disturbing to me (as well as driving me insane). I just don't get why this is allowed to go on. There have been trials in the past that were popular with the media, televised, analyzed etc. Casey Anthony, for one. O.J. Simpson for another. I don't remember these trials having all these secret hearings, etc. Why is this defendant so special? It is so irritating that JA is the one that courted the media in the first place, wanted the limelight, and drew attention to her case. I guess it has finally sunk in to her that the majority of the public is against her, which is why she is fighting tooth and nail to keep the media out. It is unbelievable that the judge is giving in to this murderer's whims. This BS about witnesses being afraid for their lives....please. Show me ONE credible and legitimate threat made against a witness. The DT is so vague. It really annoys me when Nurmi tries to insinuate that the media interest in this case is exploitative. As if people are interested in being entertained rather than in seeing justice served to a vicious murderer. Besides the fact that it is the murderer herself who begged for the attention in the first place. Sorry to ramble, but I am just beyond frustrated with all the secrecy and the stops and starts and delays and lies with this trial. I am tempted to just walk away until it is all over.

 

[Hope4More]

bk says Dr. f testified that CMJA didn't introduce KY to Travis. Did I miss that in tweets? ?

 

[AZlawyer]

I've watched many trials over the last couple of decades and I've seen this particular style of defense escalate out of control in murder trials. It's always been an issue in sex assault (still not right) but it's really exploded in murder trials. Not only is the DEAD victim totally denigrated but the surviving victims, as defined by law, are revictimized having to listen to this fabricated garbage. If it can escalate, it can deescalate in my opinion.

I wonder how often the strategy actually works? In my experience, defense lawyers will drop a strategy pretty quickly if a study comes out showing that it backfires.

 

[Love Never Fails]

They are told to use common sense, etc. As for the other points, it is JM's job to make the weaknesses in the testimony clear for the jury.

I like Steve's idea better. He is brainstorming and has a good idea. It should not have to be up to Juan to do this. Thats what Steve is proposing. What's wrong with the judge saying it out loud in court?