Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 19 - Shortest Court Day, EVER

[Truth Detector]

Looks like I didn't miss much today.

BN's deflecting by throwing The Secret of [Pseudo] Nimh under JM's bus.

And folks are beginning to hint that JSKS should recuse herself due to her personal feelings for the especially cruel lying torture murderess.

That about sum it up?

 

[Nosey Parker]

For those of you unable to read these documents I'll summarize them for you. The summarization is done through the filter of my brain and is not in any way to be considered verbatim.

The defense team needs witness' to testify in closed court because the media made a circus of the last trial. Due to the trial being broadcast people were able to see exactly what we're up to and our hired gun experts were threatened for supporting outrageous lies and defamation of the victim. One witness in particular was threatened because she was obnoxious and refused to answer the simplest questions asked by the Prosecutor.

In summary, we've created a monster and are asking the court to protect us from our creation. By not allowing us to hide our tactics it has become very difficult to put on a good defense. By applying the same standards of all trials the court is subverting the defendants ability to have a fair trial.

Gosh, Steely, your summation was so true to form, I felt like I had the motion right in front of me.

 

[AZlawyer]

And then there's the WSer who doesn't feel the death penalty is warranted, who is more open minded, typically those who rarely post. All a judge and the lawyers can go on is the person's word that they can be impartial despite what they may or may not have posted.

But that's beside the point. Again, the main point is you can have followed this case, watched the trial, etc and be quaified still to serve on the jury. You can even have an opinion as long as you can be open minded. You're right in that one side or the other would probably strike that person if they could. But they wouldn't be automatically disqualified in voir dire like you initially claimed unless they said it was impossible for them to be impartial.

I haven't made up my mind yet.

But I think this all comes down to the difference between surviving the for-cause strikes (which many of us might) and having a snowball's chance in hell of being on the final list after the attorneys exercise their "no reason--we just don't want you on the jury" strikes (which none of us would).

 

[janx]

For those of you unable to read these documents I'll summarize them for you. The summarization is done through the filter of my brain and is not in any way to be considered verbatim.

The defense team needs witness' to testify in closed court because the media made a circus of the last trial. Due to the trial being broadcast people were able to see exactly what we're up to and our hired gun experts were threatened for supporting outrageous lies and defamation of the victim. One witness in particular was threatened because she was obnoxious and refused to answer the simplest questions asked by the Prosecutor.

In summary, we've created a monster and are asking the court to protect us from our creation. By not allowing us to hide our tactics it has become very difficult to put on a good defense. By applying the same standards of all trials the court is subverting the defendants ability to have a fair trial.

You might add the part about the fact that no, heaven forbid we'd have a hard time finding credible mitigation witnesses or that witnesses might want their identities hidden to avoid career suicide...

 

[LaLaw2000]

And yet, JSS got a conviction in this case, Judge Perry didn't and also allowed onto the jury a juror who refused to judge because the Defense Team bullied him!!!

Actually, it was Juan who got the conviction in this case, IMO, not JSS.

 

[Ruby]

As far as I know, no one has asked the AZ Supreme Court for a stay of the trial pending that court's decision.

At some point, I believe KN was asking for a stay, in effect, because he was asking that JA not be made to continue her testimony and that his other witnesses not be made to testify before JA was done. And I believe JSS said in open court (FOR A CHANGE) that she wouldn't grant such a stay.

This is only for the transcripts of Jodi for the testimony that was in secret - so the testimony of Jodi will continue, or is that still oh a hold until AZSC rules.
Because Nurmi won't budge until then - and all other witnesses will testify - if something else does not stop them.


Thank you AZlawyer for ALL of your input on Websleuths!

 

[AZlawyer]

Looks like I didn't miss much today.

BN's deflecting by throwing The Secret of [Pseudo] Nimh under JM's bus.

And folks are beginning to hint that JSKS should recuse herself due to her personal feelings for the especially cruel lying torture murderess.

That about sum it up?

Let's go with Sue D. Nimh. More human-like, I think.

"Beginning to hint?" :floorlaugh:

 

[katydid23]

Their restriction is: don't discuss this case with anyone at any time, don't read about the case, don't watch TV shows or news about this case, don't look things up on the Internet about this case, or read or post on social media about this case, don't do research about this case or any aspect about this case, and don't form any opinions until it's time to deliberate with your fellow jurors, you haven't heard all the evidence, blah, blah, blah. I've heard pattern jury instructions in my state and they are very much the same everywhere.

I know it's hard to believe but there are people (and actually millions of them) who don't follow the Arias trial, don't care about the Arias trial, and there are lots of them in the state of AZ too.

You are making it sound like these restrictions are easy to follow. But it is not always that simple.

When you have a job, and are on an active jury, your coworkers usually ask a lot of questions. You need to hold them at bay. Your family knows as well. You need to be careful not to be lured into discussions there as well.

As for the internet, things often pop up. You need to be very careful. Same with when looking at friends pages. Who knows what someone might stumble on? It is stressful.

And they cannot schedule any medical procedures or out of state visits. What if they have a new grandchild being born out of state? Or a family wedding they want to attend?

 

[Truth Detector]

Titled "from Insult to Injury"...

(I have been lurking on the JA thread and thought I'd say hi!)

Reminds me of the one jointly authored by the abused sentencing re-trial jurors.

Working Title: "Insult to In Jury"

 

[AZlawyer]

This is only for the transcripts of Jodi for the testimony that was in secret - so the testimony of Jodi will continue, or is that still oh a hold until AZSC rules.
Because Nurmi won't budge until then - and all other witnesses will testify - if something else does not stop them.


Thank you AZlawyer for ALL of your input on Websleuths!

JSS said she would not hold up the witness testimony waiting for the AZ Supreme Court to rule. And it would be ridiculous to do so, because the chances of still having a 12-person jury in 18 months or so would be slim to none.

 

[jane the dood]

Let's go with Sue D. Nimh. More human-like, I think.

"Beginning to hint?" :floorlaugh:

Perfect! :clap:

From Wikipedia:
"The Secret of NIMH is a 1982 American animated fantasy adventure drama...."
(bbm)

 

[Truth Detector]

I wonder how often pseudo and someone else (Tony) visited Jodi in jail, and when they started to visit her? I know the new computer searches started when she was representing herself, but how long before that did the visits start?
I know the tweets say that this Tony and her new boyfriend are not the same Tony, but I am not so sure. I wonder how the tweeters know for sure.
That handshake is still telling me that this group is close to Jodi, and not just because of the money. I could be wrong though.

Conjugal visits, perhaps?

We know BN can't keep his hand(s) off her.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Catching up with the past few pages. Juan's motion is a masterpiece. I love that when the defense asked him to use a pseudonym, he didn't bother to make one up, just Pseudonym! Little dig at the defense there.

He also managed to debunk Neumeister as the computer whiz with his direct quotes. He essentially turned into Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes! "I know nothink!"

I've read here and other places and there are some people who are having difficulty separating the hearing on Nurmi's original (and additions to) his motion for mistrial/drop the whole case/drop the dp.

The jury hears nothing of this computer nonsense. It is a hearing they are not privy to. When and if this marathon motion ever ends, JSS's decision on the issue will either allow Nurmi to wind up with a few questions about it to complete his direct of Geffner or leave Nurmi coming up short.

As far as the jury knows, Geffner is busy on the stand in the penalty phase trial being endlessly asked about every page of Jodi's faux journal and how it made her feel. Wilmott was done with him after day 2. Day 3 was pure stall.

Now, Nurmi wants Pseudonym to testify in the penalty phase about the he claims to have found prior to completing Wilmott's direct of Geffner.

Mind you, this is all hinging on getting the red light to say Travis was addicted to and therefore an abuser. I'm an optimist and hope this all comes to naught.

For mitigation, this is one heck of a confused morass! It's out of order for the jury. There's the "secret" testiphoney of JA which I'm sure the AZ Supreme Court will consider for all of three minutes and tell Nurmi it's a non-starter.

Sorry for going on so long! Just one more point...

Juan the Defense Slayer will have his chance sometime in the future to cross these witnesses and we know what it will be like! He will have the jury's full attention. Then, he'll get to present his rebuttal and he won't drag it out. If anything, the defense will do that, much to the disgust of the jury and Nurmi and Wilmott try to poke holes in solid testimony.

Juan will cross Pseudonym and then Geffner will re-take the stand to finish with Wilmott. Then, after who-knows-how-long, Juan will finally get his chance to cross.

Here comes the problem. There was no Brady violation and let's not forget Nurmi's latest quest for every word ever written by any person on the prosecution side! Nurmi considers that another Brady violation. Here, Nurmi has the opportunity to stretch out the jury "vacation" for a tremendous amount of time while JSS and the (assumed) Master, weed through this swamp.

Is anybody not confused now?

:moo: :moo: :moo: :moo: :moo:

 

[ElleElle]

I think you're underestimating just how involved with the trial these jurors become and how consumed they become. I doubt it's as easy as you say and they are probably far, far more frustrated than us with these delays. From the jurors we've heard from, and jurors in other cases, they really do become cosumed and after its all done spend hours finding out all they can about the case. They find themselves thinking about it during the day. How can you not be deeply affected by something like this. It's a very naive idea that these jurors aren't just as frustrated if not more with how this trial is being handled. Juries are anxious for deliberations and can feel when they're being jerked around. And they have been told to avoid SM altogether. Some potential jurors actually declined to be on the jury because they couldn't not go on Facebook for a couple months.

BBM ~ Yup, and going on 4 months now. How many alternates do we have left? 3?

 

[Ruby]

JSS said she would not hold up the witness testimony waiting for the AZ Supreme Court to rule. And it would be ridiculous to do so, because the chances of still having a 12-person jury in 18 months or so would be slim to none.

Again, Thank you.

It takes a little time with this ole noggin of mine.

I thought I had it straight but by mid morning I was confused :shame:

 

[Nali87]

Browsing through threads from 2013 (Insomnia what can you do?) but believe it or not it's like deja vu. This whole crap with last minute interviews and last minute exchange of large documents? We've been here before my friends. Plenty of times. Guess we had more patience and energy back then. :sigh:

 

[katydid23]

It has nothing to do with her state of mind. If there was child accessed on the computer, it would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that TA was looking at a picture of child , which in theory would tend to corroborate JA's testimony that her discovery of this fact caused their relationship to go into a downward spiral of physical abuse and ever-kinkier sex, which in theory mixed with JA's already-crazy brain chemistry to make her unable to see that murder was not the answer.

YIKES. This makes me very nervous. I do not for a second believe that TA ever accessed any child , but I don't put it past JA to put some on there somehow. And I do not trust this judge to know the difference.

 

[Madeleine74]

And then there's the WSer who doesn't feel the death penalty is warranted, who is more open minded, typically those who rarely post. All a judge and the lawyers can go on is the person's word that they can be impartial despite what they may or may not have posted.

But that's beside the point. Again, the main point is you can have followed this case, watched the trial, etc and be quaified still to serve on the jury. You can even have an opinion as long as you can be open minded. You're right in that one side or the other would probably strike that person if they could. But they wouldn't be automatically disqualified in voir dire like you initially claimed unless they said it was impossible for them to be impartial.

Then they've already formed an opinion on the proper sentence in this case and would be excluded or they're against the DP and thus would not be "death qualified."

If I'm a defense attorney I don't want people on the jury who have followed the case closely and know my client is as evil as evil can be. 'Aware' of the crime or the case, okay, as long as they haven't formed an opinion about the sentence that should be imposed if it's the DP. What if they know the ins and outs of the case to the level that is talked about here on WS; do I want that juror? I don't think so.

If I'm the state, I want people on the jury who will vote for death. BUT, if someone says "yes I follow this Arias case and have, in fact I've posted about it a bunch on abc crime forum and xyz crime forum" then do I want to risk having that person on the jury and take the risk of creating an error that may cause a CoA to overturn a verdict because the defense could argue a juror had formed an opinion (and had posted about their opinions?). Do I need that juror and is the risk worth it?

If I'm the defense I don't want a person who followed the guilt phase because I want to influence someone to the defense's position and even the defense's spin on the facts, unless that person says "I don't believe in judging people" or "I don't believe in the DP," then woohoo I so want that person on the jury. But then the state would exclude them, as they well should.

 

[Love Never Fails]

For those of you unable to read these documents I'll summarize them for you. The summarization is done through the filter of my brain and is not in any way to be considered verbatim.

The defense team needs witness' to testify in closed court because the media made a circus of the last trial. Due to the trial being broadcast people were able to see exactly what we're up to and our hired gun experts were threatened for supporting outrageous lies and defamation of the victim. One witness in particular was threatened because she was obnoxious and refused to answer the simplest questions asked by the Prosecutor.

In summary, we've created a monster and are asking the court to protect us from our creation. By not allowing us to hide our tactics it has become very difficult to put on a good defense. By applying the same standards of all trials the court is subverting the defendants ability to have a fair trial.

Steely Dan,
Have i told you lately that I love you?

 

[MeeBee]

Who is this Master you all speak of?