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

[oceanblueeyes]

I'm willing to bet that the State would have decided against a penalty phase retrial if JSS had dithered and deferred this much during the original trial.

I'm sympathetic to the Alexanders for what they're going through. I genuinely can't begin to imagine their pain and frustration. That said, this retrial has convinced me AZ should reconsider allowing penalty phase retrials in DP cases.

The reality is, the State of AZ isn't going to execute JA, no matter what. The legal process is being turned inside out and upside down, all due to the faulty premise that a life is at stake. Hers isn't.

All that's at issue is what kind of cell she will occupy at Perryville for the rest of her life. Really. That's it.

Is that issue really worth squandering enormous court resources and putting the lives of jurors and the victim's family on hold for endless months? And, meanwhile, allowing a remorseless sociopathic murderer to further traumatize survivors /slander the victim himself?

IMO....no.

I do think it is worth it and to give in would show weakness and would show how the justice system can be manipulated by defense attorneys and defendants into forcing the results they want.

Since you brought up the second resentencing phase it made me think of something.

From what I have read this has happened in AZ on four prior occasions before this one. During the resentencing phase three defendants were sentenced to death and one received LWOP, iirc.

What I would like to know is which Judges handled those particular cases and how long did those resentencing cases take to be completed.

Something tells me none of them were like this circus that is happening in the JA trial.

Maybe AZlawyer knows of the cases and knows how long each one took to retry.

I don't think they need to reconsider the law because, imo, there will never be another case like this one. As someone said earlier....it is an anomaly and that's putting it mildly.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

She was not elected. She was appointed after a lengthy application and interview process. She is, however, subject to retention elections every few years.

There is a presiding judge, but he is not really her supervisor. On the other hand, it is his job to make sure the court runs smoothly. There are periodic meetings of all the judges handling capital cases, including the presiding judge, at which they review the progress of those cases.

Thanks.

I know I have read somewhere that she was up for reelection in 2016.

IMO

 

[Quiet Time]

But JSS does have a supervisor she has to answer to. It could be there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of. I certainly hope one of the Alexander's writes a book about their experiences with this trial. It would be a best seller, for sure.

I read on the Alexanders fb page that they've posted a ph # for JSS boss/supervisor for those who want to call him to complain about her 'miscarriage of justice' (borrowed that) being done. Not only to the Alexander family, but the taxpayers and jurors as well. Wonder if anyone's called yet???

 

[hindsight2020]

DT is running amok and the judge is complacent :beamup:

 

[AZlawyer]

Live streaming was a good thing IMO. But I do agree when she caved to the defense this time around it made her look bad.

RE: gun shot last. I don't know why that would matter. If she shot him first and he wasn't dead enough for her, she continually stabbed him and slit his throat to make sure he was dead. And if shot came last, just shows even more that she is a vengeful witch. Either way it was cold blooded and cruel and predmeditated. Of course, I know nothing about the law.

I think the problem was that JM had argued the murder qualified for the death penalty BECAUSE the gunshot was first.

 

[steelman]

What's going on here is just part of Nurmi's master plan. Create chaos and set up a situation that is so hopeless that eventually the legal system just says "enough already" and take the death penalty off the table. This is his strategy. It appears to be working pretty well. Half the people in here are to that point already, and the other half aren't far behind.

I don't think the jury will ever get to decide this case.....Nurmi is going to make sure of it one way or the other. Those jurors will fall out one at a time until there is a mistrial.

My only hope is that the State of Arizona puts a target on Nurmi's back for disbarment, and then changes a few things in their system so these types of legal abuses can't happen again.

 

[Mindmatters]

For those interested in the "Waller" test that JSS used in making the determination to allow JA to testify in secret...

C. The Waller Test
In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the broad courtroom closure of a seven-day suppression hearing during a criminal trial was unconstitutional. 37 Waller v. Georgia synthesized prior holdings to provide a clear rule for all alleged First and Sixth Amendment public trial violations. 38 Writing for the majority in Waller v. Georgia, Justice Powell outlined the current four-part test. 39 He held that

the party seeking to close the hearing must [1] advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, [2] the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, [3] the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and [4] it must make findings adequate to support the closure. 40

The Court held that a violation of the public trial guarantee does not necessarily require a new trial. 41 “Rather, the remedy should be appropriate to the violation.” 42 The Court reasoned that automatic reversal would give defendants unfair windfalls that would not be in the public interest, 43 but reiterated that the defendant does not need to show actual harm. 44....

"

link http://web.wmitchell.edu/law-review/wp-content/uploads/Volume40/documents/7.Cronen.pdf

 

[Reagan]

I think it does matter. If it was determined that she shot him first then can claim she was going for a "merciful" killing and wanted to shoot him in the head and have him die quickly/suffer less. But her "merciful" plans were messed up by him fighting back, so she had to stab him and slit his throat. She just had to.

In my opinion it's a less heinous scenario than stabbing someone, shooting them and then slitting their throat.

Anyways JSS had first written an opinion saying how heinous the first scenario was and how it qualified for the DP. THEN the prosecution said that the stabbing came first and according AZL, JSS had to pretty much twist herself into a pretzel to defend her new position that stabbing first is even more heinous than the first scenario. Her ruling made it possible for this to be a DP case. Everytime she's about to lose me, I think about that and I keep believing in good old way too damn cautious JSS.

Where can I read this opinion by JSS?

I think the original scenario is much more heinous than shooting a man after he's already dead. Shooting a man, and upon not realizing he's dead, is chased down and stabbed repeatedly as he helplessly tries to crawl away, and the only escape from such unimaginable and agonizing pain is death by having his throat slit to the point of almost being decapitated. That is heinous.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

What's going on here is just part of Nurmi's master plan. Create chaos and set up a situation that is so hopeless that eventually the legal system just says "enough already" and take the death penalty off the table. This is his strategy. It appears to be working pretty well. Half the people in here are to that point already, and the other half aren't far behind.

I don't think the jury will ever get to decide this case.....Nurmi is going to make sure of it one way or the other. Those jurors will fall out one at a time until there is a mistrial.

My only hope is that the State of Arizona puts a target on Nurmi's back for disbarment, and then changes a few things in their system so these types of legal abuses can't happen again.

BBM: I agree ... BUT, there is a "judge" who CAN and should be moving this case along to avoid a "mistrial" -- BUT, the "judge" lets the shenanigans continue !

Nurmi and Wilmott will continue to get away with their delay tactics which are clearly heading in the direction of a "mistrial" because the Judge lets them get away with it !

JSS has NO control whatsoever over that courtroom ... and she should be embarrassed .. but obviously, she's not !

 

[Nali87]

Where can I read this opinion by JSS?

I think the original scenario is much more heinous than shooting a man after he's already dead. Shooting a man, and upon not realizing he's dead, is chased down and stabbed repeatedly as he helplessly tries to crawl away, and the only escape from such unimaginable and agonizing pain is death by having his throat slit to the point of almost being decapitated. That is heinous.

But if you believe the state's version of events, he wasn't dead when he was shot. He'd been stabbed yes, but he wasn't dead or even close to it. The gunshot and the slit-throat finished him off.

But in the first scenario, you could claim that she had shot them and then had only stabbed him and slit his throat due to panic. That she hadn't planned to murder him so horribly. That's the reason I think you could maybe argue it's not as heinous as scenario 2.

(Both scenario's are heinous, imo.)

 

[dog.gone.cute]

We are in agreement!

:seeya: That makes two of us ... lol

 

[Frigga]

She was not elected. She was appointed after a lengthy application and interview process. She is, however, subject to retention elections every few years.

There is a presiding judge, but he is not really her supervisor. On the other hand, it is his job to make sure the court runs smoothly. There are periodic meetings of all the judges handling capital cases, including the presiding judge, at which they review the progress of those cases.

BBM I'd like to be a fly on the wall of that meeting!

 

[neesaki]

Live streaming was a good thing IMO. But I do agree when she caved to the defense this time around it made her look bad.

RE: gun shot last. I don't know why that would matter. If she shot him first and he wasn't dead enough for her, she continually stabbed him and slit his throat to make sure he was dead. And if shot came last, just shows even more that she is a vengeful witch. Either way it was cold blooded and cruel and predmeditated. Of course, I know nothing about the law.

My thoughts as well, it has always baffled me why / how the DT claimed it was more cruel if the gunshot came last. Irregardless,Travis was alive, conscious, and attempting to escape the torturing murderer as he crawled down the hallway, and experienced unimaginable horrific pain and suffering until his last breath :cry: I really wish that JM would have made that the focus of his argument rather than the gun shot was last, especially when it was initially believed to have been first, and I don't think they can prove it either way. It's easy to see how the bullet casing ended up on top of blood as a result of being moved / kicked there during all of the activity. I just hope it doesn't come back to bite, that's all. I shudder every time I think about what this killer did to Travis, it's utterly incomprehensible how any human being could do something like that to another human being. As far as I'm concerned, this killer has proven what she can and will do and what she is, a monster, and IMO one of the scariest most dangerous beings on the planet. God forbid that she is ever allowed to walk free among us. JMO

 

[Nosey Parker]

What's going on here is just part of Nurmi's master plan. Create chaos and set up a situation that is so hopeless that eventually the legal system just says "enough already" and take the death penalty off the table. This is his strategy. It appears to be working pretty well. Half the people in here are to that point already, and the other half aren't far behind.

I don't think the jury will ever get to decide this case.....Nurmi is going to make sure of it one way or the other. Those jurors will fall out one at a time until there is a mistrial.

My only hope is that the State of Arizona puts a target on Nurmi's back for disbarment, and then changes a few things in their system so these types of legal abuses can't happen again.

Given your scenario, which I agree is the most likely outcome in the not too distant future, I would hazard a guess that the State will simply accept the loss and move on; Nurmi will be hailed as a hero in the legal community; and no changes to the system will take place in death penalty trials. The abuse of the legal system might drop significantly if the death penalty is ever abandoned in Arizona.

I think Arias deserves the death penalty. However, she would have been tucked away in Perryville in 2013 if it hadn't been on the table.

That's just my opinion and not an attempted debate on the DP. illowfight2: I'm in favour of it in certain cases.

 

[AZlawyer]

Where can I read this opinion by JSS?

I think the original scenario is much more heinous than shooting a man after he's already dead. Shooting a man, and upon not realizing he's dead, is chased down and stabbed repeatedly as he helplessly tries to crawl away, and the only escape from such unimaginable and agonizing pain is death by having his throat slit to the point of almost being decapitated. That is heinous.

But if you believe the state's version of events, he wasn't dead when he was shot. He'd been stabbed yes, but he wasn't dead or even close to it. The gunshot and the slit-throat finished him off.

But in the first scenario, you could claim that she had shot them and then had only stabbed him and slit his throat due to panic. That she hadn't planned to murder him so horribly. That's the reason I think you could maybe argue it's not as heinous as scenario 2.

(Both scenario's are heinous, imo.)

Here are the two minute entries (the first one was actually written by Judge Sally Duncan back in 2009, the second one by JSS during the first trial):

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082009/m3846408.pdf

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012013/m5586387.pdf (starting at p. 6)

Judge Duncan found that the murder was cruel (but not heinous FYI), specifically noting that TA was shot first (but not IMO saying that was the critical factor in her decision). This was based on Flores's testimony that Dr. Horn said TA was shot first.

When Horn testified at trial that he never said any such thing, and Flores then admitted that he must have misunderstood, the defense asked to take "cruelty" off the table (and therefore to take the DP off the table) because it was based on false testimony. This was a pretty good argument. JSS denied the motion, saying that (1) the defense had known for a year that Flores and Horn had contradicted one another, so the motion was untimely, and (2) if Flores had testified accurately, the conclusion would still have been that the murder was cruel based on TA's physical and mental suffering, regardless of the order of the attacks.

It looks like the defense tried to get the Ct App and AZ Supreme Court to look at this ruling, but they weren't interested, which means it will be raised on appeal from any death sentence.

Ultimately, I think the appellate courts would agree with JSS's analysis.

 

[steelman]

BBM: I agree ... BUT, there is a "judge" who CAN and should be moving this case along to avoid a "mistrial" -- BUT, the "judge" lets the shenanigans continue !

Nurmi and Wilmott will continue to get away with their delay tactics which are clearly heading in the direction of a "mistrial" because the Judge lets them get away with it !

JSS has NO control whatsoever over that courtroom ... and she should be embarrassed .. but obviously, she's not !

I hear ya' !! I wish my mother had been like Judge Stephens........ I could have acted up, acted out, and thrown temper tantrums with no fear what-so-ever of getting a good old fashioned spankin'. But....she wasn't like Judge Stephens.....and I got spanked........a lot.

 

[AZlawyer]

My thoughts as well, it has always baffled me why / how the DT claimed it was more cruel if the gunshot came last. Irregardless,Travis was alive, conscious, and attempting to escape the torturing murderer as he crawled down the hallway, and experienced unimaginable horrific pain and suffering until his last breath :cry: I really wish that JM would have made that the focus of his argument rather than the gun shot was last, especially when it was initially believed to have been first, and I don't think they can prove it either way. It's easy to see how the bullet casing ended up on top of blood as a result of being moved / kicked there during all of the activity. I just hope it doesn't come back to bite, that's all. I shudder every time I think about what this killer did to Travis, it's utterly incomprehensible how any human being could do something like that to another human being. As far as I'm concerned, this killer has proven what she can and will do and what she is, a monster, and IMO one of the scariest most dangerous beings on the planet. God forbid that she is ever allowed to walk free among us. JMO

The reason the DT says the murder wouldn't have been cruel if the gunshot came first is that there are 2 parts to a "cruelty" finding: (1) the victim's suffering and (2) the defendant's knowledge that the victim would suffer. So the defense actually had a really good appeal issue when Judge Duncan ruled that the only aggravating factor was cruelty and the state was saying "gunshot first," because how could the state possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JA knew TA would survive a gunshot to the head and continue to fight back??

When the state switched to "gunshot last," the cruelty argument was so much better! Which is why the defense wanted to strike it based on a technicality rather than on the substance of the issue.

 

[YESorNO]

Updated Case Documents:

Case Documents

Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
1/6/2015 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/6/2015
1/6/2015 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/6/2015
1/5/2015 ALT - Appeals Letter Of Transmittal - Party (001) 1/6/2015


https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

 

[neesaki]

I think it does matter. If it was determined that she shot him first then can claim she was going for a "merciful" killing and wanted to shoot him in the head and have him die quickly/suffer less. But her "merciful" plans were messed up by him fighting back, so she had to stab him and slit his throat. She just had to.

In my opinion it's a less heinous scenario than stabbing someone, shooting them and then slitting their throat.

Anyways JSS had first written an opinion saying how heinous the first scenario was and how it qualified for the DP. THEN the prosecution said that the stabbing came first and according AZL, JSS had to pretty much twist herself into a pretzel to defend her new position that stabbing first is even more heinous than the first scenario. Her ruling made it possible for this to be a DP case. Everytime she's about to lose me, I think about that and I keep believing in good old way too damn cautious JSS.

Hi Nali, :wave: I just have a problem with the premise that gunshot first made it less cruel, or gunshot last made it more cruel. If nothing else convinces me of that it is that she slashed his throat and essentially beheaded him. To me, that alone is enough to show how morbidly depraved and cruel she is, JMO. Not only that, if she planned to kill him more mercifully, why did she have the knife in the first place ? Because she planned to stab him to death, the gun was only to incapacitate him enough so he wouldn't be able to fight her, and that's just MO. But now that the prosecution has based their DP case on that premise it's too late to take it back. Which is why I wish they had gone the other road that no matter what or how, it was unusually cruel. I just hope and pray the timing of the gunshot argument doesn't come back for grounds for appeal. Wait, did AZL say it already was ? Not sure, will go back and re-read. :sheesh: And it's all JMHO.

 

[DebinGA]

I read on the Alexanders fb page that they've posted a ph # for JSS boss/supervisor for those who want to call him to complain about her 'miscarriage of justice' (borrowed that) being done. Not only to the Alexander family, but the taxpayers and jurors as well. Wonder if anyone's called yet???

That's an extremely foolish thing to do imo. I hope it wasn't the Alexanders, but a separate individual unwisely acting on their behalf. I seem to remember reading way back that JM challenged and had a judge removed from one of his upcoming cases, citing his anti-death penalty views. That didn't go over well with the judge's peers. And it seems even the AZ Supremes are not entirely free of JM-animus:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131028jodi-arias-juan-martinez-conduct-day3.html

I can imagine the comparatively inexperienced JSS finding JM quasi-respectful and non-deferential during the innumerable and prolonged sidebars she's subjected him to. I can imagine her having to fight her own animus/resentment toward him in this fubar of a trial she's presided over. The absence of media this time is more about keeping JSS out of public view and open to censure as anything else imo.