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

[runningwater]

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???

Are you allowed to post that number? I am not a facebook person...TIA

 

[bsk]

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.

BBM - The ironic thing to me is that the defense argued during the trial that she had plenty of opportunities that day to kill him ... which proves she didn't. (D'OH!) Well using that same argument, if she wanted to kill him "mercifully" she had plenty of opportunities that day to do so. Doing it in a possibly foggy bathroom with possibly slippery floors wouldn't be the ideal situation, riiiiight? (Channeling Juan for a second there.)

 

[Nali87]

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.

That's a good point. I think you're right.

 

[bsk]

Are you allowed to post that number? I am not a facebook person...TIA

I'd think LambChop would be all over that since we're not supposed to post petition campaigns and that sort of thing.

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - The ironic thing to me is that the defense argued during the trial that she had plenty of opportunities that day to kill him ... which proves she didn't. (D'OH!) Well using that same argument, if she wanted to kill him "mercifully" she had plenty of opportunities that day to do so. Doing it in a possibly foggy bathroom with possibly slippery floors wouldn't be the ideal situation, riiiiight? (Channeling Juan for a second there.)

It might be, if you had the gun and the other person was naked and wet.

But yes, I think the defense argument with "gunshot first" was that she tried to kill him quickly and mercifully and was surprised by his reaction. Therefore no "cruelty" as that is defined under the law and no DP.

ETA: Obviously, as someone said above, that does raise the question of why she had the knife in the first place.

 

[bznbear]

Alyce pff. Amazon reviews don't kill.

I'm behind so apollies if this has been covered. RE: Request for Stay states JA's rights outweigh media's. Ok, but what does sealing her testimony have to do with the mitigation witnesses? RE: Petition for Review arguments about witnesses' death threats are, um, questionable and false in some cases, eg, Womack and Brewer. So, how does the Court verify these statements, and why didn't JSS look further into these matters when DT first alleged them?

 

[bsk]

It might be, if you had the gun and the other person was naked and wet.

But yes, I think the defense argument with "gunshot first" was that she tried to kill him quickly and mercifully and was surprised by his reaction. Therefore no "cruelty" as that is defined under the law and no DP.

ETA: Obviously, as someone said above, that does raise the question of why she had the knife in the first place.

I was thinking more along the lines of they were obviously lying down together at some point apparently. Whether he fell asleep or not who knows, but she could have easily gotten a gun at some point and killed him at close range while he had no idea what was happening.

But like you said earlier, the fact that there were so many wounds is what played into the decision that it didn't matter which came first in order to rule it DP-worthy. The defense would have had to argue that she stabbed him after he was dead, but that was obviously not the case and they didn't go that route (that I recall).

 

[DebinGA]

Does this jury know about JA's sworn tale of running in deathly fear of TA to retrieve his nonexistent gun from the top shelf of his closet? If not, I hope JM gets another chance to definitively demolish it, maybe with a replica "pegged" shelving unit with the same impossibly neat and undisturbed stacks of clothes/shoes.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

:hilarious:

ok ...got it...made me bust out laughing!!

Don't forget Half a soup pie ( Havasupi )

 

[elementary]

I believe the meetings are once a month so I guess they aren't having much of an effect lol. My belief is that JSS thinks she made a big mistake letting the media live stream last time and is trying to backpedal now to make up for that mistake. IMO she is only compounding the problem, though.



That was certainly her most risky substantive ruling. I think, though, that there might already have been a special action to the AZ Ct App on that subject? I'm on my phone so can't look it up too easily.

This is the first explanation that has made sense to me regarding the super secrecy. My question is: what about the livestreaming caused her to regret allowing it?

It can't be the circus atmosphere since it continues apace to this day, begun by the murderer with her interviews and fomented endlessly by the DT. Is it just a sensitivity to the 'needs'/demands of the murderer and the DT? Does she actually believe all the bushwa emanating from the slushpile of DT complaints?

By going further into super secret mode what is she trying to effect? Is she protecting the murderer at the cost of the constitution, timely rulings, the jurors and Travis' family (in effect, giving credence to the 'crazy, fragile state' defence)?

Meanwhile, it still doesn't explain the lack of order in the court, the absence of timely rulings (when was the last time she ruled on a motion), her abrogation of responsibility for the court, her unwillingness to release the super secret transcripts- the utter chaos and confusion.

 

[neesaki]

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.

Wow. Oh nevermind, it's Michael Kiefer.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was thinking more along the lines of they were obviously lying down together at some point apparently. Whether he fell asleep or not who knows, but she could have easily gotten a gun at some point and killed him at close range while he had no idea what was happening.

But like you said earlier, the fact that there were so many wounds is what played into the decision that it didn't matter which came first in order to rule it DP-worthy. The defense would have had to argue that she stabbed him after he was dead, but that was obviously not the case and they didn't go that route (that I recall).

Yeah, I think stabbing him after he was dead was a non-starter given the blood pattern. Also, that argument would just have switched the aggravating factor from "cruel" to "heinous" IMO.

 

[NashBridges2]

Ok so a few questions since NONE of these motions have been ruled on and there are. So many I can't keep track.

1)what exactly does Nurmi want the Supreme Court to do? Allow JA to continue to testify in private and keep her testimony sealed? Any guesses on how long the Supreme Court will take to decide this?
2)if Neumeister and Sue Doe Nimh are next witnesses, can we assume it's because Judge has ruled on Nurmis motions to allow the findings in?

 

[AZlawyer]

This is the first explanation that has made sense to me regarding the super secrecy. My question is: what about the livestreaming caused her to regret allowing it?

It can't be the circus atmosphere since it continues apace to this day, begun by the murderer with her interviews and fomented endlessly by the DT. Is it just a sensitivity to the 'needs'/demands of the murderer and the DT? Does she actually believe all the bushwa emanating from the slushpile of complaints?

By going further into super secret mode what is she trying to effect? Is she protecting the murderer at the cost of the constitution, timely rulings, the jurors and Travis' family?

Meanwhile, it still doesn't explain the lack of order in the court, the absence of timely rulings (when was the last time she ruled on a motion), her abrogation of responsibility for the court, her unwillingness to release the super secret transcripts- the utter chaos and confusion.

The circus atmosphere definitely does NOT continue to this day. Seriously, no one in Phoenix is talking about this case, and certainly the courthouse is not surrounded by TV cameras and trial tourists. IMO JSS would have been better off sticking to her guns, though. Changing her mind only telegraphs that she thinks her original decision was in error.

I agree that, as with the original trial, JSS does not maintain order in the courtroom, does not demand respect from witnesses or counsel, does not consider the rights of the public to know what's going on, and does not keep things moving at a reasonable pace.

 

[elementary]

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.

All of your info is very interesting. One hopes a judge would be impartial and fair, but the longer this trial goes on, the more obvious it becomes that JM is not getting a fair shake from Judge Stephens, IMO. It would also be interesting to know what her stance is on the DP.

Your explanation fits with what I suspect as well- that the super secrecy is about reputation and image for more than one participant in this trial. Someone doesn't like being scrutinised.

 

[NashBridges2]

I'd think LambChop would be all over that since we're not supposed to post petition campaigns and that sort of thing.

Let's also remember this friends....right now, Nurmi has appealed to the surpreme court trying to prove that the public is ruthless and stalking their witnesses etc. I know we have some great sleuthers here and instinct is to find out and post info on the Pseudoym witness. Let's not help his case by doing this. Let's. Wait until the hammer comes down and he loses before we try to sleuth or name anyone.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

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???

Please god, I hope nobody calls, this is the kind of nonsense that happened in the first trial with defense witnesses, and it was beyond stupid IMO. Let the people do their jobs in peace. I hope it wasn't an Alexander, but some IDIOT who thinks JSS's boss/supervisor has time to be taking calls from people who should be doing better things with their time.

 

[bznbear]

Good read over on Court Chatter:
http://www.courtchatter.com/

Interesting that Aaron Hernandez' trial is only expected to last 8-10 wks.

 

[AZlawyer]

Ok so a few questions since NONE of these motions have been ruled on and there are. So many I can't keep track.

1)what exactly does Nurmi want the Supreme Court to do? Allow JA to continue to testify in private and keep her testimony sealed? Any guesses on how long the Supreme Court will take to decide this?
2)if Neumeister and Sue Doe Nimh are next witnesses, can we assume it's because Judge has ruled on Nurmis motions to allow the findings in?

(1) I think that's what he's asking for, yes. They could take a day, a month, a year, whatever.

(2) Nurmi never made any such motion that I know of. It would be up to JM to make a motion to keep it out. It seems like JM did make a motion, but perhaps based on the theory that there was no on the computer? I'm not sure about that. Certainly, it appears now that there was on the computer all along, although the type and source of the may be in question.

 

[Dmacky]

:seeya: Just finished reading the SC Petition. I've no problem with defence lawyers defending their clients to the best of their ability, and going off into the weeds in an effort to do so. I do have a problem with dishonesty from officers of the court. While I assume not legally accountable, Willmott's claims in this document are morally reprehensible to me. Through innuendo, omission, and exaggeration, she paints false pictures to a Supreme Court. In particular is her description of Juan's one episode of signing a walking cane as a circus-like atmosphere with the prosecutor signing autographs outside the courtroom. We all remember how that came about and her version is a deliberate and gross misrepresentation of the event.

There's an old saying in England - "A lawyer is as honest as his client."

(Just stated reading today and am only on pg. 27)

YESorNO posted a picture awhile back of Willmont signing an autograph! So what's the dang difference? NONE
I will look for it later ~