Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 21

[AZlawyer]

Thank you.
And I assume the verdict can only be overturned after sentencing, is through applets courts. etc.

No, it can be overturned before or after sentencing, by the trial judge or an appellate court.

 

[mydirtysecret]

Azlawyer, do you still feel confident juan can make a clear concise rebuttal case and tie it up in a bow for the jury still? That is of course, if it ever gets to the jury. I am uneasy about how long and to what extent jss has taken the motion to dismiss under advisement. I do think in the end, she will end up compromising like she has in all the other motions that the motion is denied, but will allow a loooooong latitude on the porn issue maybe

 

[tandt]

If the DP is off the table, the jury will be excused and the judge will sentence her to life (presumably LWOP--Arizona no longer has any procedure for parole so there would be no point in sentencing her to LWP).

Thanks AZL for clarifying! So if I read this, LWP really isn't a sentencing option?

I wish this family all the strength-- obviously they're in this for the long haul, along with JM. May God bless them all.

 

[AZlawyer]

One question:

JW made a big deal of saying the DT didn't get the 2008 image till 2014. Yet I think, MeeBee, posted a motion in which the DT's request for the image was granted. If the DT didn't get it back then, why didn't they ask for it again?

They got the image back then, but it was an image of the slightly unintentionally altered original hard drive (the "2009 image"), not an image of the "2008 image" previously made by the State.

 

[Nali87]

They got the image back then, but it was an image of the slightly unintentionally altered original hard drive (the "2009 image"), not an image of the "2008 image" previously made by the State.

Oh. But how can they blame that on anybody? No one knew the image made then wasn't just like the 2008 one. JW stated it as if the police had somehow deliberately kept the image from her until now.

(Well that's how it all sounded to me, via tweets.)

 

[AZlawyer]

Azlawyer, do you still feel confident juan can make a clear concise rebuttal case and tie it up in a bow for the jury still? That is of course, if it ever gets to the jury. I am uneasy about how long and to what extent jss has taken the motion to dismiss under advisement. I do think in the end, she will end up compromising like she has in all the other motions that the motion is denied, but will allow a loooooong latitude on the porn issue maybe

I strongly suspect that the judge told counsel at sidebar this AM that she was denying the motion to dismiss, but Nurmi said WAIT WAIT WAIT John-Sue Smithdonym has been looking into the image some more and I think by Wednesday he will have found more deleted smut. And JSS said, OK, I'll hear what he has to say on Wednesday.

Thanks AZL for clarifying! So if I read this, LWP really isn't a sentencing option?

I wish this family all the strength-- obviously they're in this for the long haul, along with JM. May God bless them all.

LWP is a theoretical option only, because the AZ Legislature can't legislate its way out of a paper bag. So JSS could pick that option, and then in 25? 35? years (I can't recall which), Jodi can say "I want a parole hearing" and everyone can say "um, we don't have those," and then she can file a special action demanding a parole hearing, and the State can say "possibility of parole only means if parole is a possibility" and the taxpayers' money can be wasted on a bunch of nonsense.

IMO JSS does not like to open up cans of worms. She will pick LWOP if the jury doesn't vote for death.

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh. But how can they blame that on anybody? No one knew the image made then wasn't just like the 2008 one. JW stated it as if the police had somehow deliberately kept the image from her until now.

(Well that's how it all sounded to me, via tweets.)

Yeah, either no one knew or everyone knew. The DT wants it both ways--they want to say that the State should have known that the 2009 defense team examination of the computer changed files, but that their own total ignorance of that fact was reasonable.

 

[Truth Detector]

Thanks AZL for clarifying! So if I read this, LWP really isn't a sentencing option?

I wish this family all the strength-- obviously they're in this for the long haul, along with JM. May God bless them all.

I've read from multiple sources that at the time of the especially cruel murder, LWP was on the books and therefore is a sentencing option for the judge now.

Presumably the reason for doing so would be in the event that such time as a parole process is re-established the killer would already be eligible for consideration.

AZLawyer, it's like we're getting free legal advice.

I feel so ashamed... :iamashamed:

 

[Hatfield]

Oh. But how can they blame that on anybody? No one knew the image made then wasn't just like the 2008 one. JW stated it as if the police had somehow deliberately kept the image from her until now.

(Well that's how it all sounded to me, via tweets.)

You are basically right. The DT did try to allege that there was some purposeful or nefarious activity done by prosecution to withold evidence from DT. They know its not the case but the way in which they make the allegations makes it sound like something was done wrong.

Just like the example with the mass marketing email that went out from Travis computer and went to a child. They made it sound like he was soliciting an underage child. The DT is playing dirty tricks and has been throughout this trial.

 

[tcrockett]

I strongly suspect that the judge told counsel at sidebar this AM that she was denying the motion to dismiss, but Nurmi said WAIT WAIT WAIT John-Sue Smithdonym has been looking into the image some more and I think by Wednesday he will have found more deleted smut. And JSS said, OK, I'll hear what he has to say on Wednesday.



LWP is a theoretical option only, because the AZ Legislature can't legislate its way out of a paper bag. So JSS could pick that option, and then in 25? 35? years (I can't recall which), Jodi can say "I want a parole hearing" and everyone can say "um, we don't have those," and then she can file a special action demanding a parole hearing, and the State can say "possibility of parole only means if parole is a possibility" and the taxpayers' money can be wasted on a bunch of nonsense.

IMO JSS does not like to open up cans of worms. She will pick LWOP if the jury doesn't vote for death.

BBM....so wouldn't John pseudo...whoever/whatever....be on re-direct? Isn't that limited in some way?

 

[TartLemon]

Nali87, I use Norton and got the same thing. Screen got weird fragmented into different colors.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I strongly suspect that the judge told counsel at sidebar this AM that she was denying the motion to dismiss, but Nurmi said WAIT WAIT WAIT John-Sue Smithdonym has been looking into the image some more and I think by Wednesday he will have found more deleted smut. And JSS said, OK, I'll hear what he has to say on Wednesday.



LWP is a theoretical option only, because the AZ Legislature can't legislate its way out of a paper bag. So JSS could pick that option, and then in 25? 35? years (I can't recall which), Jodi can say "I want a parole hearing" and everyone can say "um, we don't have those," and then she can file a special action demanding a parole hearing, and the State can say "possibility of parole only means if parole is a possibility" and the taxpayers' money can be wasted on a bunch of nonsense.

IMO JSS does not like to open up cans of worms. She will pick LWOP if the jury doesn't vote for death.

Keen observation azl! I didn't put the two and two together that sue was due to come back on Wednesday, after nurmi had argued that if they had more time they could've found the porn. I guess, hurry up and manufacture the evidence?

 

[Truth Detector]

Oh. But how can they blame that on anybody? No one knew the image made then wasn't just like the 2008 one. JW stated it as if the police had somehow deliberately kept the image from her until now.

(Well that's how it all sounded to me, via tweets.)

That's exactly how their motion is worded; that the State knew of the porn, intentionally deleted it, and lied about it to the Court.

 

[LinasK]

Did Nurmi and Wilmott completely lose their minds? To openly accuse the pros of lewd computer conduct and begging to cross-x JM and demand a mistrial is, idk, lunacy, loona$$y, total loss of reason, imo. This DT have relinquished professionalism entirely. They are so far afield of any mitigation here. Their behavior is truly shameful. jmho

That had to be at Jodi's direction. She's driving this defense and I don't think the DT would've stooped so low otherwise. She hates Juan and is trying to drag him down too!

 

[bsk]

Question for AZL.
Can the guilty verdict be overturned, for what ever reason, before Jodi is sentenced?

TIA.

Sure.

Being nit-picky here.... I thought you said earlier that she wasn't officially convicted until after sentencing. If that's the case then there's not a conviction to overturn until after sentencing is there?

 

[bsk]

They got the image back then, but it was an image of the slightly unintentionally altered original hard drive (the "2009 image"), not an image of the "2008 image" previously made by the State.

But did Sue testify that the 2008 and 2009 images he examined were identical? Did he get a copy from 2009 before the defense altered it and Dworkin got a copy after they had?

 

[5bigfish5]

Sure.

Thanks AZ, not the answer I was praying for. Not the answer conducive to sleep either, Just Sayin.

 

[Truth Detector]

Being nit-picky here.... I thought you said earlier that she wasn't officially convicted until after sentencing. If that's the case then there's not a conviction to overturn until after sentencing is there?

I'm not AZLawyer, obviously, but couldn't JSKS set aside the jury's verdict?

 

[Nali87]

That had to be at Jodi's direction. She's driving this defense and I don't think the DT would've stooped so low otherwise. She hates Juan and is trying to drag him down too!

But how? In one of her letters to JSS in which she asked KN to be let go, she states that he does things that she's not in agreement like. On the top of my head, I remember her writing that she did not want the sex tape played in (open) court but that KN basically told her to "suck it up". If he can do/say some things without JA approval, is he bound to her demands as well?

I don't think this is JA. I think this is KN and JW doing the writing and doing the talking. They thought they had hit the JACKPOT! and that they could get JM on misconduct, had found child porn, etc. Now that it turns out that their whole thing is waking up a computer and 1 YouPorn visit, they're lashing out against JM and Flores to save face.

IMO.

 

[mydirtysecret]

But did Sue testify that the 2008 and 2009 images he examined were identical? Did he get a copy from 2009 before the defense altered it and Dworkin got a copy after they had?

I don't think this had been either answered, or clearly asked flat out