Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 21

[Caylee Advocate]

Question for AZL:


Wouldn't CMJA have to declare any monies from the appeal fund that her family is raising/has raised before declaring indigency? Also, if she is given Life, the State will only fund 2 appeals, correct or no? TIA.

 

[lonetraveler]

Just to be very clear here, I do not think that Travis watched porn or had anything to do with porn, ok? For argument sake, even if he did watch porn, what is heck has this got to do with mitigating factors in his brutal murder?

 

[Amster]

None of what the defense team and JA are doing.....accusations of child porn belonging to Travis, misconduct by JM, accusation that EF is lying under oath, filings stating that the prosecuter was removing porn from the computer, was tampering with the computer, was wanting to see nudes of JA, statements about TA being abusive, uncaring, unloving, inconsiderate horndog......are possible without being enabled by the judge to do so. All of the delays? The sidebars? Secret witnesses. Secret meetings. Rudeness from defense witnesses toward JM and the court and the victims. ALL of it is being done in the courtroom of JSS.

No, I'm not trashing Sherry. I'm stating my opinion about what I believe. About what I've observed. From the beginning. I have watched it all. JA, her defense team, her fans and JSS disgust me.

 

[ICit]

Let's hope that when Juan gets aka John Smith on the stand he gets him to talk about all the billable hours he has spent looking for porn since his last court appearance. Then Juan can ask him this; "but I thought you told Nurmi that you had other important things to do and could not come back until Wednesday?"

Nurmi lives on Slime Highway. They named it after him!

 

[katydid23]

This proves it can happen. Which is why I think it is important that any purposeful stall tactics by DT need squashed. The quicker this trial is over the less chance of the DT coming up with a hair brained idea that somehow works for them.

The only good news if it ever happened is I suppose just the verdict is thrown out and not the charges. So it would mean we would have to go through the entire trial all over again.

The state may go bankrupt if that happens and release not only JA but all other prisoners because they have no money for prison staff. Just kidding with that part of course. But it would be very expensive if that happens.

Yes. The retrial in this case is going on right now and is not going so well for the prosecution.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Question for AZlawyer...I have just watched Beth Karas live video on her website. She said the prosecution not giving the defense the hard drive in 2008 as evidence was a huge deal. She said prosecution was wrong and this is a good appeal issue. She also stated this is the reason the defense in going into such drawn out detail is for appellate reasons. Juan said it isn't the job of prosecution to notify the defense of the hard drive. Beth Karas said he is wrong and it was definitely the responsibility of the prosecution to do so. What is the truth of this matter? Thanks.

 

[LinasK]

IDK, Linus, because Nurmi defends people accused of sex crimes. I'm thinking trashing victims is SOP for him.

Trashing victims yes, but I find it hard to believe that trashing the prosecutor was Nurmi's idea. After all, he's copied some of Juan's style. I think he has to respect him as a fellow attorney. JMO.
To me it smacks Jodi's hatred of Juan, like "see he's such a pervert, he just wanted to see nude pictures of me". She had no problem with Flores seeing her in all her glory.

 

[katydid23]

While def not the same as partying on the wkend, I remember seeing pics of JM abc the DT walking into the building together smiling and laughing. I remember bc I couldn't understand how JM could be friendly w them after all this. But I guess it comes w the turf.

I don't know how any of them have work/life balance. JM and JSS w the pressure of this trial. JWs family probably thinks she's a moron and KNs wife can't believe her hubby spends time w this convict .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My dad was a well renowned defense attorney in Berkeley. He and the prosecutors would be at each others throats in court. But he made it a routine to go to dinner with them at the Steakhouse at the end of a trial. And whoever lost paid the bill.

As a matter of fact, if any of the DA's or investigators had family members in need of a good attorney, they would usually call my Dad. I learned it was just part of the job to be aggressive and scornful in front of the jury. But somehow, in this case, I think it has gotten very personal. And I fully understand Juan's anger.

 

[MeeBee]

Question for AZlawyer...I have just watched Beth Karas live video on her website. She said the prosecution not giving the defense the hard drive in 2008 as evidence was a huge deal. She said prosecution was wrong and this is a good appeal issue. She also stated this is the reason the defense in going into such drawn out detail is for appellate reasons. Jim said it isn't the job of prosecution to notify the defense of the hard drive. Beth Karas said he is wrong and it was definitely the responsibility of the prosecution to do so. What is the truth of this matter? Thanks.

I will let AZL answer because she knows more about it than me and I could be wrong, but I will say it appears, at least to me, that the defense knew of the existence of the 2008 image. They were given a report of Melendez' findings and his testimony at trial should have tipped them off that it existed. If they wanted to see it for themselves they could have. But they did have a report. In 2009 an image was made and as far as both sides knew this was fine. Both sides seemed to think this was ok in providing evidence which was Travis' original hard drive. Despite the 2009 modifications all the porn that was on Travis' computer was on Dworkin's copy. So it was there to find anyway even though their image was modified.

 

[Boytwnmom]

not to bombard you, but, I oh what the heck!

I have not been following closely as real life has been interfering. But, can you calrify something for me?

Is the porn evidence a seperate issue from the misconduct? I thought, obviously incorrectly, that the DT was arguing the state engaged in misconduct by hiding, destroying, failing to disclose or whatever the fact there was porn (of some type-still not clear) on the computer. Using that as the premise, I assumed the porn evidence would only come in if the misconduct was found to have occurred. But it seems the computer evidnce, which directly contradicts the evidence presented unchallenged in the first trial, is being admitted without regard to the issue of whether the misconduct occurred.

I'm not understanding the basis of this. My concern, besides the obvious stupidity of using the dead victims legal computer use as a "mitigator", is how this might play into an appeal. If different basic evidence than was introduced and used by the jury in deliberating its verdict in the first trial is now admitted and used in the sentencing phase, wouldn't this present a viable appeal issue? Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But this seems highly irregular to me.

My though was that any computer evidence which failed to be discovered by the defense and was not the result of misconduct, would be inadmissable as it would have already been finally litigated in the appropriate phase, especially as it was unchallenged. It would simply be an issue for appeal. Except it would probably not be viable as there was ample opportunity for the defense to perform any tests it wanted on the computer in the many years prior to trial. And I don't see how you can appeal on the basis you didn't do a thorough enough job of vetting and discoverng the evidence. Perhaps an inadequate representation issue but not a substantive basis for appeal.

Obviously I must be wrong. What am I missing?

 

[MeeBee]

I cant remember a trial off hand that had prosecutorial misconduct testimony in it in front of jury who was there to decide the sentence of a convicted defendant. Especially when it has not even been proven there is any misconduct which was done deliberately which would have to be the case.

Of course DTs make allegations of prosecutorial misconduct (but never to this extent imo) but that is taken up during a hearing and not in front of the empaneled jury. She told the defense it would prejudice the jury about Juan concerning the nude photos yet she had no qualms prejudicing him by letting the DT accuse him of misconduct right in front of the jury.

Strange that she disallowed this yet she let MF and BN call Juan a liar and let them say all sorts of unsubstantiated scurrilous things about Juan...such as he is going down the slime road and on and on. Another thing I have never seen another Judge tolerate is disrespectful combative witnesses yet JSS said nothing. She just let it go on and on and on and on.

AZL has already explained why this was in front of the jury today and it doesn't have to do with proving misconduct to the jury. She said she agreed with JSS's decision to let this in.

The judge will not admonish the witness, generally, unless she is asked to. Juan hasn't asked because it works more in his favor. And it did. If you listen to the released juror then it's more likely that behavior works against the defense. Fine by me.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Just when I think this trial has reached the outer limits of weird, it takes a step beyond. Detective Flores on the stand again? It's like déja vu of déja vu. Today was my last day of trying to follow minute by minute with the Tweets. I just can't with this anymore. I have more fulfilling things to do, like clean my toaster.

Justice for Travis. I'll see you here occasionally.

Oh no you don't. We have been here through the best, and the worst of this trial, at times we've laughed, sometimes we've cried. Take tomorrow off (just kidding) but court will resume Wednesday... be here. We all need your input of the transcripts on Tuesday as well. This is for you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKOmMC-dRkk

 

[tcrockett]

Beth just posted that the actual cost of the transcripts will be almost $1000. She seems livid over this

 

[MeeBee]

Beth just posted that the actual cost of the transcripts will be almost $1000. She seems livid over this

$1000 for just over 100 pages? What even?

 

[Frigga]

Great post ZoeyW and welcome to Websleuths! I agree with everything you wrote!

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I am beginning to feel the same way. It is so exhausting. I have been following since 2013 and I am close to throwing in the towel.

In my best JSS voice, "I will take this matter under advisement but for now, you will continue. I will have a ruling at the conclusion of this trial"

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Calling AZlawyer! Due to my inadequacies in knowledge of both law and computers, this post may seem disjointed. Sorry, it's the best I can do to explain myself.

IIRC, a Brady violation occurs when the prosecution fails to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense.

This whole kerfuffle comes down to the fact that the DT didn't get the 2008 image and got the 2009 image instead.

IMHO, John Smith is more than likely spending his very long weekend searching the 2008 drive for anything that could prove that the changes made by Flores waking up the computer deleted pornography from it.

Now, assuming that the defense team can prove that the mere existence of a bunch of sites in the registry and possibly ONE site visited for 45 minutes proves that Travis used this material to abuse Jodi, then, the defense may have a case. That's probably why the judge allowed JS's testimony to occur prior to her decision.

From what little I understand about computers, the 2008 and 2009 images are virtually identical with @200 changes made. Wouldn't Smith have to come up with WHAT changes were made by comparing the two drives?

In her video tonight, BK stated that the '08 drive should have been turned over and it could be a major issue. But, if nothing is discovered to prove that mitigating material was on the '08 image and omitted on the '09 image, could an appeals court rule that it was harmless error?

 

[elementary]

I cant remember a trial off hand that had prosecutorial misconduct testimony in it in front of jury who was there to decide the sentence of a convicted defendant. Especially when it has not even been proven there is any misconduct which was done deliberately which would have to be the case.

Of course DTs make allegations of prosecutorial misconduct (but never to this extent imo) but that is taken up during a hearing and not in front of the empaneled jury. She told the defense it would prejudice the jury about Juan concerning the nude photos yet she had no qualms prejudicing him by letting the DT accuse him of misconduct right in front of the jury.

Strange that she disallowed this yet she let MF and BN call Juan a liar and let them say all sorts of unsubstantiated scurrilous things about Juan...such as he is going down the slime road and on and on. Another thing I have never seen another Judge tolerate is disrespectful combative witnesses yet JSS said nothing. She just let it go on and on and on and on.

It's confusing, isnt it? I still don't understand how the DT keeps insisting on something that has not been proven- in front of the jury (and the judge allows it). At first I understood that some of it is remedial, that this allows there is still a possibility of porn rather than baldly stating absolutely that there was none, and is none as was initially understood and presented. But it seems to me, the DT has gone way beyond that in their innuendo and bald faced lies (some to be 'disregarded'- as if).

So imagine, if we are getting the skinny from AZL, and we understand to some extent the whys and wherefores, and still don't get it, imagine how this affects the jury? They may think that, indeed, it is proven with this confusing testimony. The only hope we can have is that Juan will pull this out of the fire as he has in the past. Honestly, if we don't get it, the jury must be reeling.

 

[tcrockett]

Beth just posted that the actual cost of the transcripts will be almost $1000. She seems livid over this

I ought to add that her objection includes the amount but the thing that really has her fired up is the fact that this ought to have been an open testimony to begin with...meaning free.

 

[tcrockett]

$1000 for just over 100 pages? What even?

no...just the first hunk is 100 pages. The grand total for all of it is almost 1k