Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 6 - Part 3

[kolokolo]

Are you kidding me?

I think this is done by design, I think the aunt is the next witness to testify about the convicted murderers suppose abuse by her parents. I think she is trying to solicit negative feedback so she can tell JSS she needs to testify in secrecy as she is fearful of her life.

It's becoming clear what the DT is doing at least to me. I think the DT has created some pathetic new story (or I should say the convicted murderer created a pathetic new story) that she will try and sell to the jurors .... I guess the convicted murderer thinks her chances of selling her new pathetic story will be an easier sell without the media there.

JMHO

 

[Reagan]

View attachment 62600

Looks like Auntie Sue is expecting an apology from the Alexander's. :what:

Wow you have got to be freaking kidding me. How utterly disgusting

 

[daisydomino]

Exactly. I don't think she wants the JURY influenced by the family reaction to her ridiculous tale she is now telling. I don't know how much testifying in front of her parents would effect her directly, considering she has NO conscience.

Now this sounds plausible to me. Look how happy Ms. Arias is to discuss j!zz and anal sex in front of her parents. I think she's such a psycho that she has none of the normal shame the rest of us would feel. Someone else must have advised her on this. Looks like they ignored William Zervakos' opinion that they should keep her off the stand this time.

 

[Hope4More]

Are you kidding me?

I wouldn't dignify her with a response here or anywhere else, no matter what, one reason being she's obviously part of the nutjobs' effort to provoke an outcry that can be used to whine about CMJA not being able to get a fair trial.

Pathetically obvious, brazen, arrogant, and loving the limelight. Birds of a feather indeed.

 

[T-4-2]

Are you kidding me?

"Enough said"????!!!! From a relative of Jodi's?

 

[Steve44]

Well, I see what you are saying but I disagree. If she "never got to be heard!" it would have been because she refused to testify. It would have been a case of she had a right to, but declined. And with that NONE of her rights were violated.

But I don't think they'll care about the reasons why, because it's a matter of life or death. They'll care about if the defendant was given the fullest possible opportunity to say all she had to say. Now, if JSS was ruling the court would be closed permanently, that would be a completely different matter, but she is not. This is a temporary blackout to allow the defendant her full say, and the public will have the entire trial before them in a very short amount of time.

 

[krkrjx]

I wonder if the killer will demand a private execution--no media and no spectators. Wonder if she is entitled to that. If so, I sure hope she gets it.

 

[krkrjx]

But I don't think they'll care about the reasons why, because it's a matter of life or death. They'll care about if the defendant was given the fullest possible opportunity to say all she had to say. Now, if JSS was ruling the court would be closed permanently, that would be a completely different matter, but she is not. This is a temporary blackout to allow the defendant her full say, and the public will have the entire trial before them in a very short amount of time.

She would be given the fullest opportunity to say all she had to say even if the court was not closed. Your reasoning would lay open to question every case in the country--particularly death penalty cases and particularly high profile ones, but would question the "fullest opportunity" to have their say in each and every case. I do not see how closing the courtroom prevents such inquiries from occurring. At any rate, this is not enough of a reason for me to accept JSS ruling to close court. I need to know more before I accept she had cause.

 

[Nali87]

Well, I see what you are saying but I disagree. If she "never got to be heard!" it would have been because she refused to testify. It would have been a case of she had a right to, but declined. And with that NONE of her rights were violated.

I at this point see no reason for the court to have gone into closed session. Maybe there is a valid reason for JSS ruling as she did but so far we have not been provided that.

ITA! You said it perfectly.

 

[Jmoose]

Here:

http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/jodi-arias-nurmi-motion.pdf

Wow-it sounds to me like Nurmi's got her number! I think she is just p.o.'d that he doesn't find her charming enough to allow himself to be manipulated the way she'd like. I am not at all surprised that he doesn't like her. And what she cites as evidence that he isn't competent counsel, may only be evidence that she doesn't understand the ins and outs of trial-lawyering as well as she thinks she does.

 

[Charterhouse]

This question may have been answered.
Do Judges confer with each other regarding cases? For example would/could Judge Sherry have consulted another judge before she closed the courtroom to the media and public?
I really don't know if they do, but I think it would be nice if they had other judges to consult.

I think it would be a good idea for a judge, much like an attorney to become death qualified to have another judge helping them out. I don't know how that would work. It just might have saved some of the things that are going on in this case. They may already have such a thing.

Just my curiosity getting the best of me.

 

[Steve44]

She would be given the fullest opportunity to say all she had to say even if the court was not closed. Your reasoning would lay open to question every case in the country--particularly death penalty cases and particularly high profile ones, but would question the "fullest opportunity" to have their say in each and every case. I do not see how closing the courtroom prevents such inquiries from occurring. At any rate, this is not enough of a reason for me to accept JSS ruling to close court. I need to know more before I accept she had cause.

It prevents it because she's refusing to testify otherwise. It may set bad precedent but that's the kind of thing we have to live with in a land that provides for the DP yet holds life sacred.

 

[bznbear]

Are you kidding me?

IKR? Disgusting.

 

[AZlawyer]

Does anyone know the judge that will be hearing the appeal. Will it be a Superior Court Judge Supreme Court Judge?.
We have an election on Tuesday.

It will be heard by a panel of 3 judges at the AZ Court of Appeals. The judges have already been assigned: Orozco, Howe and Portley. Orozco and Howe are on the ballot for Tuesday. I know both of them personally and they are brilliant. I have met Portley but just for a few minutes at Bar functions. He has been on at least one of my appellate panels but I don't think he spoke much.

This question may have been answered.
Do Judges confer with each other regarding cases? For example would/could Judge Sherry have consulted another judge before she closed the courtroom to the media and public?
I really don't know if they do, but I think it would be nice if they had other judges to consult.

I think it would be a good idea for a judge, much like an attorney to become death qualified to have another judge helping them out. I don't know how that would work. It just might have saved some of the things that are going on in this case. They may already have such a thing.

Just my curiosity getting the best of me.

Yes, they can and do pop into chambers and make a quick phone call if they want advice from a colleague.

 

[AZlawyer]

It prevents it because she's refusing to testify otherwise. It may set bad precedent but that's the kind of thing we have to live with in a land that provides for the DP yet holds life sacred.

I don't think we do have to live with it. She can testify if she wants to, and the openness of our court system is crucial IMO.

 

[bznbear]

I really think the request for an apology is just baiting. JMO

Even worse, imo.

 

[Charterhouse]

Are you hinting that the decision might affect your vote?

No actually it would not affect my vote at all. I only vote for the judges that I know.

What I am interested in is will a judge be appointed after the election with the hope that it would not affect voters decisions.

I am going to copy the ballot to see if the judge that does oversee this appeal is/was up for reelection this time.

I am just nosey that way and want to see if games like this are being played.

Thank you AzL I see you have already answered my questions. The Bat Phone is working well.

 

[Brattinella]

That request for an apology is offensive in the extreme.

 

[krkrjx]

It prevents it because she's refusing to testify otherwise. It may set bad precedent but that's the kind of thing we have to live with in a land that provides for the DP yet holds life sacred.

SHE prevents it. It (open court) does not prevent it. The onus is on her to take the opportunity given to her by law to testify and if she executes her right to decline, so be it. People do that in court all the time--execute their right to testify or not testify. And those may be DP cases, too, but it doesn't matter--every defendant has the right to testify, or not.

I must say, though, what I have bolded tells me a lot about why you want to continue to argue this. I will leave this argument now, with this: Your opinion is valid and is one held by many citizens including many here on WS. I agree with much of what you say, just not all of it. And that, my friend, has to be my final word on this because I have posted on this subject several times now and to continue posting on it would be in violation of WS TOS.

 

[Steve44]

I don't think we do have to live with it. She can testify if she wants to, and the openness of our court system is crucial IMO.

We don't absolutely have to. But then we may have to live with more successful appeals.