Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #2

[salberg7]

I too personally think she can't get pregnant or she would have. There is also the possibility that she by choice didn't want to ruin that "Goddess" body by getting pregnant. How would she have gotten that body back in shape? Probably would have hacked into the father's credit card and got herself a subscription for a gym, lol. No, the killer is too selfish to have a child, then it couldn't be "me, me, me!"

 

[Hope4More]

BBM. If the Perryville Princess goes through PCR, she has to start with JSS, right? JSS is the gateway for this process? That would seem to be a non-starter....

JSS would be the judge overseeing the killers PCR process (if she’s still on the bench). Even if she weren’t, I agree the killer has truly zero chance of winning any kind of PC relief.


BUT. There is a reason for her to go through the process, even if she understands (doubtful) that she’s gonna lose. PCR proceedings are the only time post- LWOP conviction where she’s allowed to try to bring in new evidence. Let’s say there is a PCR process and JSS rules the evidence isn’t admissible (because it isn’t new or for any other legal grounds). Even so, the killer’s attempt to introduce new “evidence” would then be on the record for appellate review. I’m not sure if the evidence itself would be included, though.

 

[Hope4More]

Do not believe Judge Mackey has ruled

For anyone with access to Beth Karas site, or wherever else the AG’s response is posted in full…

How long was his response? Did he provide citations? What party (parties) was it directed to? Was he arguing against the motion on behalf of the State, or was he deciding against the motion as the chief (non-judicial) legal officer of the state ("should be denied" or "is denied")?

I really wish AZL would pop in one more time to make sense of the motion and the mechanics of how it plays out. How can the COA rule on a motion that the COA be disqualified? How can a Superior Court judge rule on a motion about recusal of judges sitting on another –and higher- court? The only reason the Superior Court has any jurisdiction at all of the killer’s case is because the appellate record hasn’t been completed (waiting on many transcripts and briefs). The case sits on the COA’s pending docket, not the Superior Court’s.

 

[Colie]

For anyone with access to Beth Karas site, or wherever else the AG’s response is posted in full…

How long was his response? Did he provide citations? What party (parties) was it directed to? Was he arguing against the motion on behalf of the State, or was he deciding against the motion as the chief (non-judicial) legal officer of the state ("should be denied" or "is denied")?

I really wish AZL would pop in one more time to make sense of the motion and the mechanics of how it plays out. How can the COA rule on a motion that the COA be disqualified? How can a Superior Court judge rule on a motion about recusal of judges sitting on another –and higher- court? The only reason the Superior Court has any jurisdiction at all of the killer’s case is because the appellate record hasn’t been completed (waiting on many transcripts and briefs). The case sits on the COA’s pending docket, not the Superior Court’s.

Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, disqualification is neither required
nor warranted under the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, and Appellant’s motion
should be denied for two distinct reasons, discussed below.

Basically the response says it should be denied for two reasons:
1.Disqualify the entire Court based on Judge Cattani article is not warranted under AZ law.
2. Should be denied due to a premature motion as no judges have been assigned to the case.

It is 6 pages.
It cites State v. Patterson, 222 Ariz.
574, 575–77, ¶¶ 6–10, 218 P.3d 1031, 1032–34 (App. 2009)
It cites

Also cites all the rules in the motion to disqualify and counters the reasons.

Hope that answers some questions
Also this is an open Facebook page and you can find the motion copied there.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1485222298406653/

 

[Hope4More]

Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, disqualification is neither required
nor warranted under the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, and Appellant’s motion
should be denied for two distinct reasons, discussed below.

Basically the response says it should be denied for two reasons:
1.Disqualify the entire Court based on Judge Cattani article is not warranted under AZ law.
2. Should be denied due to a premature motion as no judges have been assigned to the case.

It is 6 pages.
It cites State v. Patterson, 222 Ariz.
574, 575–77, ¶¶ 6–10, 218 P.3d 1031, 1032–34 (App. 2009)
It cites

Also cites all the rules in the motion to disqualify and counters the reasons.

Hope that answers some questions
Also this is an open Facebook page and you can find the motion copied there.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1485222298406653/

Thank you!!!!! I can't access the FB link, though, because I'm not on FB...ditched it years ago.

 

[G&AMom]

I honestly have never believed she was capable of getting pregnant. Just a hunch otherwise I think she would have "accidentally" gotten pregnant with Bobby, Matt, Daryl or Travis- take your pick- especially Travis.

A poster very early on, as the first trial was starting in January 2013, commented that she was surprised Jodi hadn't gotten herself pregnant by some sports figure and then sued him for mega-bucks. I agree -- I think if she didn't get pregnant at some point, it's not because she didn't try.

 

[Colie]

Thank you!!!!! I can't access the FB link, though, because I'm not on FB...ditched it years ago.

It is an open page you don't have to be a facebook user to access the page just Internet

 

[Caylee Advocate]

It is an open page you don't have to be a facebook user to access the page just Internet

Yet the page says you have to log in to FB so if Hope doesn't have a login, she can't see it.

 

[Colie]

9-Oct-2015
File date: 9/4/2015......................M..otion to Disqualify the Court of Appeals (Appellant)
07/Oct/2015 FILED: Response to Motion to Disqualify the Court of Appeals
(Appellee)
MOTION CALENDAR

Looks like there may have been a hearing on Friday October 9, 2015?

 

[krkrjx]

JSS would be the judge overseeing the killers PCR process (if she’s still on the bench). Even if she weren’t, I agree the killer has truly zero chance of winning any kind of PC relief.


BUT. There is a reason for her to go through the process, even if she understands (doubtful) that she’s gonna lose. PCR proceedings are the only time post- LWOP conviction where she’s allowed to try to bring in new evidence. Let’s say there is a PCR process and JSS rules the evidence isn’t admissible (because it isn’t new or for any other legal grounds). Even so, the killer’s attempt to introduce new “evidence” would then be on the record for appellate review. I’m not sure if the evidence itself would be included, though.

Even though there is nothing even remotely amusing about a man's brutal murder followed by a trial such as this dog and pony show, I could not help but chuckle over the possibility of new evidence being introduced. Considering that the evidence already introduced was no more than grandiose imaginings of killer and her attorneys "corroborated" by witnesses who testified via affidavit--because they could not bear the scrutiny of cross examination--that they knew the murder victim to be a horrible human being, one's mind could have a field day imagining what "new evidence" killer might attempt to introduce.

 

[b_lab7410]

I too personally think she can't get pregnant or she would have. There is also the possibility that she by choice didn't want to ruin that "Goddess" body by getting pregnant. How would she have gotten that body back in shape? Probably would have hacked into the father's credit card and got herself a subscription for a gym, lol. No, the killer is too selfish to have a child, then it couldn't be "me, me, me!"

She did say she wanted a child with Travis to at least one coworker.

She would damage the child, I mean who would the kid be 'allowed' to play with? She holds a grudge against 100% of any population (that she's not trying to 'seduce'). Her mother gives me that same feeling, I doubt there was much trust building in that house.

The world got lucky because her exes took the protected route or she is in fact, barren. Some people associate 'having kids' to someone who will 'never question them.' The worship factor combined with helpless child who has no choice but to rely on her for their needs... I think she would get a real thrill from that. Travis had cash but she wasn't married to it yet. That's probably why she didn't breed.

She thinks too well of herself, she's no caregiver for sure.

 

[b_lab7410]

A poster very early on, as the first trial was starting in January 2013, commented that she was surprised Jodi hadn't gotten herself pregnant by some sports figure and then sued him for mega-bucks. I agree -- I think if she didn't get pregnant at some point, it's not because she didn't try.

I think she would have been too intimidated about that, Travis was her prey because of his profile... I don't think sports players would touch her... JMO..

Travis was bred to "believe in the best," and was learning how to balance compassion with his goals.... poor guy met the wrong girl. Sports player might damage HER wheels, IMO... she's crazy, but she understands the dynamics... there's only a certain personality she feels unthreatened by.

 

[Colie]

FYI
Judges Maurice Portley, Daine M. Johnsen, and John E. Gemmill have denied the motion to disqualify the COA and Judge Cattani had already recused himself.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Anybody surprised??? LOL! It's the beginning of the final end and we can shut down on what's-her-name a little sooner rather than later!

 

[LinTX]

The COA is now showing a Motion to Reconsider Re: Motion to Disqualify filed by JA on 10/15. Cannot figure out why the original was filed, much less asking COA to reconsider their denial. What kind of game are they playing, and how long will COA take to deny this one?

 

[LinTX]

Beth Karas has the latest Motion to Reconsider. They cite cases where appeals judges were personally involved in the original cases prior to election to the higher courts and where bias was uncovered after the appeal ruling*. One capital case mentioned several times was just granted review by the US Supreme Court (Williams v. Pennsylvania, No. 15-5040). That one is a DP case where the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handled the original case as DA, had a hand in asking for the DP, and refused to recuse himself on the appeal. As he was Chief Justice the claim is that his bias tainted the other judges. JA's motion notes that Cattani recused himself but they need to move it to the AZ Supreme Court anyway to ensure fairness, as proving the other judges on the COA weren't tainted by Cattani's bias would be impossible to prove/determine.

*the cases cited were reviewed in higher courts and findings upheld - bias by judge was said to be either harmless error or no due process violation. Not sure how these cases help her, but....

 

[Alice253]

Well, geez. The one judge has already recused himself and besides that she's not even a death penalty case. She really makes my head hurt. [emoji51]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[Alice253]

And I should have finished reading before I posted. Duh...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[RickshawFan]

Beth Karas has the latest Motion to Reconsider. They cite cases where appeals judges were personally involved in the original cases prior to election to the higher courts and where bias was uncovered after the appeal ruling*. One capital case mentioned several times was just granted review by the US Supreme Court (Williams v. Pennsylvania, No. 15-5040). That one is a DP case where the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handled the original case as DA, had a hand in asking for the DP, and refused to recuse himself on the appeal. As he was Chief Justice the claim is that his bias tainted the other judges. JA's motion notes that Cattani recused himself but they need to move it to the AZ Supreme Court anyway to ensure fairness, as proving the other judges on the COA weren't tainted by Cattani's bias would be impossible to prove/determine.

*the cases cited were reviewed in higher courts and findings upheld - bias by judge was said to be either harmless error or no due process violation. Not sure how these cases help her, but....

What kind of crazy strategy is this? The Perryville Princess is orchestrating pokes at a wasps' nest. She expects all these judges to side with her? And then, I suppose, if the AZ SC doesn't side with her, she can say they were biased, and off she goes to the federal courts? Or is JA just creating a muddle so her case will have some "substance" by the time the federal appeals process starts? Like they haven't figured out by now that JA's muddles are all smoke and mirrors with no validity? And that their whole purpose is to manipulate judges?

 

[G&AMom]

Beth Karas has the latest Motion to Reconsider. They cite cases where appeals judges were personally involved in the original cases prior to election to the higher courts and where bias was uncovered after the appeal ruling*. One capital case mentioned several times was just granted review by the US Supreme Court (Williams v. Pennsylvania, No. 15-5040). That one is a DP case where the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handled the original case as DA, had a hand in asking for the DP, and refused to recuse himself on the appeal. As he was Chief Justice the claim is that his bias tainted the other judges. JA's motion notes that Cattani recused himself but they need to move it to the AZ Supreme Court anyway to ensure fairness, as proving the other judges on the COA weren't tainted by Cattani's bias would be impossible to prove/determine.

*the cases cited were reviewed in higher courts and findings upheld - bias by judge was said to be either harmless error or no due process violation. Not sure how these cases help her, but....

I don't see how these cases help her either. It seems to me that this has been a pattern with Jodi's attorneys of citing cases that "sort of" sound like hers, but not quite, but hey, maybe the new judge won't actually read the facts involved.

The thing is, has anybody figured out what recusing the entire CoA is going to get Jodi? So her appeal goes directly to the AZ Supreme Court and then . . . what? Just one less step on the way to the US Supreme Court? Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it.