Breaking down Nurmi's plea: with just relevant parts and fluff deleted, IMO
--------------------------
"..
.when the rights of …victims rights conflict with those of the defendant … the defendant’s rights are superior...
...we advocated against this stay. We would prefer to go forward in the manner that we were in which we were proceeding before this stay was granted, but that has not happened here. So, ultimately those rights that heighten sense of due process that Miss Arias is entitled to is of much more significance. Rule 19 is a *
non sequitur. It doesn’t apply in this situation. The proceedings will go as they go, and in… conjunction with Rule 19, but at the same time, they have to be done in a way that’s cognizant of the rights due Miss Arias, and that’s where the problem is, and
this court... said that it would be problematic for the defense to go forward. I see nothing …that has been put before the court to reconsider that ruling -- that it’s problematic. This is different than the Court of Appeals staying it. ***
The court is determined based on the evidence presented to it that it is problematic for the defense to proceed forward. ...
...that problematic nature is of constitutional significance which would make any death sentence imposed... be one that could never be imposed upon Miss Arias.
...
She has the right to litigate this issue. It’s not a matter of holding these proceedings hostage.
We want to go forward. ** If the court wanted to go forward tomorrow under the procedure we were going forward with we would do it gladly, but that’s not the situation we’re under.
Miss Arias should not be held to suffer because of what the media has done. If the media causes a mistrial, if we have a mistrial by media, so be it. The state never opposed any of the media motions. They wanted them in here so they could exploit these proceedings just as much as the media. So, Your Honor, we believe that we have the right to go forward and litigate the issue on its merits, and when it’s done, it’s done and then we move forward.
----------------
(had to look this term up):
*non sequitur
a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur
---------------
**sounds like a hostage situation to me
---------------
***JSS did say that calling witnesses out of order is problematic : (so now it's not? what changed for her ???)
William Pitts ‏@william_pitts 37s37 seconds ago
She's (JSS) agreeing calling witnesses out of order is too problematic. #JodiArias
------------------
I don't understand why Nurmi thinks the media will cause a mistrial. The media was forced to appeal because he wanted to stop the trial for the "secret" witness.
He will cause the mistrial if he gets to hold up this trial because he needs to have his witnesses go in some kind of order.
If the jury is available 'til 12/18, does that mean that they are not obligated to stay as jurors until the end of January (good way to cause another mistrial because you may lose
jurors who cannot stay on 'til January if the jurors drop to below 12 :scared

.
-------
(Nurmi needs to stop adding all the fluff to his pleadings, IMO. It's hard to understand what he has to say and what's important to his case.)
Just :moo:
(thanks go out to
TXJan1971 for posting the transcript - Tuesday, November 4 Hearing [post 45])