SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

[polleypockets]

I've seen some reports of people who thought Perryville was an improvement over Estrella....better food. More TV channels...

not from what i have read in all the news articles - imo - i bet she will be very surprised when she gets there - and not have the popularity she thinks

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Looks like Juan got the ruling JS made about access to the jail records reversed!!
Dang, he's good.


The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its
discretion in precluding the State from obtaining jail
visitation logs. According to the State, the logs are kept by
The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its
discretion in precluding the State from obtaining jail
visitation logs. According to the State, the logs are kept by
the Maricopa County Sheriff as part of his official duties in
operating the county jail system. Thus, the State contends that
these government records are not protected as work product of
defense counsel. We agree.
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.4(b)(1) provides that
“[d]isclosure shall not be required of legal research or of
records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that
they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the
prosecutor, members of the prosecutor’s legal or investigative
staff or law enforcement officers, or of defense counsel or
defense counsel’s legal or investigative staff.” (Emphasis
added.) The comments to the Rule note that the Rule “adopts a
limited work product standard” returning to the concept of
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), and that the Rule
protects documents “only to the extent that they constitute
legal research or the ‘theories, opinions and conclusions’ of
the parties and their agents.” Rule 15.4(b)(1) cmt.
The plain language of the Rule supports the State’s
position that jail visitation logs do not constitute work
product. See State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz.
167, 169, 812 P.2d 985, 987 (1991) (In reference to the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[w]hen the rule’s language is not
subject to different interpretations, we need look no further
than that language to determine the drafters’ intent. We will
3
give the rule’s language its usual, ordinary meaning unless
doing so creates an absurd result.” (citations omitted)). The
sheriff keeps a written log of the names of people who visit
particular inmates in the county jail. That information cannot
reasonably be construed as an opinion, theory, or conclusion of
defense counsel or of defense counsel’s legal or investigative
staff and therefore it does not fall within the scope of defense
counsel’s work product. Thus, the trial court abused its
discretion in granting Defendant’s motion. See State v. George,
206 Ariz. 436, 443, ¶ 15, 79 P.3d 1050, 1057 (App. 2003) (abuse
of discretion occurs when trial court exercises its discretion
in a manner which is manifestly unreasonable or based on
untenable grounds).
Defendant’s principal argument in the trial court was based
on work product, although she did include a general statement
that a violation of the Sixth Amendment occurs if counsel fails
to thoroughly investigate potential mitigation evidence. She
did not explain, however, how permitting the State to view the
jail logs would prevent her from obtaining effective assistance
of counsel.
In her response to the petition for special action,
Defendant expands her argument on that issue and raises
additional points not presented to the trial court. She asserts
that allowing the State to obtain the jail logs infringes on her
4
right to establish a defense, as a fundamental element of due
process. She claims that jail logs have been used in other
cases by the State “as a fishing expedition to search for
defense strategy in all phases of capital representation,” and
if not prohibited, will cause a chilling effect on defense
counsel’s investigation. She further argues that if the State
is able to view the jail logs, it will “adversely affect defense
[counsel’s] decision making in terms of who to send to visit
[the Defendant], knowing the State will become aware of every
visitor.” Finally, she asserts that defendants will be
reluctant to confide in visiting experts if they know the names
of such experts are readily available to the State.
We decline Defendant’s invitation to address these
speculative issues, raised for the first time in this special
action. We do note, however, that if the State unduly
interferes with the attorney-client relationship, it runs the
risk of violating Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
See State v. Boggs, 218 Ariz. 325, 337, ¶ 51, 185 P.3d 111, 123
(2008) (recognizing that “not every intrusion into the attorney-
client relationship results in a denial of effective assistance
of counsel. Whether a Sixth Amendment violation exists depends
on whether the intrusions were purposeful and whether the
prosecution, either directly or indirectly, obtained evidence or
learned of defense strategy from the intrusions.” State v.
5
6
Warner, 150 Ariz. 123, 127, 722 P.2d 291, 295 (1986) (noting
that “defendant’s right to counsel includes the protection
against improper intrusions by the prosecutor or other
government agents into the confidential relationship between a
defendant and his attorney&#8221. In this case, however, Defendant
has not directed us to any event that constitutes an intrusion,
much less an improper one, into her relationship with her
attorney.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of this special action
petition.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial court’s order prohibiting
the State from viewing and/or accessing jail visitation logs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court provide a
copy of this Decision Order to the Honorable Sally S. Duncan, a
Judge of the Superior Court, and to each party appearing herein.
DATED this _____ day of November, 2009.
/S/ ____________________________

 

[Tulessa]

How is she still able to tweet???


Jodi Arias ‏@Jodiannarias 6h
"I will be sorry for the rest of my life - probably longer." - Me, my allocution, May 21, 2013

 

[NancyGracesBangs]

"Couples" say mean things to each other. That's all this is/was IMO

Not to mention, we really will never know what this is all about but we have found out that JA is manipulative, a liar, plays the victim, is disconnected and more than likely has some personality disorder. Knowing that, it can be speculated that these comments (which, yes, are vulgar and rude) could be a result of behaviors that JA displayed to Travis.

We don't know these conversations in their entirety, we don't know what JA may have done to incite TA, we don't know how he was threatened (and I believe she did threaten him)

The defense made darn sure that the public was supposed to determine that TA was abusive because of these messages. I don't consider this abuse if the recipient was an evil, cold blooded, obsessed snake who pushed him to his limit. I actually would give him kudos for his restraint as some people would have clocked her.

 

[gitana1]

i attended a few days of that trial. i was there the day they showed the video of her running over him. it was made MUCH worse by the fact that his daughter was in the car with her. if she had been by herself, i don't know if it would have mattered but it may have.
this was classic manslaughter, IMO. heat of passion? oh yeah! she was hopping mad when she hit him.

That would not be manslaughter. Manslaughter involves recklessness, not rage usually. So manslaughter would be things like driving while wasted and killing someone in your car. Even maybe getting into a fist fight but hitting too hard and causing death.

Second degree murder fits more the sudden, rage killing ala Clara Harris.

 

[elementary]

Remembering the huge number of peeps here and in the media who said that listening to her on the stand made them want to smack her. And we don't know her or have had to put up with her in real life.

Travis would have had to be an otherwordly saint to have not been tempted to whack her on multiple occasions. That he never did hit her is actually extraordinary. Think back to the day she confronted him after trespassing, violating his privacy and peeping into the window spying on someone who had made it clear he did not want a relationship with her.

I can only imagine what twisted and crazy-making things she said to him. I've always believed he did go upstairs....to get away from her, and I believe he did bang his head against a closet door...that he did so in a rage, after she wouldn't even give him the space to walk away, AND that even when that angry, even when so deliberately provoked, he had the self-control and fundamentsl decency to not hit her or even call her the names she so richly deserved.

I actually found that tremendously affecting in spite of myself. The story was surprising, unexpected, and that's why I believe it. It sounds like something a human being with crazy (religious?) control would do. So poignant.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

How is she still able to tweet???

Jodi Arias ‏@Jodiannarias 6h
"I will be sorry for the rest of my life - probably longer." - Me, my allocution, May 21, 2013

Perhaps someone else besides Donovan has taken on the proxy tweeting role?

 

[dani]

Breaking News: AZ Supreme Court will NOT take DP off the table!!! :great:

 

[Sleuth5]

Good Luck, ATL.

The Commodores-Brick House - YouTube

 

[JSR]

It's an ORLANDO THING! If I ever decide to go all Annie Oakley I'm moving to Orlando first. :floorlaugh:

Good God that state is a hot mess. I'm thinking that all of America's killers are going to migrate to that state knowing they can always walk on murder charges.

 

[shiloh42]

Hope this isn't a repeat, but Tara says she thinks Travis was so mad because he found out that Jodi planned to blackmail him with the sex tape.

I've always thought that too - that she either threatened to blackmail him with it or she actually revealed it to the Bishop to get him in trouble with the church.

I seem to recall that the nice lady who was his former GF, with whom he had relations, she said that they confessed to the bishop and that one transgression of the rule of celibacy was bad enough but a 2nd would have been much worse. Does anyone else recall that testimony? If Jodi threatened to rat him out to the Bishop that would have gotton him into real serious trouble with the church. I am less sure that PPL would care that much.

 

[elementary]

This is the stuff that was SEALED:

THE COURT: The record will show the
presence of the defendant and all counsel. The jury
is not present.
Counsel, you wanted to speak before we
brought the jury in?
MR. NURMI: Judge, we're requesting a stay.
We had -- a stay of requested proceedings.
If I may approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NURMI: This was e-filed this morning.
This relates to any potential aggravation phase that
may be forthcoming in this trial.
THE COURT: Mr. Martinez.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
MR. MARTINEZ: The State would object to
the request for the stay. There really is no good
reason -- people can give any reason they want, but
there is no good reason to grant the stay.
Additionally, the State -- and I was just
handed this right now, but the State disputes the
factual allegations in the defendant's request for
the stay. He's, I believe, mischaracterizing
Detective Flores's statement and testimony and so I
do not see a reason for the stay.
THE COURT: Mr. Nurmi, anything else?
MR. NURMI: No, Your Honor. We will stand
on the written pleading.
THE COURT: All right. The request for a
stay of proceedings is denied at this time. I
believe that there is adequate time for you to pursue
your remedy before we get to that point in the
proceedings, if we get to that point in the
proceedings.
Anything else?
MR. MARTINEZ: Judge, there was some
coverage, including some printed coverage of this
case over the weekend, and so I would ask that you
inquire of the jurors whether or not they saw
anything and then of course to continue to advise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
them of the admonition.

A lot was sealed. I'm confused. When did this happen?

BTW, thanks!

 

[AZWatcher]

It's an ORLANDO THING! If I ever decide to go all Annie Oakley I'm moving to Orlando first. :floorlaugh:

She's just been acquitted of Manslaughter ... She's Goin' to Disney World

I gotta know ... Was she in custody awaiting trial? Her hair was bleached to the nines with no roots coming through ... and she had a perfect french manicure ... Ain't no Bertha in the cell block doin' that stuff. She was wearing about a thousand bucks worth of clothes and jewelry in court ... So much for looking sympathetic. Get chitfaced shoot your BF admit to doing it in a drunken stupor ON VIDEO .... and go to Disney World... Floriduh. :facepalm:

 

[elementary]

APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY STAY OF AGGRAVATION TRIAL - interesting read.

This is this is the actual application document. It won't let me give you a "clickable" link - you'll have to copy and paste I think.

media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Stay.pdf



And here IS THE PETITION FOR REVIEW:

media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Petition.pdf ·
It reads in part:

Why This Court Should Grant Review 9
1. This Court Should Accept Review To Establish That The Remedy For Perjurious Testimony In A Chronis Hearing Should Be, At A Minimum, The Striking Of The Death Penalty Allegations. 9
2. The Taint Of The Perjured Testimony Cannot Be Cured Years Later By Trial Testimony Unrelated To The Issue Of Probable Cause For The Death Penalty Aggravator


HAHA My spell check says Perjurious is misspelled - good ol Nurmi.

…

What freaking perjury? Considering the DT witnesses that glaringly and endlessly perjured themselves on the stand to advocate for the convict. Ye gods.

 

[PPKik]

Looks like Juan got the ruling JS made about access to the jail records reversed!!
Dang, he's good.


The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its
discretion in precluding the State from obtaining jail
visitation logs. According to the State, the logs are kept by
The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its
discretion in precluding the State from obtaining jail
visitation logs. According to the State, the logs are kept by
the Maricopa County Sheriff as part of his official duties in
operating the county jail system. Thus, the State contends that
these government records are not protected as work product of
defense counsel. We agree.
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.4(b)(1) provides that
“[d]isclosure shall not be required of legal research or of
records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that
they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the
prosecutor, members of the prosecutor’s legal or investigative
staff or law enforcement officers, or of defense counsel or
defense counsel’s legal or investigative staff.” (Emphasis
added.) The comments to the Rule note that the Rule “adopts a
limited work product standard” returning to the concept of
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), and that the Rule
protects documents “only to the extent that they constitute
legal research or the ‘theories, opinions and conclusions’ of
the parties and their agents.” Rule 15.4(b)(1) cmt.
The plain language of the Rule supports the State’s
position that jail visitation logs do not constitute work
product. See State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 168 Ariz.
167, 169, 812 P.2d 985, 987 (1991) (In reference to the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[w]hen the rule’s language is not
subject to different interpretations, we need look no further
than that language to determine the drafters’ intent. We will
3
give the rule’s language its usual, ordinary meaning unless
doing so creates an absurd result.” (citations omitted)). The
sheriff keeps a written log of the names of people who visit
particular inmates in the county jail. That information cannot
reasonably be construed as an opinion, theory, or conclusion of
defense counsel or of defense counsel’s legal or investigative
staff and therefore it does not fall within the scope of defense
counsel’s work product. Thus, the trial court abused its
discretion in granting Defendant’s motion. See State v. George,
206 Ariz. 436, 443, ¶ 15, 79 P.3d 1050, 1057 (App. 2003) (abuse
of discretion occurs when trial court exercises its discretion
in a manner which is manifestly unreasonable or based on
untenable grounds).
Defendant’s principal argument in the trial court was based
on work product, although she did include a general statement
that a violation of the Sixth Amendment occurs if counsel fails
to thoroughly investigate potential mitigation evidence. She
did not explain, however, how permitting the State to view the
jail logs would prevent her from obtaining effective assistance
of counsel.
In her response to the petition for special action,
Defendant expands her argument on that issue and raises
additional points not presented to the trial court. She asserts
that allowing the State to obtain the jail logs infringes on her
4
right to establish a defense, as a fundamental element of due
process.

[Snipped for space]

IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of this special action
petition.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial court’s order prohibiting
the State from viewing and/or accessing jail visitation logs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court provide a
copy of this Decision Order to the Honorable Sally S. Duncan, a
Judge of the Superior Court, and to each party appearing herein.
DATED this _____ day of November, 2009.
/S/ ____________________________

Is this recent or from 2009? In any case, I'm glad. Have the jail logs been public?

 

[dani]

How is she still able to tweet???


Jodi Arias ‏@Jodiannarias 6h
"I will be sorry for the rest of my life - probably longer." - Me, my allocution, May 21, 2013

Sorry for what, Jodi? Sorry for not taking the camera with you? Sorry for not heading for the Mexican border sooner? Sorry for not having a better defense team?

You are definitely one SORRY excuse for a human being.:furious:

 

[AZWatcher]

I've always thought that too - that she either threatened to blackmail him with it or she actually revealed it to the Bishop to get him in trouble with the church.

I seem to recall that the nice lady who was his former GF, with whom he had relations, she said that they confessed to the bishop and that one transgression of the rule of celibacy was bad enough but a 2nd would have been much worse. Does anyone else recall that testimony? If Jodi threatened to rat him out to the Bishop that would have gotton him into real serious trouble with the church. I am less sure that PPL would care that much.

Good theory... but as someone stated a few days back ... 9 days later he allows her to take nude photos? That makes no sense. It makes sense he would have sex with her again ...facepalm: men) but the photos? No.

 

[LambChop]

Thanks LambChop - The attic issue is definitely worth reading the testimony.
Like you said, its all right there - posts #667-669

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195462&page=27

ITA & let's hope the future jurors pay close attention - her testimony on the stand appears to be deliberately convoluted, peppered with irrelevant details and confusion. Same pattern of lying we have heard from her many times.

You made a good point, how important it is to know that Det Flores informed her there was NOTHING in the attic when the crime scene was investigated.

It almost comes across as a "red herring" - where the attic means something, but entirely different than any of the lies she attached to the subject. If that makes sense. Who knows, maybe that was another of her stalking/hiding places.

I'm not sure JM can do this but I sure would like to see he read off a list of all the lies she told under oath.

 

[elementary]

Hi Elementary!

I know right. It never ceases to amaze me that the "good guys" are always held to a higher standard, and how his style was a "fighting fire with fire" thing because I am CONVINCED if he had not been relentless and assertive the DT lies would have drown out justice in this trial

Agreed! How do you fight weasels? By being civil and linear? Ha!

 

[TXProfessional]

Breaking News: AZ Supreme Court will NOT take DP off the table!!! :great:

Thanks Dani, do you have a link? tia