The state Rests in The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #12

[Linda7NJ]

Nancy Grace heads to see [JA]...in court!

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/23/nancy-grace-heads-arizona-jodi-arias-trial

God help us all! The bombshells will be fast and furious!

I refuse to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PASA]

How does she make pottery in jail? And if I were a tax payer in Mesa I'd be knocking on a lawmaker's door. Why are they paying for materials for prisoners to put items they made on ebay to sell for a big pricetag just because she happens to be the defendant in a highly publicized crime. Seems to me that money should have all been given back to the state since she is getting income from it. Her brother is just the broker. It's her artwork and she is the one who is having them put them on ebay so she and her family can benefit. That is just sick. jmo

I agree, the $$ should go back to Maricopa County since we are the ones footing the bill to keep her up.

MOO

 

[Isabelle]

How does she make pottery in jail? And if I were a tax payer in Mesa I'd be knocking on a lawmaker's door. Why are they paying for materials for prisoners to put items they made on ebay to sell for a big pricetag just because she happens to be the defendant in a highly publicized crime. Seems to me that money should have all been given back to the state since she is getting income from it. Her brother is just the broker. It's her artwork and she is the one who is having them put them on ebay so she and her family can benefit. That is just sick. jmo

Her mom, aunt and the female/male friend are probably scouring resale shops for garbage to sell, claiming JA made it!

 

[Nova]

Speaking of putting him back in the shower.

That cup in the shower picture has always bothered me. I have often wondered if she performed that Mormon Baptism By Proxy with that cup.

I'm not a Mormon but I don't think that's how the rite works. I think you need a living person to serve as "proxy". It isn't about baptizing corpses.

 

[Melanie]

that may have been reason for the cup as well. If she was standing over him she could not get under the water to wash her hair but the area is super small and wouldnt that be putting evidence right back on him? I mean I know my hair falls out like crazy and whether it was wet or not it would be falling on her. With that kind of attack she was covered in blood probably even her hair.

i don't get it. So she disposes (leaves) with the knife and gun, but leaves the cup there? Were there any fingerprints (oil) obtained? I'd have to guess she may have been wearing gloves at that point. Makes no sense.

MOO

Mel

 

[Melanie]

I agree, the $$ should go back to Maricopa County since we are the ones footing the bill to keep her up.

MOO

I wish it was the way it worked - but she hasn't been convicted yet. It's up to the State to put her up, foot all her bills, until the trial is over. I'm not sure if they can go back from day one and send her a bill - who knows. I know the DA is trying that in the Anthony case. Until then, Arias can sell what she wants. :banghead:

If I'm wrong, someone please chime in.

Mel

 

[polleypockets]

Well, one thing I heard defense counsel say was that he wasn't sure a Brady violation required a showing of prejudice. I don't know if that's true or not, but that was his initial response to the Judge's question about what harm the defense sustained due to the initial failure to produce the text messages.

so i am sorry, i am trying to understand this - if any legal eagles can help me - everything i read on brady violations it says A Brady violation consists of three separate parts. The evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it casts doubt on the witness or it gives credibility to the defendant. The state must have suppressed the evidence, even if unintentionally. Finally, because the of the failure to disclose, the court was prejudiced against the defendant.

so how does the fact they did not receive copies of the texts constitutes a brady violation, the defense knew they were there, they received copies when it could technically be done (and i wonder if the defense wanted to pay some one to take screen shots of all the texts for them if it would have even been a problem) and the defense had them over 2 years prior to court so the court was not predijuced???

 

[kkdj]

I honestly believe she showered off while standing on his dead body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. ThAts just what I have thought too. Obviously she would need to get cleaned up and he was put in the shower quickly after attacking him.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

i don't get it. So she disposes (leaves) with the knife and gun, but leaves the cup there? Were there any fingerprints (oil) obtained? I'd have to guess she may have been wearing gloves at that point. Makes no sense.

MOO

Mel

They were not able to retrieve fingerprints from the cup. The crime tech said the water would dilute or erase fingerprints.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

so i am sorry, i am trying to understand this - if any legal eagles can help me - everything i read on brady violations it says A Brady violation consists of three separate parts. The evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it casts doubt on the witness or it gives credibility to the defendant. The state must have suppressed the evidence, even if unintentionally. Finally, because the of the failure to disclose, the court was prejudiced against the defendant.

so how does the fact they did not receive copies of the texts constitutes a brady violation, the defense knew they were there, they received copies when it could technically be done (and i wonder if the defense wanted to pay some one to take screen shots of all the texts for them if it would have even been a problem) and the defense had them over 2 years prior to court so the court was not predijuced???

I do not think this Judge is going to rule in the defense's favor. To me it reeks of desperation and they are trying anything so this trial will not commence all the way to verdict.

I listened to the arguments and the Defense arguments were lame. There is no where he can prove that the defendant's case has been harmed when they have had the damn records for two years now.

Just like they made a big deal NOW (2013) about wanting Jodi's camera when they had four years to look at it.

IMO

 

[gwenabob]

I'm not a Mormon but I don't think that's how the rite works. I think you need a living person to serve as "proxy". It isn't about baptizing corpses.

Maybe she used the cup to rinse him off? For sure it has nothing at all to do with baptism by proxy!

 

[Sulamith]

For the posters that have seen the pic of the cup in the shower. Can you provide a link to the pic? I think I have seen all the pics but I can't ID the cup in any of them.

Right now, I am looking at the graphic/nude pic of TA on the shower floor. I see a what appears to be a opaque, white item upon which his RT thigh is resting on. It that the cup? To me it looks like a displaced, somewhat rolled up, clear shower mat, like the ones that have suction cups on the bottom. I have one like that.

TIA

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Any defense lawyer that gets up in court and says he isnt sure a Brady violation requires a showing of prejudice should be disbarred, imo. He should know the Brady violation laws by heart.

 

[Karmady]

so i am sorry, i am trying to understand this - if any legal eagles can help me - everything i read on brady violations it says A Brady violation consists of three separate parts. The evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it casts doubt on the witness or it gives credibility to the defendant. The state must have suppressed the evidence, even if unintentionally. Finally, because the of the failure to disclose, the court was prejudiced against the defendant.

so how does the fact they did not receive copies of the texts constitutes a brady violation, the defense knew they were there, they received copies when it could technically be done (and i wonder if the defense wanted to pay some one to take screen shots of all the texts for them if it would have even been a problem) and the defense had them over 2 years prior to court so the court was not predijuced???

I was googling around a little on the prejudice issue and a found a 9th circuit case (az is in the 9th circuit) holding that prejudice can be found when a Brady violation has taken place and the evidence is not disclosed prior to entry of a guilty plea. I know the plea in this case is not guilty but only because of self-defense. Also, it was entered back in 2008 and I think I heard the judge say the defense had had the texts for two years (so since 2010-11?), so after the plea. I have no idea whether that's where the defense is going with this, but maybe?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I was googling around a little on the prejudice issue and a found a 9th circuit case (az is in the 9th circuit) holding that prejudice can be found when a Brady violation has taken place and the evidence is not disclosed prior to entry of a guilty plea. I know the plea in this case is not guilty but only because of self-defense. Also, it was entered back in 2008 and I think I heard the judge say the defense had had the texts for two years (so since 2010-11?), so after the plea. I have no idea whether that's where the defense is going with this, but maybe?

If you read about Juan Martinez you will know he does not plea his cases and certainly not the one's he is going to ask for the death penalty. So there was not and never will be a plea offered by the state to JA and they are the only ones that can offer it.

She still pled NG. She has not been harmed ......in fact didnt her lawyer say it has exculpatory evidence in them?

I think it will go no where fast.

IMO

 

[FrayedKnot]

For the posters that have seen the pic of the cup in the shower. Can you provide a link to the pic? I think I have seen all the pics but I can't ID the cup in any of them.

Right now, I am looking at the graphic/nude pic of TA on the shower floor. I see a what appears to be a opaque, white item upon which his RT thigh is resting on. It that the cup? To me it looks like a displaced, somewhat rolled up, clear shower mat, like the ones that have suction cups on the bottom. I have one like that.

TIA

That's it. But it def looked like a cup to me. I hate to go look again because I will have bad dreams....

 

[Karmady]

If you read about Juan Martinez you will know he does not plea his cases and certainly not the one's he is going to ask for the death penalty. So there was not and never will be a plea offered by the state to JA and they are the only ones that can offer it.

She still pled NG. She has not been harmed ......in fact didnt her lawyer say it has exculpatory evidence in them?

I think it will go no where fast.

IMO

I was referring to the entry of her plea with the court, not a plea deal.

here's a snip about the case I was referring to, bbm:

Several federal circuit courts of appeals have held that a Brady violation may be asserted to challenge the validity of a guilty plea. E.g., Sanchez v. U.S., 50 F.3d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir. 1995); White v. U.S., 858 F.2d 416, 422 (8th Cir. 1988); Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312, 1319-20 (2d Cir. 1988); Campbell v. Marshall, 769 F.2d 314, 321 (6th Cir. 1985); accord State v. Sturgeon, 605 N.W.2d 589, 596 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). But see Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that failure to disclose exculpatory evidence before entry of guilty plea does not render plea involuntary or constitute Brady violation). The Ninth Circuit, for example, has reasoned that “‘a defendant’s decision whether or not to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by his appraisal of the prosecution’s case’” and a waiver of the right to trial “cannot be deemed ‘intelligent and voluntary’ if ‘entered without knowledge of material information withheld by the prosecution.’” Sanchez, 50 F.3d at 1453 (quoting Miller, 848 F.2d at 1320).
http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/advancedopinions/1513-state-v-huebler-

 

[Nova]

The thing is, they are not the State ME and they did NOT do the autopsy. And it wasn't my statement, it came from Dr G who is an acting ME. She stated that when a ME testifies it is considered FACT. Her words, not mine.

As I said, people can debate the issues all they want, but for the purposes of this trial he was shot last.

I don't understand the above assertion, which is repeated in numerous posts.

I've been a juror on a murder trial in which the ME testified at length (in CA). And I've prepared juror instructions as a legal secretary (in NY, NJ and CA).

I've never seen an instruction that the "trier of fact" (the jury) is to understand testimony from an ME as essentially different from any other testimony.

An ME may offer direct testimony ("I saw a hole in the skull") as well as expert testimony ("based on my training and experience, I believe the hole was made by a bullet"), but the jury is still entitled to evaluate the value of either offering.

I admit I'm not watching the trial. Does AZ have some special law concerning testimony from MEs?

ETA: There IS a special instruction regarding NOT giving extra weight to testimony from LE; it says the testimony of policemen (and I would assume an ME), etc., is to be evaluated just like testimony from anyone else.

 

[spcagrl]

so i am sorry, i am trying to understand this - if any legal eagles can help me - everything i read on brady violations it says A Brady violation consists of three separate parts. The evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it casts doubt on the witness or it gives credibility to the defendant. The state must have suppressed the evidence, even if unintentionally. Finally, because the of the failure to disclose, the court was prejudiced against the defendant.

so how does the fact they did not receive copies of the texts constitutes a brady violation, the defense knew they were there, they received copies when it could technically be done (and i wonder if the defense wanted to pay some one to take screen shots of all the texts for them if it would have even been a problem) and the defense had them over 2 years prior to court so the court was not predijuced???

Ok, that is the case with the text messages. What I have been finding around the Internet is an interesting tale about the slashed tires. Mimi talked about the slashed tires. The implication thus far has been that Jodi slashed the tires. That is kind of prejudicial against the defendant (I still hate her). I am hearing that the "real" story is they there is a guy named Steve Bell who was a boyfriend of the Andrews girl (can't remember the first name...is it Lisa?). Who also knew Travis. And he had had trouble with the law before. Rumor has it that it may well have been this Steve guy who was doing the tire slashing out of jealousy that travis was with his old girlfriend. So, if the prosecution did not want to call Lisa. (I think that's it) the defense may try to say that the tire slashing mention by Mimi was prejudicial and by resisting calling Lisa (which was kind of obvious) they are trying to hide evidence which would be shall we say beneficial to the .

I really hope this kind of thing is not fixin to happen. Guess we really need the trial to start up again so we really have something to talk about!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I was referring to the entry of her plea with the court, not a plea deal.

here's a snip about the case I was referring to, bbm:

Several federal circuit courts of appeals have held that a Brady violation may be asserted to challenge the validity of a guilty plea. E.g., Sanchez v. U.S., 50 F.3d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir. 1995); White v. U.S., 858 F.2d 416, 422 (8th Cir. 1988); Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312, 1319-20 (2d Cir. 1988); Campbell v. Marshall, 769 F.2d 314, 321 (6th Cir. 1985); accord State v. Sturgeon, 605 N.W.2d 589, 596 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). But see Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that failure to disclose exculpatory evidence before entry of guilty plea does not render plea involuntary or constitute Brady violation). The Ninth Circuit, for example, has reasoned that “‘a defendant’s decision whether or not to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by his appraisal of the prosecution’s case’” and a waiver of the right to trial “cannot be deemed ‘intelligent and voluntary’ if ‘entered without knowledge of material information withheld by the prosecution.’” Sanchez, 50 F.3d at 1453 (quoting Miller, 848 F.2d at 1320).
http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/advancedopinions/1513-state-v-huebler-

I understand and I had already read the case but there is a vast difference in this case and that one imo. I could understand if she had pled Guilty already and then they produced something later on where she may have taken her chances by pleading NG. Because a plead of guilty cannot be undone.

However that is not the case here. She is continuing to plead NG.....the reason for the NG is actually irrelevant. It will be up to the jury to decide if she is guilty or NG and they dont have to go with the self defense theory even if she is miraculously found NG.

So she hasnt been harmed in any manner, imo. The Judge even asked the lawyer what harm had happened and he couldnt answer.

IMO