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
Nancy Grace heads to see [JA]...in court!
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/23/nancy-grace-heads-arizona-jodi-arias-trial
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
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
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.
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 agree, the $$ should go back to Maricopa County since we are the ones footing the bill to keep her up.
MOO![]()
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.
I honestly believe she showered off while standing on his dead body.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
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'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.
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?
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
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
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.
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 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 defendants decision whether or not to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by his appraisal of the prosecutions 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-