trial day 46: the defense continues its case in chief #138

[bexlex]

Re: AVL

My controlling and abusive ex-husband used to pretend he didn't understand me when I was expressing myself, feelings, complaints, whatever. That's gaslighting or crazymaking behavior. This is exactly what AVL did with Juan the whole time.

Eventually I was able to realize what ex-h was doing and once I said "no one else seems to have an issue understanding what I am trying to express. It shut his mouth for a bit.

AVL was on the stand long enough for her shiny veneer to be scratched and dented, and we got to see what's underneath. And it's not pretty. It's not nice. It's guile, manipulation, control, and whatever you call it when you sell your soul for money.

..... and she is very skilled, much better than Samuels. She really has a "way" when she is not being distracted by the prosecution.

 

[Wake_me]

I missed this part of Juan's questions. What was the lie, and how do we know it was a lie?

She admitted to only writing a report, not testifying in a criminal case on behalf of a man, so she lied....or misspoke as she would say when she told the jury "1 or 2 at least".

 

[3trees]

Arghhh I can't enlarge it to read it

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/ariasmotion2.pdf

 

[KPinMN]

There was this one motion AND the issue of public harrassment is one of the issues.
Attaching (have a feeling JA wrote the first page due to absurd pretentiousness)

My response to that motion: Cry me a freaking river!

I sounded like a jealous middle school girl making an argument that the girl she thinks is prettier than her in class should have to be in another class so that she's the prettiest girl.

Oh and Salem Witch Trials...seriously?

 

[nadjatheresa]

Roflmao! I think it's laughable! This witness doesn't read tweets, forums, emails, texts or instant messages...so she testified!

Phone calls and bad reviews?

Solution

#1 hang up

#2 don't read them

Pardon me, but I think you mean gmails.....

:floorlaugh:

 

[Wazzu]

There was this one motion AND the issue of public harrassment is one of the issues.
Attaching (have a feeling JA wrote the first page due to absurd pretentiousness)

I became too bored to read it thoroughly, but once again their motions come across as very childish, poorly written and containing typos ("damming"?!).

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I missed this part of Juan's questions. What was the lie, and how do we know it was a lie?

The jury asked the question "how many men have you testified FOR?" & ALV said 1 or 2.

Juan challenged her & got her to say she NEVER testified for a man--she wrote a letter for one in family court.

He's just showing that her CV is "Padded"--she's not truthful about her credentials, so how can she be believed?

 

[Southern_Meadow]

From the motion:

COMES NOW, Ms. Arias, by and through undersigned counsel to request that a mistrial be declared based on the prosecutorial misconduct that has infested these proceedings with a level of unfairness that cannot be cured by any other means. Ms. Arias bases this assertion on the fact that the circus like atmosphere inside the courtroom that to date has included counsel for the State yelling at witnesses, attacking witnesses on a personal level and throwing evidence. Not content with confining his misconduct to inside the courtroom counsel for the State, pursuant to his own admissions, chose to release evidence that was not coming into evidence at trial to the media and to pose for pictures with his so called fans on the courthouse steps has turned what is supposed to be a trial that comports with the rights due Ms. Arias pursuant to the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. 2, §§ 4, 15, 23, and 24 of the Arizona Constitution into something that more closely resembles a modern day equivalent to the Salem Witch Trials which ended in 1693. This State of affairs has placed counsel for Ms. Arias in a position that they cannot fulfill the duties they owe Ms. Arias, pursuant Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.8. Counsel’s inability to fulfill these duties would thus result in Ms. Arias not having the benefit of the rights she is due pursuant to the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Support for this Motion can be found in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities that is incorporated herein by reference.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. RELEVANT FACTS
OpeningstatementsinthismatterweremadeonJanuary2,20 13. Sincethattimethe State has thrown evidence and his pen, yelled at nearly every witness who took the stand in support of Ms. Arias and has hurled personal insults at defense counsel. In response to this behavior Ms. Arias has had to make several oral motions for mistrial that have beensummarily denied by this court. More recently Ms. Arias has had to make mistrial motions because the State has not confined its misconduct to inside the courtroom. Most prominent amongst this extra-curricular misconduct is his decision to pose for photographs with his “fans” outside the courthouse steps where jurors could potentially see him so doing. In further efforts to prove his case in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law on April 4, 2013, the State unapologetically admitted that it had released a plethora of damming evidence that would not otherwise come into trial to the media. Pending before this court is a motion for mistrial based on the former, Ms. Arias’ motion for mistrial based on the latter was summarily denied.
Note should also be made of the fact that the conduct described above has ramifications that effect the ability of Ms. Arias to present her defense as the public response to this unprofessional conduct has involved berating witnesses via e-mail, telephone and in various internet forums. Said action has not only caused personal distress to these witnesses but has made it difficult for them to provide effective testimony for Ms. Arias....


BBM

I think ALV is coming back Tues to discuss the bolded portion above.

Is this a new motion or from the motion last week?

 

[momtective]

If Ms. ALV is found to have lied on her CV, misrepresented her testimony on her previous testimony experiences and so on, would this finally be the issue that just might give Nurmi grounds for a mis-trial??? Maybe I should put this question on the legal thread.

That's exactly what I was talking about that would make ineligible (that's possible, right?) to be a DP expert witness but I never considered that it might be cause for mistrial...I just thought that all her testimony would be thrown out. Now I'm left wondering if she will be going to jail.:what:

 

[lil_buddy]

No this motion was from last Sunday, already denied on Monday.

Just sayin'

Has not been denied to my knowledge. When? Where did u hear that?

 

[GumShoe209]

I'm positive it has nothing to do with any charges of perjury. As much as we talk about it, it's quite rare for a court to actually indict and prosecute a witness for perjury. Here, especially, where her explanations for inconsistency are, if not convincing, at least plausible, it just doesn't happen.

Juan started his questioning about how many times she testified -- then went on to something else, like he does. He was asking ALV about the degree of lies, big lies, white lies etc.. then went back to how many times she testified and DT jumped up to approach. 45 minutes later he completely drops it. Sure seems to me Juan probably had the records and wanted to introduce them.. that's why she is coming back with an attorney.

Also I'd bet the Jurror has been either sleeping or something because Jodi and the DT have been eyeballing someone for several days.

 

[Lark2]

I wouldn't be surprised if ALV made this trial about herself and that's what this issue is about - aka, alleging witness tampering/intimidation both in and out of court which resulted in her being hospitalized and not being able to be as effective as she needed to be, blah blah blah. DENIED!

 

[Hally]

I'm positive it has nothing to do with any charges of perjury. As much as we talk about it, it's quite rare for a court to actually indict and prosecute a witness for perjury. Here, especially, where her explanations for inconsistency are, if not convincing, at least plausible, it just doesn't happen.

Yeah, they can always lie their way out of it! :blushing: {bad I know}

 

[G&AMom]

I'm positive it has nothing to do with any charges of perjury. As much as we talk about it, it's quite rare for a court to actually indict and prosecute a witness for perjury. Here, especially, where her explanations for inconsistency are, if not convincing, at least plausible, it just doesn't happen.

I was a secretary at the Justice Department back when all those sequoias were saplings. We had a case where we were suing a bunch of gas station owners for fixing the price at which they sold gas. They asked one guy under oath if he'd discussed the new price with the others, he said no. We indicted him for perjury and we lost. Turned out he hadn't discussed the price (say, going from $1.00 to $1.02 per gallon) but only the increase (2 cents). That's how hard it is to prove perjury.

 

[lil_buddy]

This is a horribly written Motion for Mistrial. ITA that JA wrote this. Run on sentences, poor grammar, lack of punctuation, redundancy are a few of the highlights. Why Nurmi would sign this poorly written document is beyond me.

Why Nurmi would sign this poorly written document: cause he just wants the nightmare to end already.
Just a guess.
:twocents::moo:

 

[momtective]

The jury asked the question "how many men have you testified FOR?" & ALV said 1 or 2.

Juan challenged her & got her to say she NEVER testified for a man--she wrote a letter for one in family court.

He's just showing that her CV is "Padded"--she's not truthful about her credentials, so how can she be believed?

Did she say 4 or 5 when responding to the original question? Either way, she outright lied...she has never testified, she just wrote a report.

 

[Roy Rob]

Thanks.

According to the motion posted by lil buddy, "Note should also be made of the fact that the conduct described above has ramifications that effect the ability of Ms. Arias to present her defense as the public response to this unprofessional conduct has involved berating witnesses via email, telephone and in various internet forums. Said action has not only caused personal distress to these witnesses but has made it difficult for them to provide effective testimony for Ms. Arias."

It's old news so don't worry about it.

 

[Schuby]

Juan started his questioning about how many times she testified -- then went on to something else, like he does. He was asking ALV about the degree of lies, big lies, white lies etc.. then went back to how many times she testified and DT jumped up to approach. 45 minutes later he completely drops it. Sure seems to me Juan probably had the records and wanted to introduce them.. that's why she is coming back with an attorney.

Also I'd bet the Jurror has been either sleeping or something because Jodi and the DT have been eyeballing someone for several days.

What makes you say she is coming back with an attorney?

 

[moonshyne]

Y'all might not want to be posting about this publicly.

Read the comment to Rule 2.02

http://www.ajs.org/ethics/pdfs/AJS comments on final draft report.pdf

Ok..this looks like a rule regarding the judge and how they should maintain professionalism and impartiality. In my own opinion the judge has not broken any rules of conduct and I don't see the connection between this and the members quote you posted (about 90% of communication being non verbal) I don't see the connection. Could you explain?

 

[zqtpie]

This is a horribly written Motion for Mistrial. ITA that JA wrote this. Run on sentences, poor grammar, lack of punctuation, redundancy are a few of the highlights. Why Nurmi would sign this poorly written document is beyond me.

Nurmi is looking a little lacklustre lately...he may be feeling too fatigued to throw his heart into it.. and, surely to God, the court would not dare to declare a mistrial at this late date. That would be just too ridiculous for words.