1111 users online (172 members and 939 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 306
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatfield View Post
    This is the first case I have ever heard about where a defendent openly asked and wants her attorney to be replaced, and the attorney (Nurmi) openly admitted he doesnt like the defendent.

    My question is does the judge have a legal basis to refuse the defendent's request to want another attorney?
    Especially when both of them don't want each other.


    I am honestly amazed at this, and not sure about the legal part of the judge refusing to allow him to be replaced when both want him replaced.
    Defendants openly ask for their attorneys to be replaced all the time. And although I think Nurmi genuinely dislikes Jodi, I think his "open admission" of that to the jury was a calculated attempt to get the jury to relate to him and to realize that whether they liked Jodi or not had nothing to do with the issues. He must have realized that she hadn't succeeded in winning them over with her sparkling personality.

    Yes, the judge had a legal basis to refuse the request. Despite the 13th Amendment (abolishing involuntary servitude), the courts have generally found that attorneys can be forced to represent people against their will if the reason is important enough to the judicial system. And defendants can't keep switching lawyers to the extent that justice is unreasonably delayed. In this case, Nurmi is doing a good job for Jodi, it would take ages for a replacement lawyer to catch up, and Jodi from time to time has said that he is the only one who really knows the case. I can understand her decision.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    10,768
    I was wondering why the state is going first right now?

    Also, Nurmi said he intends to call Juan Martinez to the stand in this trial if his request for misconduct isn't granted. What's your opinion on that?
    "He who introduces KY into the relationship is no abused virgin." - Aristotle

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by MeeBee View Post
    I was wondering why the state is going first right now?

    Also, Nurmi said he intends to call Juan Martinez to the stand in this trial if his request for misconduct isn't granted. What's your opinion on that?
    The state is going first because they need to educate this new jury about the circumstances of the offense and the cruelty, so the jury can balance the mitigating factors properly. If there hadn't been a new jury, the state would not have gone first.

    I think Nurmi was saying that if JM was going to imply to the jury that the State hadn't had a chance to examine the Helio phone, JM would be called as a witness because JM is personally aware that the State did, in fact, have a chance to examine the phone. Seemed like a perfectly appropriate thing for Nurmi to say IMO.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    5,216
    Hello AzLawyer. Will JM (And Nurmi) get to give a sort of closing argument after this phase of the proceedings before they move on to the mitigation factors?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,003
    Aloha AZ, I know that JSS ruled no video till after a verdict is given by the jury.

    What about the daily transcripts, does the news media have the right to request them and publish them?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    933
    Hey attorneys! Question from the sidebar. Are you aware of a motion made to air the verdict live? 2nd: are they allowing the networks to tape, and edit in real time but cannot release until after verdict?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,063
    Ruling on Motion in Limine was posted today, and I'd like thoughts about JSS ruling re: remorse. That is one of the mitigators, so how can JSS keep the state from presenting testimony to rebut a mitigator?

    http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6540956.pdf

    IT IS ORDERED granting the motions in limine re smuggling contraband, changing counsel and threats against trial participants and lacking remorse.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by LinTX View Post
    Ruling on Motion in Limine was posted today, and I'd like thoughts about JSS ruling re: remorse. That is one of the mitigators, so how can JSS keep the state from presenting testimony to rebut a mitigator?

    http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6540956.pdf
    I have the same question. I know it's Friday night, and you probably have a life, but this is killing me. Can Juan show the jury post-verdict interviews that JA gave?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    between NOLA and Laffy
    Posts
    1,937
    Did Jodi ever answer the jury question on why she sent Travis' s grandmother flowers after she killed Travis?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Nali87 View Post
    Hello AzLawyer. Will JM (And Nurmi) get to give a sort of closing argument after this phase of the proceedings before they move on to the mitigation factors?
    No, this is not really a separate phase.

    Quote Originally Posted by kolokolo View Post
    Aloha AZ, I know that JSS ruled no video till after a verdict is given by the jury.

    What about the daily transcripts, does the news media have the right to request them and publish them?
    IIRC the daily tapes have been sealed, and the court reporter was instructed not to accept any transcript requests until the tapes are unsealed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mydirtysecret View Post
    Hey attorneys! Question from the sidebar. Are you aware of a motion made to air the verdict live? 2nd: are they allowing the networks to tape, and edit in real time but cannot release until after verdict?
    The media is being allowed to tape in real time but can't release the taped material until after the verdict. IMO they ought to air the verdict live, but I don't think I've seen any motion on the docket asking for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LinTX View Post
    Ruling on Motion in Limine was posted today, and I'd like thoughts about JSS ruling re: remorse. That is one of the mitigators, so how can JSS keep the state from presenting testimony to rebut a mitigator?

    http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6540956.pdf
    Without having seen the motion or having heard the argument, my guess is that this was a motion to prevent JM from suggesting that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor, and/or from raising evidence of lack of remorse before Jodi raises any evidence of remorse. Both of which would be good motions.

    Quote Originally Posted by peedoffinny View Post
    I have the same question. I know it's Friday night, and you probably have a life, but this is killing me. Can Juan show the jury post-verdict interviews that JA gave?
    Probably. He should be able to argue that they are inconsistent with "remorse"--parts of them, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger09 View Post
    Did Jodi ever answer the jury question on why she sent Travis' s grandmother flowers after she killed Travis?
    I think there's a thread with all the jury questions and answers while Jodi was on the stand--I don't remember this one, but I know she had an excuse for everything.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    <snipped for brevity>


    Without having seen the motion or having heard the argument, my guess is that this was a motion to prevent JM from suggesting that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor, and/or from raising evidence of lack of remorse before Jodi raises any evidence of remorse. Both of which would be good motions.



    Probably. He should be able to argue that they are inconsistent with "remorse"--parts of them, anyway.
    First thank you for your reply. Yes, seeing the motion would hopefully clarify things, but this ruling came after she listed remorse as one of her mitigators. By listing remorse as a mitigator, isn't that by itself sufficient for JM to argue against it? The statute clearly says either side can argue for or against, but this ruling seems to say otherwise. "Seems", of course, because every frickin bit of this trial is being sealed these days so we're left scratching our heads, guessing and worrying.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by LinTX View Post
    First thank you for your reply. Yes, seeing the motion would hopefully clarify things, but this ruling came after she listed remorse as one of her mitigators. By listing remorse as a mitigator, isn't that by itself sufficient for JM to argue against it? The statute clearly says either side can argue for or against, but this ruling seems to say otherwise. "Seems", of course, because every frickin bit of this trial is being sealed these days so we're left scratching our heads, guessing and worrying.
    No, JM would not be permitted to rebut any mitigating factor until evidence is actually presented on that subject by JA. Opening statements are not evidence, so he can't rebut the mitigating factors listed in opening until and unless JA's team actually starts presenting witnesses, documents, etc. attempting to prove those factors.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    719
    AZ: I know you haven't seen every single second even of the first trial, but: have you seen any appealable issues that you think might actually hold up and get a new trial granted?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,943
    AZLawyer,

    What's the buzz in the local legal community about today's decision to close court? What is your personal reaction?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,365
    Question: Is there any chance that JS ruled deliberately as she did (re clearing the courtroom of media and public) for the precise purpose of provoking the media to file an appeal with the Appeals Court? The Appeals Court would then make a judgment on this thorny issue. This would forestall an appeal of her sentence (by JA) to a higher court later on the grounds that she wasn't permitted to present mitigation witnesses in safety? If a higher court has already reviewed the situation and made a decision about it, JA is going to be stymied from getting a successful appeal out of it that will void the penalty phase? Maybe this is a stroke of genius on JS's part?

    Apologies if I'm not using the right terminology....

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. *graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial media/ timeline thread **no discussion**
    By TigerBalm in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1592
    Last Post: 07-06-2017, 08:37 PM
  2. Discussion thread for Jodi Arias Journals
    By Tricia in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 405
    Last Post: 03-27-2016, 03:49 AM
  3. Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*
    By nursebeeme in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 2446
    Last Post: 09-12-2014, 09:30 PM
  4. legal question and answer thread **no discussion**
    By nursebeeme in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 07:47 PM
  5. Question and Answer Thread **No Discussion**
    By kbl8201 in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 12:21 AM

Tags for this Thread