1281 users online (220 members and 1061 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 306
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger09 View Post
    Would Arias be facing civil repercussions as well?
    Yes, after sentencing the Alexanders would have 1 year to file a civil action for wrongful death.

    "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. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,943
    There is a video recording of today's hearing in front on Judge Stephens on how to proceed with the case. Judge Stephens asks both attorneys for a time estimate of the case. Martinez mentions two expert witnesses, a person from California and perhaps some affidavits. The way that he prefaced it makes me believe that he was referring to defense witnesses.

    What kind of affidavits would be appropriate in place of testimony in a penalty phase? With an affidavit for this trial, does it include cross by opposing counsel?

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    318
    Thanking you in advance AZL for all your time and much appreciated guidance. You mentioned on one of the threads about JSS allowing or requiring the "secret witness" from the other day to be brought back for cross exam by the State. Is that really possible? Why wouldn't JM have done it or asked for that today? I realize your answer is based on your best educated guess....since not all that is happening seems to be based on actual law.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by gcharlie View Post
    There is a video recording of today's hearing in front on Judge Stephens on how to proceed with the case. Judge Stephens asks both attorneys for a time estimate of the case. Martinez mentions two expert witnesses, a person from California and perhaps some affidavits. The way that he prefaced it makes me believe that he was referring to defense witnesses.

    What kind of affidavits would be appropriate in place of testimony in a penalty phase? With an affidavit for this trial, does it include cross by opposing counsel?
    The rules of evidence don't really apply to this phase, but I'm not aware of any option to skip cross-examination except for the defendant during allocution. I'll be waiting along with you to see what these affidavits are.

    Quote Originally Posted by tlckgram View Post
    Thanking you in advance AZL for all your time and much appreciated guidance. You mentioned on one of the threads about JSS allowing or requiring the "secret witness" from the other day to be brought back for cross exam by the State. Is that really possible? Why wouldn't JM have done it or asked for that today? I realize your answer is based on your best educated guess....since not all that is happening seems to be based on actual law.
    I said that if the secret witness were JA, the judge could just say, OK JA, get back up on the stand and if your attorney has no further questions, let's move on to cross. I suspect that the secret witness was not JA and that's why JM did not suggest this option.

    "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

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,066
    Sorry for the interruption, AZL. Here is what Juan said in court today, which makes me think JA was the secret witness.

    "We know there are witnesses who could be called. There was also that witness who was on the witness stand who can be called on Wednesday." Juan Martinez. November 4, 2014.
    "It's like a field of lies that have sprouted around her, as she sat on that witness stand" - Juan Martinez - closing arguments 5/1/13


  6. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by AngelWings444 View Post
    Sorry for the interruption, AZL. Here is what Juan said in court today, which makes me think JA was the secret witness.

    "We know there are witnesses who could be called. There was also that witness who was on the witness stand who can be called on Wednesday." Juan Martinez. November 4, 2014.
    Yeah, I see how that supports the JA theory.

    "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

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    209
    What is rule 19? that both Nurmi and Juan refer to say/mean?
    Justice for Travis

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rochester-ish, NY
    Posts
    649
    what does "unseal then reseal" mean?
    on twitter, my blog, and in life I am a "Floormodel", slightly used by age but still in perfectly good condition and worth having around.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Yeah, I see how that supports the JA theory.
    AZL, it is a huge comfort to have you here as we try to decipher all of this - thank you!

    So my legal question(s) -
    I understand the logical, legal reasons you have so patiently posted as to why the 'mystery witness' is not likely JA, nor a paid expert. However, Is it possible that JA, or her team stated to the judge that she needed to testify to something, perhaps not entered in the guilt phase, but would only do so in secret? Is it even possible that they argued that because her life is on the line, that any testimony she gives is can be considered potentially 'life threatening"?
    I know anything is possible, but is it legally possible to argue that?

    Is it possible that JA needed to testify in order to have another witness testify about something, that is highly controversial, that would allow for the secrecy?

    If so, would that be an issue if it was later found that further information was available, but not able to be presented because the secrecy precluded it? For example, if JA stated TA had been somewhere, but a friend realized after the fact that TA was with them, or out of the country, or something?

    Could a witness state they felt threatened if an aspect of their personal life were to be brought up in public court? If say, they had a criminal record, or were frightened they could be charged with perjury?

    Last one - if Juan did not contest the sealing of motions & orders, and/or the non-public courtroom (which it sounds as if he might not have, in the interest of getting this done), would Judge Stevens had to allow it, as there was no argument against it? Hence the media argument in front of COA? Is JSS obliged to abide by COA ruling, or does she have the right to interpret as she sees fit?

    Sorry for all the questions, but so appreciate your knowledge!

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Colie View Post
    What is rule 19? that both Nurmi and Juan refer to say/mean?
    I think this is the part Juan was talking about--just pointing out that we are up to the stage of the proceeding bolded below, so they can either do it or stop and let him move on to the next stage of the proceeding.

    Rule 19.
    ...

    d. Penalty Hearing in a Capital Case. If a jury finds one or more aggravating circumstances, the penalty proceedings shall proceed as follows:
    (1) The defense may make an opening statement.
    (2) The state may then make an opening statement or may defer such opening statement until the close of the defense's evidence.
    (3) The victim's survivors may make a statement relating to the characteristics of the victim and the impact of the crime on the victim's family, but may not offer any opinion regarding the appropriate sentence to be imposed.
    (4) The defense shall offer evidence in support of mitigation.
    (5) The state may then make an opening statement if it was deferred, and offer any evidence relevant to mitigation.
    (6) The defense may offer evidence in rebuttal, unless the court, upon a showing of good cause, allows a case-in-chief to be reopened.
    (7) The defendant may present statements of allocution to the jury.
    (8) The parties may present argument, the defense having the opening and closing.
    (9) The judge shall then charge the jury.
    With the permission of court, the parties may agree to any other method of proceeding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow View Post
    what does "unseal then reseal" mean?
    In the context of the Ct App's order, it just meant that the Superior Court clerk was to unseal the minute entry and transcript, make sure that they were what they purported to be, then reseal them and send them up to the Ct App for filing.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMyselfNEMore View Post
    AZL, it is a huge comfort to have you here as we try to decipher all of this - thank you!

    Answers in red below.

    So my legal question(s) -
    I understand the logical, legal reasons you have so patiently posted as to why the 'mystery witness' is not likely JA, nor a paid expert. However, Is it possible that JA, or her team stated to the judge that she needed to testify to something, perhaps not entered in the guilt phase, but would only do so in secret? Is it even possible that they argued that because her life is on the line, that any testimony she gives is can be considered potentially 'life threatening"?
    I know anything is possible, but is it legally possible to argue that?

    It's possible to argue it, but not with a straight face or with the support of any legal authority.

    Is it possible that JA needed to testify in order to have another witness testify about something, that is highly controversial, that would allow for the secrecy?

    Yes--not for something "controversial" but, e.g., for something that might harm a living child or reveal the identity of an undercover cop.

    If so, would that be an issue if it was later found that further information was available, but not able to be presented because the secrecy precluded it? For example, if JA stated TA had been somewhere, but a friend realized after the fact that TA was with them, or out of the country, or something?

    I think you mean would it be a problem if JA/secret witness X lied and no one knew because it was done in secret? IMO yes.

    Could a witness state they felt threatened if an aspect of their personal life were to be brought up in public court? If say, they had a criminal record, or were frightened they could be charged with perjury?

    You can state whatever you want. But it wouldn't be grounds for closing the court. Especially the perjury issue lol!

    Last one - if Juan did not contest the sealing of motions & orders, and/or the non-public courtroom (which it sounds as if he might not have, in the interest of getting this done), would Judge Stevens had to allow it, as there was no argument against it? Hence the media argument in front of COA? Is JSS obliged to abide by COA ruling, or does she have the right to interpret as she sees fit?

    JSS is obliged to act within the confines of the US Constitution even if no one specifically asks her to do so. Also, the media did object, strenuously. And yes, she is obligated to abide by the Ct App's rulings.

    Sorry for all the questions, but so appreciate your knowledge!

    "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. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Central Arizona
    Posts
    322
    , upon a showing of good cause, allows a case-in-chief to be reopened.

    I hope this doesn't mean redoing the whole trial!

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by franquerolane View Post
    , upon a showing of good cause, allows a case-in-chief to be reopened.

    I hope this doesn't mean redoing the whole trial!
    No, that just means that the court could allow more mitigation evidence in what should be the final rebuttal phase if there's "good cause."

    "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. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    1,192
    Thank you so much for your answers, they always put things in perspective, and of course, you rock!

    I believe I read that a mitigation specialist can be a witness (maybe Hulsey? not sure), but if MDLR was going to give mitigation testimony, would that be a plausible explanation for a closed courtroom?
    Would JA need to testify first for that to happen?
    Would that give more merit to KN arguing about media seeing her chat with JA - especially since they don't know for sure who the mystery witness is?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    1,192
    One more - If JA was in fact the 'mystery witness', and told some sort of story that she was 'concerned' about one child in particular, in her hateful version of events, I understand from your previous answers that would be a reason to close the courtroom, if I understood correctly (and please tell me if I'm wrong) -
    My question is - could the child, or the child's family then come and testify that it was nonsense, and if so, would the courtroom only be closed at the witness' request?

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMyselfNEMore View Post
    Thank you so much for your answers, they always put things in perspective, and of course, you rock!

    I believe I read that a mitigation specialist can be a witness (maybe Hulsey? not sure), but if MDLR was going to give mitigation testimony, would that be a plausible explanation for a closed courtroom?
    Would JA need to testify first for that to happen?
    Would that give more merit to KN arguing about media seeing her chat with JA - especially since they don't know for sure who the mystery witness is?
    MDLR could be the secret witness, but that wouldn't provide any explanation for the closed courtroom.

    JA would not have to testify first.

    Nurmi already has a good point about the media videotaping MDLR speaking with JA. They shouldn't have been doing that, although to be fair the media perhaps didn't realize that MDLR would fit within the category of people they shouldn't tape, since the rule says "attorneys."

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMyselfNEMore View Post
    One more - If JA was in fact the 'mystery witness', and told some sort of story that she was 'concerned' about one child in particular, in her hateful version of events, I understand from your previous answers that would be a reason to close the courtroom, if I understood correctly (and please tell me if I'm wrong) -
    My question is - could the child, or the child's family then come and testify that it was nonsense, and if so, would the courtroom only be closed at the witness' request?
    Sure, the (hypothetical) child or family could be called in rebuttal, and if they didn't want a closed courtroom I don't see why it would be closed.

    "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

Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... 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