the question phase continues: Arias on the stand for the 18th day #85

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
minor4th said:
Beth Karas squaring off with Mark Eiglarsh on Dr Drew right now.
Click to expand...

:waitasec: Yikes, Mark. You gotta be smarter than this.

Juan has got to keep Arias off-balance in his questioning. He cannot use cookie-cutter law school questioning with a psychopath.

Mark says, What about preparation??!!

Answer: For crying out loud, Juan is presenting his case without notes, and without an assistant council. YOu can't be better prepared than that!!!
 
minor4th said:
I was thinking the same thing. He looks like he has too much makeup on, and I totally disagree with him on his assessment of Juan Martinez although I usually agree with him on most issues.
Click to expand...

Agree with you, I disagree with Mark on this too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong but since the prosecution did not know what JA was going to testify to they should be able to present new evidence to contradict some of the testimony in their rebuttal case. For instance they could call in or provide a demonstration on the viability of someone being able to use the closet shelves to grab the gun, correct?
 
eLeL724 said:
A little OT but just trying to possibly help Brandi out or any of you who accidentally hit their "backspace" bar. I have a Mac so not sure if this works the same on a PC but if/when I accidentally hit "delete" on my Mac (which is the same as what "backspace" is on a PC) and accidentally erase what I've typed, if you go up to the bar for your web browser (see my pic below to see what I'm talking about exactly) and click "Edit", in the drop-down menu there should be an option for "Undo"; when I click that, it makes my accidentally released stuff reappear (most of the time). Not sure if it works the same on PC but incase it does, just trying to help provide and easy fix/solution for future accidents.

bar_zps07d25548.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks eLeL!
 
Steely Dan said:
I fell asleep during the afternoon session. What was the best part? I was awake until he asked her the 62 seconds. I fell asleep right around there.
Click to expand...

o/t but every time i see that st paddys emu i burst out laughing,its staring into my soul :floorlaugh:

Originally Posted by eLeL724
A little OT but just trying to possibly help Brandi out or any of you who accidentally hit their "backspace" bar. I have a Mac so not sure if this works the same on a PC but if/when I accidentally hit "delete" on my Mac (which is the same as what "backspace" is on a PC) and accidentally erase what I've typed, if you go up to the bar for your web browser (see my pic below to see what I'm talking about exactly) and click "Edit", in the drop-down menu there should be an option for "Undo"; when I click that, it makes my accidentally released stuff reappear (most of the time). Not sure if it works the same on PC but incase it does, just trying to help provide and easy fix/solution for future accidents.
Click to expand...

on windows you can use ctrl+z also
cant tell you how much of a lifesaver thats been
 
Schuby said:
In a nutshell: you suck at being Mormon, these are cheap shelves that couldn't support you, wth is going on with this gun you grabbed, loaded or not?
Click to expand...

and juror question "why did you get the knife and stab him instead of just shooting him again?"
 
Popped in and read a bit today. Could't watch much live streaming. Trying to catch up. So far, feeling disappointed. The judge is lame (at best), JM is more emotional than the defendant and the DA has woken up enough to cite typical objections over and over and over again. The jury asked how many questions? Nine?

I'm really put off.

moo
 
Nova said:
With respect that is not true of expert witnesses. Like anyone else under oath, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, their understanding of the truth may tend to be colored by their areas of expertise.

But advocacy is the job of the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Did you see my comment about this on the legal thread?

It's true that experts are not supposed to be advocates and should testify truthfully, but some experts are more in the advocacy business than others. Laviolette, for example, is an advocate for FEMALE domestic abuse victims -- it's her thing, and I somewhat expect her testimony to be a little more advocacy than some other expert witnesses.
 
as jury instructions will address how to evaluate testimony. This is from the standard criminal jury instrctions for AZ:

Standard Criminal 18 − Credibility [Believability] of Witnesses

In deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept, and what to reject. You may accept everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it.

In evaluating testimony, you should use the tests for truthfulness that people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life, including such factors as: the witness’s ability to see or hear or know the things the witness testified to; the quality of the witness’s memory; the witness’s manner while testifying; whether the witness had any motive, bias, or prejudice; whether the witness was contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial, or by other evidence; and the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony when considered in the light of the other evidence.

Consider all of the evidence in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.

Standard Criminal 36 − Defendant’s Testimony

You must evaluate the defendant’s testimony the same as any witness’ testimony.
Click to expand...

I think the juror questions illustrate their awareness of credibility. This case is almost wholly dependent on the defendants credibility and I think JM has elicited overwhelming evidence, from the testimony of the defendant herself, that she lacks any semblance of credibility. The jurors may essentially then just disregard all of her testimony. The only alternate facts in evidence are those the prosecutor laid out. I think that bodes well.

I don't see the jurors wasting their time trying to make sense of her testimony and resolve it's conflicts. They are much more likely to disregard it in it's entirety, IMO. If so, there should be a fairly quick verdict. Can anyone imagine anything being "quick" in this case? For the sake of TA's family I hope the verdict is.

http://www.azbar.org/media/58832/2-standard_criminal_revised_2012.pdf



Boodles said:
I think the defendant contradicted herself on purpose many times. And she said that she said things before (like today when she said TA said the gun was loaded) when she really hadn't.

I think she has purposely stated contradictory things because she wants to wreak chaos in the jury room. She wants them to argue with each other and cause an overall state of confusion about the evidence/testimony, such as "she said x"...."no, she said y"...."

...kind of like what happens here with us on WS. :)

Maybe her strategy is "baffle them with BS."
Click to expand...
 
getReal said:
He sounds more like what I would imagine a screaming tranny might sound like. Why do so many HLN staff SHOUT?
Click to expand...

LoL, I thought the same thing but was afraid to post it in case I was a bit out of line. The way you put it is perfect :giggle:. And why DO they all shout. When they all start shouting at each other it makes me want to give them all a "time out" :slap:
 
Given I hope JA gets the punishment she deserves, Martinez (who I was impressed with the 1st week) I would not like if I was on that jury for many reasons. One being he is questioning JA memories, issues, etc but doesnt remember his own questions has to have the clerk read it so obiviously he has issues himself... And he (imo) tries to create arguments. He wouldn't help the DA if I was sitting on that jury...JMO and I do hope she is punished again ..........
 
dbranam said:
Someone correct me if I am wrong but since the prosecution did not know what JA was going to testify to they should be able to present new evidence to contradict some of the testimony in their rebuttal case. For instance they could call in or provide a demonstration on the viability of someone being able to use the closet shelves to grab the gun, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, they could. However, certainly someone on the jury has these type of shelves in their home, or knows what they will or will not withstand.

MOO
 
AuburnSchnauzer said:
Your previous Sulamith:

Originally Posted by AuburnSchnauzer
Something that really stood out to me in today's testimony was when Juan asked Jodi if she wanted to follow by Mormon rules and she said, " I wanted it to APPEAR that way "..... Meaning, she really didn't, but wanted people to THINK that she did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I noticed that too. She just wanted to keep up an appearance.

<modsnip>
Click to expand...
So, you are on JA's side??
 
God bless the lady that said Perry mason was before her time. I've asked before and I've googled it and still unexplained.
 
Nova said:
With respect that is not true of expert witnesses. Like anyone else under oath, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, their understanding of the truth may tend to be colored by their areas of expertise.

But advocacy is the job of the lawyers.
Click to expand...

They swear to tell the truth, but remember, their only version of events comes from their patient. That is all they testify to, their opinion based on the facts as presented to them. If the facts are wrong, it falls to the prosecutor to persuade them of this and extract that testimony. It is not upon them to be dubious of those who seek out their council.
 
I'm watching Dr Drew and I REALLY want to hear what Janine Driver has to say but his guest host won't shut up for 10 seconds!!!! Very irritated!
 
dbranam said:
Someone correct me if I am wrong but since the prosecution did not know what JA was going to testify to they should be able to present new evidence to contradict some of the testimony in their rebuttal case. For instance they could call in or provide a demonstration on the viability of someone being able to use the closet shelves to grab the gun, correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, the DA can rebut any testimony in the defense's case in chief, as long as it is admissible per the AZ rules of evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 139 more.
Total: 4,420 (members: 140, guests: 4,280)

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
4,280
Total visitors
4,420
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,386
Messages
17,968,259
Members
228,764
Latest member
GreyFishOmen
Back
Top