I echo the sentiments of many here in their assessments of the recent turn of events, rulings and opinions on JSS and KN.
One thing that I have not seen mentioned much with respect to JSS and KN is that with some of the arguments to which the public has been privy, Nurmi tends towards hyperbole and misrepresenting facts. Like all mitigation witnesses were threatened and would not testify the last time around. I have not seen the judge challenge him on these kinds of statements, which IMO she should have done before making a ruling. He did the same thing with the Court of Appeals, saying that this witness was afraid to testify and that several others were as well, yet it seems like the actual number of defense witnesses is so small as to rule out several.
Nurmi pretty much told JSS that he's waiting for a decision from the court of appeals about the witness testifying in secret. He's got to know that he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a favorable ruling.
Yesterday's hearing seems to show that the defense has no stronger of a mitigation case than it had before the hung jury, and it could be that Nurmi's strategy is to go for a mistrial in the hopes that the State will drop the death penalty. Everything points to the defense basically doing the same thing it did before.
Martinez mentioned two expert witnesses, a possible witness from California and affidavits. Then there is the witness that was on the stand and could return on Wednesday. So who are these witnesses? One of the witnesses should be James Aiken, the prison expert. His testimony should take no more than 2 days, based on previous DP cases. The other expert should be a psychologist or psychiatrist who was mentioned in a number of hearings this summer. This person is presumably out of state and has a busy schedule, so much so that the trial date was reset to allow this expert to finish examining Arias.
The Cali witness may be Darryl Brewer again, and here I need attorneys to weigh in. When the State presented its evidence to summarize the guilt and aggravation phases to the jury, Martinez attempted to bring in a video recording of testimony by Brewer. Nurmi objected and cited relevant law regarding the use of recorded testimony and the judge ruled in his favor. Martinez then had to resort to transcripts, which were allowed. Some legal analysts on twitter said that the fact Brewer's recorded testimony was used was an indication he would not be testifying, but there may be something obscure here in the rules which precluded video testimony if he was scheduled to appear later.
So that leaves the mystery witness still in question. Troy Hayden, Trial Diaries Jen and Jeff Gold are not backing down from their position that it is Arias, so they must have some pretty good reason to believe this. As others have pointed out, this witness is readily available based on Martinez comment to the judge yesterday and Arias is certainly one person who is available at all times. She's also someone who could take up a lot of time on the witness stand and this would explain Nurmi saying the case will go to at least the end of January.
