What did you think of the State's cross examination of Arias?

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think it could have been a lot better, he - at least at first - came across as aggressive and impatient and focused on a lot of mundane things. Really the best part was on the last day of cross, but all in all with the facts against Jodi I don't think he did the best he could have done. JMO

He brought almost any point I would want him to use, and more I did not know about. There were only a few points I think he could have argued and asked better. I'll reserve final judgment till the closing. There were moments where I thought he was golden, not as to getting evidence, but in his no-bs handling of JA, most perfectly executed in his, "Ma'am, were you crying when you were shooting him?" And I love how he used "ma'am" all the time. There was a dolt on In Session today complaining that he used that too much. I loved it, it was like the velvet glove hiding a brass knuckle.

Whenever I ask my gf anything now, that's how I address her. "Ma'am, are you saying the toothpaste top removed itself? You were the only one in the room, were you not, ma'am? Yes or no, ma'am, yes or no." :Banane01:

 

[scorpio24]

He brought almost any point I would want him to use, and more I did not know about. There were only a few points I think he could have argued and asked better. I'll reserve final judgment till the closing. There were moments where I thought he was golden, not as to getting evidence, but in his no-bs handling of JA, most perfectly executed in his, "Ma'am, were you crying when you were shooting him?" And I love how he used "ma'am" all the time. There was a dolt on In Session today complaining that he used that too much. I loved it, it was like the velvet glove hiding a brass knuckle.

Whenever I ask my gf anything now, that's how I address her. "Ma'am, are you saying the toothpaste top removed itself? You were the only one in the room, were you not, ma'am? Yes or no, ma'am, yes or no." :Banane01:

I thought Juan Martinez was FABULOUS! (He could have been done sooner had the woman just answered "Yes" or "No" questions with, you know, "Yes" or "No.")

I DID have a little verbal tiff with my husband this week. He said, "Am I being cross-examined?!?" That "Yes" or "No" question technique may come in quite handy! :great:

 

[Mystery Lover]

I thought he took way to long to get to the point. The longer she stays on stand the more the jury becomes familiar with her. It's harder to send someone to their death that you feel like you know. Also, he like Jodie, wanted to win each point, so we have to suffer through an hour of if she knew it was a license plate in the Starbuck's parking lot. I also thought he was very disagreeable. I thought that before Jodie ever got on the stand. I thought he treated his own witnesses as hostile. Not a fan. Hope the summation is good!!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I thought he took way to long to get to the point. The longer she stays on stand the more the jury becomes familiar with her. It's harder to send someone to their death that you feel like you know. Also, he like Jodie, wanted to win each point, so we have to suffer through an hour of if she knew it was a license plate in the Starbuck's parking lot. I also thought he was very disagreeable. I thought that before Jodie ever got on the stand. I thought he treated his own witnesses as hostile. Not a fan. Hope the summation is good!!

1st BBM: It was Jodi who too WAY TOO LONG to get to the point -- NOT Mr. Martinez ...

He is dealing with a serial LIAR as well as a murderess, and she "thinks" everyone "believes" everything word she utters ...

2nd BBM: Respectfully, I disagree ... I think Mr. Martinez handled her VERY WELL and VERY PROFESSIONALLY as a prosectuor !

What "got to me" the most was the "look" Jodi would give Mr. M when he she did not like the question he was asking her : Her EYES said it all ! You could see the daggers coming out of them ... those looks from her gave me the willies !


3rd BBM: This is a Murder Trial with the DP on the table ... this is NOT a "tea party" ... :waitasec:

Again, I disagree ... he handled his witnesses VERY PROFESSIONALLY !


I was not familiar with Mr. Martinez before this case but I can tell ya this, he has a new fan -- ME ! :

:great: His grasp of this case and all the intricate details are amazing !

:great: I have NO doubt his summation will be FABULOUS ! :great:

:moo:

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I thought he took way to long to get to the point. The longer she stays on stand the more the jury becomes familiar with her. It's harder to send someone to their death that you feel like you know. Also, he like Jodie, wanted to win each point, so we have to suffer through an hour of if she knew it was a license plate in the Starbuck's parking lot. I also thought he was very disagreeable. I thought that before Jodie ever got on the stand. I thought he treated his own witnesses as hostile. Not a fan. Hope the summation is good!!

I also didn't like how he treated his own witnesses, but I didn't mind it with JA. At first I did, but the more she talked the more I had no sympathy for her. I hope the jury feels the same.

And by the time he got his turn she had been on the stand 8 days. There is no point in worrying about her being on the stand too long at that point.

 

[katiecoolady]

I think the "little more" I was expecting is coming in the rebuttal case.

 

[katiecoolady]

I thought he took way to long to get to the point. The longer she stays on stand the more the jury becomes familiar with her. It's harder to send someone to their death that you feel like you know. Also, he like Jodie, wanted to win each point, so we have to suffer through an hour of if she knew it was a license plate in the Starbuck's parking lot. I also thought he was very disagreeable. I thought that before Jodie ever got on the stand. I thought he treated his own witnesses as hostile. Not a fan. Hope the summation is good!!

I fund that "jury becoming familiar with her" argument interesting. From what I witnessed in the courtroom was yes them becoming more familiar with the lying manipulative, combative sociopath that she is.,,and turning away more and more.

 

[katiecoolady]

He brought almost any point I would want him to use, and more I did not know about. There were only a few points I think he could have argued and asked better. I'll reserve final judgment till the closing. There were moments where I thought he was golden, not as to getting evidence, but in his no-bs handling of JA, most perfectly executed in his, "Ma'am, were you crying when you were shooting him?" And I love how he used "ma'am" all the time. There was a dolt on In Session today complaining that he used that too much. I loved it, it was like the velvet glove hiding a brass knuckle.

Whenever I ask my gf anything now, that's how I address her. "Ma'am, are you saying the toothpaste top removed itself? You were the only one in the room, were you not, ma'am? Yes or no, ma'am, yes or no." :Banane01:

Omg that last part is hilarious! And of course the "yes or no" being said rapid fire. :floorlaugh:

 

[knicksgal1]

The killer showed her true colors under his examination: petulant, entitled, never wrong, combative, unafraid, blaming others, liar, evil, stalker, plotting, narcissistic, controlling, obsessed, self-protective, showing consciousness of guilt in her words and actions and much, much more.

Juan recovered Travis' reputation for his family under this cross examination. Who can honestly believe that Travis was a pedophile? Who can honestly believe that Travis was an abuser? Who can honestly believe that it was Travis pursuing the killer during this relationship? Who can honestly believe that Travis has a .25 that only the killer knew about? Who can honestly believe that in the last moments of his life that Travis was the one on attack and not the one being slaughtered?

Juan' cross examination showed me a Travis that was generous, kind to a fault, funny, sweet, liked to sing, naive and trusting to a point. Yes, I also see Travis as human and not a saint. He had all kinds of sex with a crazy woman, he cursed and he struggled with the tenets of his faith. He most likely had a double standard for his ideal marriage partner in terms of sexual experience and I find that a hypocritical but so what, these flaws are normal.

I am glad that Juan did not go through every stab wound with the killer. All she would have done was cried and made it all about her in front of Travis' devastated family. He will tie it all together in his rebuttal and his closing. I find Juan to be an amazing advocate for Travis and his family as was Detective Flores.

I have said this before but our court system offers only a small measure of justice for Travis and a bit of peace for his loved ones. I believe that measure of justice and bit of peace are coming. I am grateful to all those who have advocated for Travis and his family especially Juan and Detective Flores.

 

[ButForFortune]

I fund that "jury becoming familiar with her" argument interesting. From what I witnessed in the courtroom was yes them becoming more familiar with the lying manipulative, combative sociopath that she is.,,and turning away more and more.

My favorite misstep by Jodi was when Juan asked her something to the effect "were you lying then or are you lying now?". Perfect! She said she wouldn't lie under oath. Right. I think he nailed it, because it drove home to the jury ALL the lies and lie and lies and lies. I bet not one of the members of the jury believes she is telling the truth "under oath".

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

My favorite misstep by Jodi was when Juan asked her something to the effect "were you lying then or are you lying now?". Perfect! She said she wouldn't lie under oath. Right. I think he nailed it, because it drove home to the jury ALL the lies and lie and lies and lies. I bet not one of the members of the jury believes she is telling the truth "under oath".

JM brought home many of her lies under oath, in fact she gave at least 3 different scenarios as to when Travis supposedly said "F'ing kill you bi+ch" and JM pointed that out, he also got her to admit she injured her finger that day, although after realizing she messed up she tried to recant it.

I think in closing arguments JM will put it all together from start to finish without JA's interruptions. He will make it clear and concise just how it all played out and her motive. :twocents:

 

[bamacurious]

I thought JM was awesome...I think it is tough to deal with a defendant who has no soul, no capacity for remorse, no regrets, and who also thinks she is smarter and prettier than anyone else on the planet. I have always felt that she didn't just want Travis...she wanted desperately to BE Travis. She wanted his life, his beliefs, his goodness, his friends, the respect that was given to him, etc. That, being said, every moment she is in court, it becomes glaringly obvious that she didn't even deserve to breathe the air that he did.

On the other hand, I'm a little surprised that "mam" (as JM refers to her) just didn't tell the prosecutor how she really got the gun from the high shelf without disturbing anything: by putting on her spiderman undies and letting her "spidey sense" go to work.

And I, for one, would love to see a Kelly Siegler over the top closing that would fit to the over the top trashing of Travis....reenact the crime , stab by stab, as you count each one, out loud, with force it took to kill this man who did not deserve to die. End it with the gunshot. I know it won't happen, and I can appreciate why...but hey...a girl can dream...right?

 

[ohreally]

IMO, JM planned his strategy from his opening statement to Jodi. At first it seemed like such a odd thing to open with her "dumb sister". Now I believe it was an insignificant statement to see if he could get the arquementitive, strong willed Jodi to come out and it worked. Brilliant
JM knows that he had to get her to commit to yes or no answers. If he left statements without definate answers Numri could come back in his rebuttal and change her answers to a more definate yes or no to suit her defense. While it might seem like he was going down the rabbit whole with her for no apparant reason at times, I think that he has his reasons for why he did. We just don't no the reason why at this time.
My favorite comment from him so far is "Well, it is your fog." LOL

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

IMO, JM planned his strategy from his opening statement to Jodi. At first it seemed like such a odd thing to open with her "dumb sister". Now I believe it was an insignificant statement to see if he could get the arquementitive, strong willed Jodi to come out and it worked. Brilliant
JM knows that he had to get her to commit to yes or no answers. If he left statements without definate answers Numri could come back in his rebuttal and change her answers to a more definate yes or no to suit her defense. While it might seem like he was going down the rabbit whole with her for no apparant reason at times, I think that he has his reasons for why he did. We just don't no the reason why at this time.
My favorite comment from him so far is "Well, it is your fog." LOL

My fave JM quote was when JA said she could more easily demonstrate the lunge Travis made, but would rather not show the line backer stance and JM replied with "O.K., DO IT!" :great:

 

[KarmicLaw]

It was so difficult to cross exam such a reluctant and evasive witness. I think JM did an excellent job. I would have had a few more sarcastic questions for Jodi. An example would be "isn't it true Madam (not ma'am) that you felt like a prostitute because you were willingly engaging in activity much like that of certain types of prostitutes?". I would have tried to move that feeeeeeling away from the men and back onto her own desire to be desired and desirable, at any cost. But I think the point was made without having to be antagonistic, but I would not have been able to contain myself. I wish I would have typed out the questions I wanted ask as I was watching, but it wasn't possible because I was working at the same time and I wouldn't want those items to get inadvertently placed in a business email.

 

[Applejack]

I thought he took way to long to get to the point. The longer she stays on stand the more the jury becomes familiar with her. It's harder to send someone to their death that you feel like you know

This sounds like something a talking head came up with.

The jury is not to consider the penalty at all when determining her guilt for the charges. Finding her guilty is not semding her to her death. These jurors all swore they had no issue doing so, anyway.

I am against the death penalty, but if in that position i would have a much harder time sentencing someone to that fate if they were never allowed the chance to defend themself first.

Personally i am only becoming more familiar with a liar and a person who i totakly believe is capable of doing something so violent and terrible intentionally.

 

[katydid23]

I thought he took way to long to get to the point. The longer she stays on stand the more the jury becomes familiar with her. It's harder to send someone to their death that you feel like you know. Also, he like Jodie, wanted to win each point, so we have to suffer through an hour of if she knew it was a license plate in the Starbuck's parking lot. I also thought he was very disagreeable. I thought that before Jodie ever got on the stand. I thought he treated his own witnesses as hostile. Not a fan. Hope the summation is good!!

First things first..:welcome: to WS. :fireworks:

But I do take issue with the bolded statement above. BBM

It is his job to WIN EACH POINT. He chose points that he needs to win to get a conviction. That point about the license plate in the Starbucks lot is CRUCIAL. It is literally a matter of life and death. If she is lying about that little skater story, it goes to her premeditation, which makes it a DEATH PENALTY case.

So who cares if we have to listen to them spar for an hour about it. She was lying and it is his job to prove that. JMO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Mark Geragos and Jeffrey Toobin discuss the prosecutor's strategy in the Jodi Arias trial.: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/28/has-the-arias-prosecutor-gone-too-far/?hpt=ac_t2

Jeffrey Toobin makes some great points

 

[K_Z]

I've been listening intently for evidence of TA "snapping" in the past, of an unpredictable temper, irrational moments, etc. "I'm so sorry I had to kill him" comments. None. Not a single corroborated instance of any irrational, unpredictable, or violent/ angry behavior.

That is what I think JM did best in his crossX-- he decimated her claim of self defense by showing her to be a voluminous liar, and especially one who lies easily and prolifically to protect her own self interest. He showed her to be one who never, ever is intimidated by words alone, and one who doesn't back down-- even to a "bully" prosecutor.

The moments that stick out in my mind from crossX: her mouthy reply to JM about "only when men like you and Travis are screaming at me", her "flying nun linebacker" pose, grinding Ryan Burns hours after the killing, the 3 versions of the killing that she told over 2+ years, and impressively-- the 48 Hours interview comments. If these stick out in my mind, I hope they stick out in the jury members minds.

The "flying nun linebacker" moments were pure brilliance on JM's part. Very, very memorable, but IMO, not at all believable on Jodi's part.

There is always room for improvement (armchair quarterbacking), but JM did well. He wandered a bit the first 2 days, but improved as time went on. And I have to keep reminding myself that he is NOT done yet!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Mark Geragos and Jeffrey Toobin discuss the prosecutor's strategy in the Jodi Arias trial.: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/28/has-the-arias-prosecutor-gone-too-far/?hpt=ac_t2

Jeffrey Toobin makes some great points

Geragos was saying he should have just covered the murder and planning. Other TH's have been saying that too, that he should have not asked about the sex stuff. That's garbage. He had to address the defense argument of abuse. He did it well I believe.