SIDEBAR #25- Arias/Alexander forum

[YESorNO]

Hi daisy (our Sidebar greeter) :seeya::floorlaugh:

You do good work.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

JMO, she's a sneaky snake and has something nasty going on in her mind at all times. Can't trust her ever, IMO. What's her plan to try to wiggle out of the DP? Hope this turns on her big time. Hope she gets what she deserves.

Travis never to be forgotten.

:goodpost: Exactly ! She is one sneaky little ... who can NEVER be trusted !

:seeya:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hey all, I have been mulling over her motives here, and maybe she is also getting input from the defense team. If she goes wacko in court, the judge would have to declare a mistrial right? Then after the two mistrials won't JSS have to decide her sentence? That would be LWOP. Don't you know Travis family is cringing right now? One thing is for sure. She has proven she is insane. She has removed all doubt.
goodnight everyone.

RBBM: BINGO ! I think you nailed it here !

And yes, that's my understanding of how the Penalty Phase works in AZ.

:seeya:

 

[geevee]

So will she be questioning witnesses? Will she put herself on the stand? I feel so sad for Travis' family.

I was just wondering the same thing, will this get her back on the stand, or prevent her from having to take the stand? JM ought to pull the rug out from under her, take the DP off the table and let JSS sentence her to forever in prison, that would fix her red wagon good and prevent her from basking in anymore limelight. Wham, bam, no thank you, ma'am.

 

[daisymae]

:giggle:

I'd work harder if this was a paying job!

:biglaugh:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From: http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/arias-to-represent-herself-at-death-penalty-trial


A new trial to determine the sentence is scheduled to begin Sept. 8.

If the second panel fails to end in a unanimous decision, the death penalty would be removed from consideration.

The judge would then sentence Arias to spend her life behind bars or to be eligible for release after 25 years.


RBBM: This ^^^ is :scared:

JMO but I do NOT trust JSS to give her LWOP, because there is the possibility of 25 years ...

And that is what JA is hoping for !

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

BBM I don't know. Can she do that???
She will be questioning witnesses.
I don't remember what trial that a defendant represented himself and he did question witnesses. Who was that guy- I can't remember, but it was very distressing
for the witnesses, I read, to be questioned by someone who was the person who killed their loved one.

Good Lord, would she be able to call Travis's family to the stand for some sick reason?

 

[Teresa]

So will she be questioning witnesses? Will she put herself on the stand? I feel so sad for Travis' family.

Oh dear...that creature will go out of her way to torture the Alexander's. My heart just aches
hearing this. I'm guessing her number one goal here is to push for life and avoid death. Jodi wants a plea for life and no trial. The Alexander's will need to go to this trial with a tough resolve. Arias well go into trial with her
fangs showing in my opinion. Give us, the Alexander's and Juan strength. She wants to perform and go out with a bang.. I'm sick of the criminal having more rights than the victim and family!

 

[gitana1]

JSS allowed this? What a farce. She knows JA can't handle this. Must be a trick by the lawyers too because they will have to be present in case she fails...which she will!.. And then do we start anew??

No.

She thinks she has something up her sleeve.....but it will back fire. She cannot be sick,forget her glasses, has to know the rules of standing, not standing courtesy to the Judge, she may tamper with evidence, she is trying to get out of her cell longer......and the guards better be alert as she might make a break for it. I don't think she can hold her temper. Mr. Juan vs Inmate....Squash...sorry....JMO

Hmm. I never thought about her trying to run, but she would definitely be the type to do it and succeed. However, I don;t think the prison will loosen their grasp of her and being her won attorney should not give her many more opportunities to escape.

I don't know but one of the tweets said the judge strongly advised her against doing it, so why couldn't she just deny it? Any atty's out there that can answer? ty

No. As long as she is competent, she has the right.

So, why did she have to go before the judge with the request? ty

To determine if she is competent to make the decision.

JA has no law license. She must have a court appointed atty to back her up. Right?

Yes. Self-represented people will be given a stand-by attorney in murder cases.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Found it,, this is what Richard Samuels does; there are three that I found


He must like being a professional expert. How much money has he made of the system? to damn much.


DJERF v. SCHRIRO
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
September 29, 2008.


Dr. McMahon was responsible for compiling the results of testing obtained by all three mental health professionals. (RT 3/12/96 at 13-15.) The court set April 22, 1996, as the deadline for submission of his final report. (RT 4/9/96 at 5.) On April 19, 1996, Dr. McMahon compiled the mental health reports and faxed trial counsel his conclusion that Petitioner suffered from an antisocial personality disorder. (ROA-PCR, Am.Pet., Ex. D.) Dr. McMahon specifically rejected a diagnosis of schizophrenia and rejected any diagnosis that Petitioner suffered from any mental health issue that precluded his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior or resulted in an inability to conform his behavior to the requirement of the law. (Id.) On April 23, 1996, trial counsel notified the court they would not be utilizing either Dr. McMahon's report or his testimony at sentencing. (RT 4/23/96 at 2.) Trial counsel requested and the court established a deadline for Dr. Walter to submit a final report. (Id. at 5.) However, there is no record of Dr. Walter completing and submitting such a report.
PCR proceedings
Petitioner presented Claim Four during his PCR proceedings. (ROA-PCR, Am. Pet. at 14-15.) Prior to filing his amended PCR petition, Petitioner sought and obtained appointment of a mental health expert, Dr. Richard Samuels. On two occasions, the PCR court granted contact visits for Dr. Samuels to perform mental health testing upon Petitioner. (ROA-PCR, Orders, 9/11/00 & 12/8/00.) Even though Dr. Samuels conducted a neuropsychological examination of Petitioner, PCR counsel did not submit any expert report in support of Claim Four.
Ultimately, the PCR court concluded that Petitioner had not established a colorable IAC claim and summarily dismissed the claim without granting an evidentiary hearing. (ROA-PCR, Order, 6/14/01.) The court explained:
The only evidence defendant presents to support this claim are psychiatric and psychological evaluations of defendant done either before the entry of the plea or before sentencing. Based on these numerous reports, which were available and considered by the court prior to sentencing, defendant simply speculates that there might be other mitigating information that should have been presented. This showing does not constitute a colorable claim for relief.
(Id.) Regarding the allegation that trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate social and family history investigation, the PCR court stated that "[Petitioner] has failed to present any evidence to support this claim; instead, he simply speculates that if his childhood was investigated, some mitigating evidence might have been discovered." (Id.)
Analysis

 

[Amster]

This will take forever....JSS will allow J to run the courtroom. So afraid because its a DP case. The nightmare for Travis' loved ones continues. ick

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

and another


Went looking for DS...

IN RE DENNIS H.
IN RE DENNIS H.
No. 1 CA-MH 11-0057 SP.
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department B.

Filed May 29, 2012.

Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General, Phoenix, By Aubrey Joy Corcoran, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Appellee.
Bruce Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate, Phoenix, By Mary Beth Mitchell, Deputy Legal Advocate and Daniel R. Raynak, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellant.




THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
JOHNSEN, Judge
¶1 Dennis H. appeals the denial of his petition for absolute discharge from the Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center ("ACPTC"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In 1993, Dennis was convicted of one count of molestation of a child, a Class 2 felony, and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Before his release in 2007, the State filed a petition pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 36-3704 (West 2012) alleging Dennis was a sexually violent person ("SVP") who should be committed to the ACPTC for supervision and treatment.1 Dennis admitted the allegation, and the superior court found him to be an SVP and ordered his commitment.
¶3 In February 2011, Dennis petitioned for absolute discharge from ACPTC, asserting that he was no longer an SVP. During a two-day evidentiary hearing, Dr. Nicole Huggins, a psychologist at the Arizona State Hospital who conducted Dennis's annual examination, testified that Dennis's mental disorders had not changed and he remained a danger to others, likely to reoffend if discharged. Dr. Richard Samuels testified on behalf of Dennis and opined that Dennis's condition had changed, that he was no longer at risk of reoffending and that he should be unconditionally discharged from ACPTC.

 

[Really?]

hahahahahahaha


CMJA is gonna be her own attorney....my what a big head that girl has...lol

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

and the third one

County billed for molester’s psychiatric services
Attorney’s Office did not budget for expert witnesses

By Shar Porier
Wick News Service
Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:18 PM MST

BISBEE — A convicted child molester who is appealing a court ruling that determined he was a sexually violent person in need of mental health care to stop recidivism could end up costing Cochise County a large sum in psychiatric fees.

Steven C. Jasper, who is from Sierra Vista, has numerous convictions for child molestation across three states including Arizona. He has appealed a July ruling and has requested a jury trial to determine if he is a sexually violent person and needs to be committed.

According to the case file, Jasper was convicted in 2001 of sexually molesting a 7-year-old and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. At the time, Jasper claimed he did nothing wrong and denied he had committed the offense or any of the past five offenses that led to convictions in Iowa and in California. He claimed he did not remember committing the offenses or to serving jail time. He has faced charges that include battery, theft, grand larceny, possession of drugs, vandalism and malicious mischief.

Jasper was found to be a sexually violent person during a bench trial by Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt and was ordered to be detained within the Arizona State Hospital system based in part by the testimony of Sergio Martinez, a Department of Corrections contracted licensed forensic psychologist. The doctor’s opinion was based on Jasper’s history, lack of remorse and the use of a rating system for such criminals.

Jasper appealed the ruling on the grounds he did not receive notice of the hearing so he could not attend. His attorney was notified of the pending trial.

“Under Arizona state law, sexual offenders may be committed if found to be mentally ill. But, one must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds him to be a sexually violent person, he will be committed to state care and remain there until such time as a determination can be made that they are no longer mentally ill or likely to re-offend,” said Britt Hanson, chief deputy county attorney in a phone interview last week.

Jasper’s attorney, who is funded through the depleted indigent defense budget, hired an expert psychiatrist from Phoenix who charges $250 per hour and $150 per hour, plus expenses for travel. Dr. Richard Samuels could be paid up to $8,000 for his services — the dollar figure approved by Superior Court Judge James Conlogue. Samuels is close to that limit and will probably be an expert witness at Jasper’s jury trial again at taxpayers’ expense.

To prevent reaching for the red pen as the county attorney’s budget is balanced due to these new expenses for expert witness in the field of mental health, Hanson asked for guidance from the county Board of Supervisors.

Hanson recently met with the supervisors to get approval on a $10,000 possible expenditure for the prosecution’s expert psychiatric witnesses for the Jasper case and one other, but was looking to fund it out of county contingency fund monies. The Herald/Review was unable to review the second case linked to the expenditure.

Supervisors Richard Searle and Pat Call were reluctant to approve any expenditure that would come out of the county’s contingency fund, which has already been raided to meet budgetary needs. They preferred that Hanson use the criminal justice enhancement funds or other department budget lines to pay for the experts.

The County Attorney’s Office had two kind of funds in the past that have been drawn from for special things — Criminal Justice Enhancement fund and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, fund. Criminal justice enhancement funds also are used for salaries and other functions of the County Attorney’s Office. Hanson said it was important that the those funds not be depleted in case there was an emergency.

Criminal justice enhancement funds were recently used in the Nicholas Corbett trial prosecuted by an outside attorney, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. Though the County Attorney’s Office had built up a considerable sum in criminal justice enhancement funds over the years, Woods and all the prosecution’s experts and witnesses reduced the bottom line. Hanson did not know how much remained in the fund.

“We might have the money in the CJE fund, but I suspect we have drawn it down quite a bit,” he said. “We have salaries that are paid out of that. We don’t know if revenues from that fund are going to be as high as anticipated. We could wind up being fairly low on it. Is there money in there to take out now? Yes. Will that mean we have to come back to the board later to replenish it? Yes.”

Hanson emphasized that the County Attorney’s Office has not budgeted for expert witnesses in previous budget cycles.

The three supervisors agreed to allow the expenditure of $10,000 for psychiatric witnesses but stipulated the sum be paid for with the enhancement fund or other department sources. If funding problems arise, they agreed to another meeting to determine alternate funding through the county contingency fund.

 

[YESorNO]

Good morning everyone. :seeya:

[video=youtube;rWQZRrkohd0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQZRrkohd0[/video]

 

[YESorNO]

"...[6.3.] Protocols
Once the court has determined that the defendant is voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently waiving the right to counsel, the trial court
faces certain logistical difficulties. Serious consideration must be given the
following issues:

1. The jailed defendant may need someone to coordinate
the appearance of his or her witnesses. The court will
need to consider providing the defendant with someone
to prepare and file the subpoenas, call witnesses, and
answer any questions about these and other
arrangements.

2. A defendant handling weapons during trial will likely
create concerns; however, different rules for the
defendant and the prosecutor would create a problem of
appearances. Consider imposing the requirement that a
sheriff’s deputy handle all weapons.

3. In addition, the potential for the defendant coming into
close contact with witnesses and jury members is also a
cause for concern. Consider partitioning the courtroom
to create an area within which the prosecutor and
defendant can operate that does not permit the defendant
and counsel close contact with witnesses and the jury.
Use the courtroom deputy to hand exhibits to witnesses
from both parties. These arrangements may require that a
larger than normal number of deputies or court personnel
be present.

4. Depending on the courtroom’s configuration, special
arrangements for sidebar conferences may be required. If
necessary, the jury may need to be removed for sidebar
conferences.

5. How much latitude will the judge give the defendant to
“lead” direct examination? Will the judge act as a
guardian against the prosecutor who takes advantage of
the defendant’s lack of knowledge of the rules of
evidence? A defendant has no right to standby counsel,
but one should always be appointed to deal with these
issues. Standby counsel attends all proceedings and is
available to the defendant for consultation and advice.

6. How will the defendant’s own testimony be given?
What if a defendant does not testify and, instead, uses
closing argument as an opportunity to do so without
cross-examination? Will the judge allow the defendant
to pick up exhibits and demonstrate, as the prosecutor is
able to do? Special attention must be given to prohibit
anything that may be used as a weapon. This includes
hard pens and pencils...."

http://www.judges.org/capitalcasesr...r 6 Trial Matters Unique to Capital Cases.pdf

 

[katydid23]

"So, it seems that it is only fitting, that this individual that has craved the limelight, it is really only fitting that she now bask in a different kind of light: the light of truth.

And in the light of truth, you can see who she really is.”--Juan Martinez

Remember this from the trial. JM knows missy :jail:- how she "craved the limelight".
She hasn't changed and now she really has the "limelight" with representing herself.

I think something smells about all this and I'm wondering what the deal is with this new development.
Are Nurmi/Wilmott behind this little gem? Did they school her in this to somehow make an appeal later on
about something or other?

I'm wondering. Guess I'm very suspicious and don't trust missy :jail: and her cohorts in he((.


Guess I will:

"leave her to heaven, and to those thorns that in her bosom lodge to prick and sting her."

"Let not the royal bed of Denmark be
A couch for luxury and damned incest.
But, howsoever thou pursuest this act,
Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive
Againt thy mother aught ; leave her to heaven,
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
To prick and sting her."

~Shakespeare's Hamlet. In Act I, Scene V,

Actually, I think Nurmi HATES Jodi. I know he wanted to bail out of the next part of the trial. So he is probably happy to see her shoot herself in the foot. Let her stand up there and represent her sick, silly self. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. I am sure she will love every twisted moment of it.

 

[YESorNO]

I finally remembered who the other murderer was that represented himself: Rodney James ALCALA:

http://murderpedia.org/male.A/a/alcala-rodney.htm

Here's a YTube that explains what happened and also has the murdered victims mother's statement on how she felt about
being questioned by the person who murdered her daughter.
(starts at about 32:00 or so):

[video=youtube;uK45aBiE7xU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK45aBiE7xU[/video]

 

[YESorNO]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Ricki]

So Arias will represent herself. Should be interesting and long. Sidebars between her and Juan will be interesting. I sure wish this was going to be live streamed. There is something up her sleeve for sure. Let's see how long it takes to actually get started.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk