Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 10

[AZlawyer]

I've watched many trials over the last couple of decades and I've seen this particular style of defense escalate out of control in murder trials. It's always been an issue in sex assault (still not right) but it's really exploded in murder trials. Not only is the DEAD victim totally denigrated but the surviving victims, as defined by law, are revictimized having to listen to this fabricated garbage. If it can escalate, it can deescalate in my opinion.

I wonder how often the strategy actually works? In my experience, defense lawyers will drop a strategy pretty quickly if a study comes out showing that it backfires.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think of things like this: a known murderer's prior offenses, even things they've been convicted of, are often disallowed in their prosecution to protect their "rights" yet the very same murderer can sit there and make heinous things up out of thin air about their victim, uncorroborated, and it is allowed. I may just be a lay person and a victim's sister but I know WRONG and UNFAIR when I see it.

Amen!

 

[gcharlie]

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 9s 10 seconds ago
Travis says he doesn't think he will ever be sexually satisfied after #jodiarias #3tvarias


Is that Nurmi's proof Travis was a pedophile?

Brilliant! :goodpost:

The thanks button wasn't enough,

 

[Love Never Fails]

bk says Dr. f testified that CMJA didn't introduce KY to Travis. Did I miss that in tweets? ?

Well well, she will soon get educated won't she?

ETA: I never saw a tweet of it either.

 

[Hope4More]

Also seem to have missed a melodramatic theme that Dr. f was weaving. .....that a sense of death hung over these star crossed lovers...death by suicide, most commonly referenced by each and by both.

Really. I'm not being snarky.

 

[MeeBee]

Also seem to have missed a melodramatic theme that Dr. f was weaving. .....that a sense of death hung over these star crossed lovers...death by suicide, most commonly referenced by each and by both.

Really. I'm not being snarky.

I kind of got that. That death was in the background for these two, or something like that.

Weird...

 

[AZlawyer]

I think of things like this: a known murderer's prior offenses, even things they've been convicted of, are often disallowed in their prosecution to protect their "rights" yet the very same murderer can sit there and make heinous things up out of thin air about their victim, uncorroborated, and it is allowed. I may just be a lay person and a victim's sister but I know WRONG and UNFAIR when I see it.

It is wrong and unfair. The problem is that prior offenses might be irrelevant to the current charges, while made-up crap is often very relevant (why else make it up)?

Certainly the courts could not constitutionally require corroboration for these things, although if the relevance is weak it can often be kept out under R403 (prejudice outweighing probative value). But then in a DP mitigation phase, it all tends to flow back in when the rules of evidence are loosened up, which has also been found to be constitutionally required....

I like Steve's idea better. He is brainstorming and has a good idea. It should not have to be up to Juan to do this. Thats what Steve is proposing. What's wrong with the judge saying it out loud in court?

I was kind of unclear on what the judge would be saying. Steve was talking about hearsay, which generally isn't even allowed so no need to warn the jury about it. And when it is allowed (e.g., for an expert), the jury is very often warned that they are not to think that the things the expert quoted from other people are true without further evidence.

This isn't the kind of thing KCL is talking about, though. Victim-bashing evidence is normally not hearsay.

 

[bsk]

Thank you for this most excellent post!

It is a point that would be well worth bringing to the attention of the jury, if there was a way to do so.

To me it is glaring that Arias, for all of her 28 years before incarceration, has virtually no one coming forward to speak for her. Never mind testifying on her behalf, but look at the absence of comments through the press or social media.

The same thought has struck me. She has nobody. The family she claims beat her - maybe. Mom - the wooden-spoon carrier - has been there the whole time. Occasionally Aunt "Giggles" Sue and Donavan during the original trial. A sibling once or twice. Virtually no friends have ever shown up. No one is coming forward on her behalf unless it's to collect a check. I might feel sorry for her - if it wasn't her own fault.

 

[Hope4More]

Also seem to have missed a melodramatic theme that Dr. f was weaving. .....that a sense of death hung over these star crossed lovers...death by suicide, most commonly referenced by each and by both.

Really. I'm not being snarky.

 

[elementary]

I think you're right on target. And I think she thinks if she can only make the jury "understand" they will know she did what she had to do. And she would do it again. Because he deserved it. No remorse because she did nothing wrong.

Inside the mind of a psychopath where it all makes sense. Writ large. Staged and projected onto the jury through the willing defence and their willing minions, all creating the vision. The vision inside a psychopath's head. As if it had validity. That's truly creepy and suspect, that supposedly unpsychopathic people are happy producers and production designers as if this were a film and not about the abuse and cruel, sadistic, godawful and agonising murder of a good man.

Thanks. I get it now. Completely.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Also seem to have missed a melodramatic theme that Dr. f was weaving. .....that a sense of death hung over these star crossed lovers...death by suicide, most commonly referenced by each and by both.

Really. I'm not being snarky.

Yeah this one I remember. She said both had death over them. I do not remember any tweet where TA talked of suicide. I thought she was giving an opinion that JA couldn't live without him.

 

[Hope4More]

Mass email explained. Standard PPl stuff, but multiple mailings o'er week. Daughter accidentally on list. The dad was joking with Travis about this mistake .

 

[Love Never Fails]

It is wrong and unfair. The problem is that prior offenses might be irrelevant to the current charges, while made-up crap is often very relevant (why else make it up)?

Certainly the courts could not constitutionally require corroboration for these things, although if the relevance is weak it can often be kept out under R403 (prejudice outweighing probative value). But then in a DP mitigation phase, it all tends to flow back in when the rules of evidence are loosened up, which has also been found to be constitutionally required....



I was kind of unclear on what the judge would be saying. Steve was talking about hearsay, which generally isn't even allowed so no need to warn the jury about it. And when it is allowed (e.g., for an expert), the jury is very often warned that they are not to think that the things the expert quoted from other people are true without further evidence.

This isn't the kind of thing KCL is talking about, though. Victim-bashing evidence is normally not hearsay.

Okay, it its not hearsay, and it's not the truth, then what is it?

 

[Hope4More]

Yeah this one I remember. She said both had death over them. I do not remember any tweet where TA talked of suicide. I thought she was giving an opinion that JA couldn't live without him.

Per BK, multiple mentions be Dr.K about this death thing, including in tweets.

 

[Steve44]

They are told to use common sense, etc. As for the other points, it is JM's job to make the weaknesses in the testimony clear for the jury.

That's fine, but a statement such as this in the beginning, which complies with all the rules you cited and does not introduce anything new or contradictory, can serve to orient the jury and put them in a better position to be vigilant in their objectivity.

 

[gcharlie]

Yup, and then there was the late 70's with the whole Plato's Retreat kind of thing.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar

For those of us in our 50's into the mid 70's, we were at the forefront of the sexual revolution and exposed to all kinds or changing mores when it came to sexuality and sexual behavior. The testimony from this expert is directed at dated Puritan values when it comes to sex and relationships.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes she was talking about Travis' journal and how he wrote about being depressed and his friends telling him to get help. I didn't know where she was going with that though.

 

[MeeBee]

Mass email explained. Standard PPl stuff, but multiple mailings o'er week. Daughter accidentally on list. The dad was joking with Travis about this mistake .

:thud:

 

[katiecoolady]

I wonder how often the strategy actually works? In my experience, defense lawyers will drop a strategy pretty quickly if a study comes out showing that it backfires.

I sincerely wish that this trial could prove to be a turning point in legal culture for this reason. That this defense backfires so wildly that it sets even an informal precedence.

All I know is many hot button legal issues around Constitutionality have been argued and reargued and I'd like to toss this one in to the mix for consideration. And i'd be happy to lend my voice and experience. It's the least I can do. One of the Alexander siblings and I have been talking about pairing up for a cause such as this to lend ourselves to and this one is a good one esp from this trial in my opinion (I've never seen this trashing the victim defense so heinous).

 

[Love Never Fails]

Per BK, multiple mentions be Dr.K about this death thing, including in tweets.

I keep looking for her live video coverage by 8 pm. Still not there.