Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 21

[katydid23]

Just when I think this trial has reached the outer limits of weird, it takes a step beyond. Detective Flores on the stand again? It's like déja vu of déja vu. Today was my last day of trying to follow minute by minute with the Tweets. I just can't with this anymore. I have more fulfilling things to do, like clean my toaster.

Justice for Travis. I'll see you here occasionally.

I felt the very same way this morning. As I poured my first cup of fresh coffee, I imagined what it was going to be like to see tweets about the phony *advertiser censored* letter or see that Mark McGee was on video tape, so I IGNORED the trial all morning and did some important errands. My BP stayed normal. Then I came home and fixed lunch, only to be beckoned back to my sleeping laptop.

Imagine my disdain when I read about Nurmi trying to have Juan thrown off the case and questioned as a hostile witness!!!!! I am glad I did not follow it minute by minute, but just got the full impact in one fell sick swoop. ugh

 

[MeeBee]

no...just the first hunk is 100 pages. The grand total for all of it is almost 1k

Are sure? It was reported earlier that the transcript is 149 pages or something like that. So $1000 for 149 pages.

 

[tcrockett]

Are sure? It was reported earlier that the transcript is 149 pages or something like that. So $1000 for 149 pages.

she just reported that the first set is being done by one stenographer...144ish pages. A second stenographer is doing another set. Together the total is almost 1k. Can I copy her post here?

 

[AZlawyer]

Question for AZL:


Wouldn't CMJA have to declare any monies from the appeal fund that her family is raising/has raised before declaring indigency? Also, if she is given Life, the State will only fund 2 appeals, correct or no? TIA.

I think you actually don't have to reapply for indigency for the appeal, just check a box.

Regardless of the sentence, the State will fund the direct appeal. The State is not constitutionally required (regardless of the sentence) to fund anything else, but KCL tells me AZ funded every appeal/post-conviction relief petition for her sister's killers, so perhaps we go beyond what's required.

Question for AZlawyer...I have just watched Beth Karas live video on her website. She said the prosecution not giving the defense the hard drive in 2008 as evidence was a huge deal. She said prosecution was wrong and this is a good appeal issue. She also stated this is the reason the defense in going into such drawn out detail is for appellate reasons. Juan said it isn't the job of prosecution to notify the defense of the hard drive. Beth Karas said he is wrong and it was definitely the responsibility of the prosecution to do so. What is the truth of this matter? Thanks.

It is not a big deal or a good appeal issue IMO. It is definitely the job of the prosecution to notify the defense of the hard drive. The defense was notified of the existence of the hard drive. The defense was also notified of the existence of the 2008 image, apparently, through the police report. The defense was also aware that the defense team had turned on the computer in 2009 and therefore minor random alterations to the hard drive had occurred. The defense asked for a copy of the hard drive after that 2009 meeting and got one. The defense did not ask for a copy of the 2008 image until this month. IMO no problem here. If something different was said live in court that we didn't "catch" in tweets I hope BK will make it more clear.

not to bombard you, but, I oh what the heck!

I have not been following closely as real life has been interfering. But, can you calrify something for me?

Is the *advertiser censored* evidence a seperate issue from the misconduct? I thought, obviously incorrectly, that the DT was arguing the state engaged in misconduct by hiding, destroying, failing to disclose or whatever the fact there was *advertiser censored* (of some type-still not clear) on the computer. Using that as the premise, I assumed the *advertiser censored* evidence would only come in if the misconduct was found to have occurred. But it seems the computer evidnce, which directly contradicts the evidence presented unchallenged in the first trial, is being admitted without regard to the issue of whether the misconduct occurred.

I'm not understanding the basis of this. My concern, besides the obvious stupidity of using the dead victims legal computer use as a "mitigator", is how this might play into an appeal. If different basic evidence than was introduced and used by the jury in deliberating its verdict in the first trial is now admitted and used in the sentencing phase, wouldn't this present a viable appeal issue? Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But this seems highly irregular to me.

My though was that any computer evidence which failed to be discovered by the defense and was not the result of misconduct, would be inadmissable as it would have already been finally litigated in the appropriate phase, especially as it was unchallenged. It would simply be an issue for appeal. Except it would probably not be viable as there was ample opportunity for the defense to perform any tests it wanted on the computer in the many years prior to trial. And I don't see how you can appeal on the basis you didn't do a thorough enough job of vetting and discoverng the evidence. Perhaps an inadequate representation issue but not a substantive basis for appeal.

Obviously I must be wrong. What am I missing?

The *advertiser censored* evidence is relevant to: (1) prosecutorial misconduct (IMO not proved), and (2) JA's pedophile story. The pedophile story is relevant to mitigation because JA is saying that her little mentally ill self was super-stressed out by secretly dating a pedophile and therefore she may have reacted a tad oddly to that stress by murdering him with premeditation.

Nurmi argued recently (maybe today? I lost track) that *advertiser censored* was more broadly relevant to the "Jekyll and Hyde" story, showing that TA was under crazy stress of maintaining a "double life," which lends credence, in theory, to JA's story that he would periodically crack under the stress and abuse her in one or more ways--which is, in turn, relevant to the mitigation story mentioned above. I suppose there is some merit to this. I can see why JSS would allow the *advertiser censored* evidence to avoid an appeal on this issue.

The "turning on the computer without write-blocker" evidence is independently relevant because the defense is entitled to let the jury know that the evidence was not "pristine," such that there is some possibility there would have been something helpful or corroborative of JA's stories if not for the random overwriting of files.

 

[MeeBee]

she just reported that the first set is being done by one stenographer...144ish pages. A second stenographer is doing another set. Together the total is almost 1k. Can I copy her post here?

No don't do that. Thank you. That still seems a bit crazy.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Just to be very clear here, I do not think that Travis watched *advertiser censored* or had anything to do with *advertiser censored*, ok? For argument sake, even if he did watch *advertiser censored*, what is heck has this got to do with mitigating factors in his brutal murder?

Zip, zilch, Nada. Hell if every man was butchered for viewing it, we would have a twenty to one ratio of women.

 

[AZlawyer]

Calling AZlawyer! Due to my inadequacies in knowledge of both law and computers, this post may seem disjointed. Sorry, it's the best I can do to explain myself.

IIRC, a Brady violation occurs when the prosecution fails to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense.

This whole kerfuffle comes down to the fact that the DT didn't get the 2008 image and got the 2009 image instead.

IMHO, John Smith is more than likely spending his very long weekend searching the 2008 drive for anything that could prove that the changes made by Flores waking up the computer deleted *advertiser censored* from it.

Now, assuming that the defense team can prove that the mere existence of a bunch of sites in the registry and possibly ONE site visited for 45 minutes proves that Travis used this material to abuse Jodi, then, the defense may have a case. That's probably why the judge allowed JS's testimony to occur prior to her decision.

From what little I understand about computers, the 2008 and 2009 images are virtually identical with @200 changes made. Wouldn't Smith have to come up with WHAT changes were made by comparing the two drives?

In her video tonight, BK stated that the '08 drive should have been turned over and it could be a major issue. But, if nothing is discovered to prove that mitigating material was on the '08 image and omitted on the '09 image, could an appeals court rule that it was harmless error?

Of course it's harmless, and since the State and the defense had all the exact same information about the accidental overwriting of files in June 2009, IMO it's not even error. The defense could have asked for the other image at any time. And since neither the State nor the defense have any idea what was overwritten in June 2008 when Flores touched the computer with a pencil, and it was clearly unintentional and not targeted toward anything in particular, there is no prosecutorial misconduct there either.

It's confusing, isnt it? I still don't understand how the DT keeps insisting on something that has not been proven- in front of the jury (and the judge allows it). At first I understood that some of it is remedial, that this allows there is still a possibility of *advertiser censored* rather than baldly stating absolutely that there was none, and is none as was initially understood and presented. But it seems to me, the DT has gone way beyond that in their innuendo and bald faced lies (some to be 'disregarded'- as if).

So imagine, if we are getting the skinny from AZL, and we understand to some extent the whys and wherefores, and still don't get it, imagine how this affects the jury? They may think that, indeed, it is proven with this confusing testimony. The only hope we can have is that Juan will pull this out of the fire as has in the past. Honestly, if we don't get it, the jury must be reeling.

BBM

The only way to prove anything is to present it in front of the jury. Normally NOTHING has been proved at the beginning of a trial, and yet witnesses and evidence are presented on the very first day. The point is to present to the jury the evidence on both sides and to let the jury decide what has been proved.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Did you miss the part where JSS told the defense they could not question Flores on Juan looking for nudes because it is irrelevant and would prejudice the jury against Juan?

JSS cannot stop the defense from making accusations, filing ridiculous motions, making erroneous claims, etc. All she can do is manage it.

Amen sista'

 

[elementary]

she just reported that the first set is being done by one stenographer...144ish pages. A second stenographer is doing another set. Together the total is almost 1k. Can I copy her post here?

Okay, I'm confused. Did the judge not say the transcripts were ready to be released as soon as the SC ruled on the stay? Geeeeeeez.

 

[LinasK]

Jss not ruling till Wednesday after computer witness? And watch. He will be on stand till 4:30 thursday. So where are JSS supporters? JSS has to give pseudonym time to find more *advertiser censored*. That's the way she rolls.

Had a doctors appointment in the morning. I got here at noon.

 

[Sulamith]

Beth just posted that the actual cost of the transcripts will be almost $1000. She seems livid over this

Where exactly did BK post that? Her website or FB page? I just finished watching her Video Report and she said the price of the transcripts would be $576.00 because that is the expedited charge. Looks like the $400.00 charge was the non-expedited price. I just read her courtroom tweets and watch her video reports and don't get into the comments section.

 

[holidayy]

from 400 to 149 pages!!Are we not getting the whole transcipt? and if we are not,why not? Thanks.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I will let AZL answer because she knows more about it than me and I could be wrong, but I will say it appears, at least to me, that the defense knew of the existence of the 2008 image. They were given a report of Melendez' findings and his testimony at trial should have tipped them off that it existed. If they wanted to see it for themselves they could have. But they did have a report. In 2009 an image was made and as far as both sides knew this was fine. Both sides seemed to think this was ok in providing evidence which was Travis' original hard drive. Despite the 2009 modifications all the *advertiser censored* that was on Travis' computer was on Dworkin's copy. So it was there to find anyway even though their image was modified.

Hi MeeBee,
I understand what you are saying and you explain it so much better than I. But Beth said it is the prosecutions job to turn over the evidence and the defense does not have to ask for it. She said the prosecution never did that. That's where I was confused. I like Beth but her stance tonight definitely seemed to be pro defense. I was a little taken back by it.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi MeeBee,
I understand what you are saying and you explain it so much better than I. But Beth said it is the prosecutions job to turn over the evidence and the defense does not have to ask for it. She said the prosecution never did that. That's where I was confused. I like Beth but her stance tonight definitely seemed to be pro defense. I was a little taken back by it.

But they did turn it over. They just didn't also turn over a second copy that was different in an immaterial way due to the defense team turning on the computer in 2009. If the difference had been material and the State had been aware of that, it would be a different story.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Off Topic, but....... GOOOOO BUCKS!!!!!!! (Ohio State Buckeyes):jumping::happydance:

 

[Ruby]

from 400 to 149 pages!!Are we not getting the whole transcipt? and if we are not,why not? Thanks.

I think the sidebars are taken out - but still transcribed.
Sidebars will be released after verdict.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but I remember seeing a post with about 5-8 (can't remember exact number) of time frames
to not be included with the transcribing order. I thought they were sidebars?

Maybe 400 was an estimated number of pages. 149 is a bit less than half, and the number of sidebars ? not sure, could they total more than half?

Just some thoughts, may not be accurate. :seeya:

 

[mydirtysecret]

So a little thing slipped by us today, the DT filed another motion to preclude a state's witness and that witness is dr.lovely I mean demarte. That has jodi all over it. She had a real disdain for demarte in the original trial. It is also rumored demarte has had additional time to prepare and is going to really pull no punches this time. I look forward to her, I enjoyed her the first time.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think you actually don't have to reapply for indigency for the appeal, just check a box.

Regardless of the sentence, the State will fund the direct appeal. The State is not constitutionally required (regardless of the sentence) to fund anything else, but KCL tells me AZ funded every appeal/post-conviction relief petition for her sister's killers, so perhaps we go beyond what's required.



It is not a big deal or a good appeal issue IMO. It is definitely the job of the prosecution to notify the defense of the hard drive. The defense was notified of the existence of the hard drive. The defense was also notified of the existence of the 2008 image, apparently, through the police report. The defense was also aware that the defense team had turned on the computer in 2009 and therefore minor random alterations to the hard drive had occurred. The defense asked for a copy of the hard drive after that 2009 meeting and got one. The defense did not ask for a copy of the 2008 image until this month. IMO no problem here. If something different was said live in court that we didn't "catch" in tweets I hope BK will make it more clear.



The *advertiser censored* evidence is relevant to: (1) prosecutorial misconduct (IMO not proved), and (2) JA's pedophile story. The pedophile story is relevant to mitigation because JA is saying that her little mentally ill self was super-stressed out by secretly dating a pedophile and therefore she may have reacted a tad oddly to that stress by murdering him with premeditation.

Nurmi argued recently (maybe today? I lost track) that *advertiser censored* was more broadly relevant to the "Jekyll and Hyde" story, showing that TA was under crazy stress of maintaining a "double life," which lends credence, in theory, to JA's story that he would periodically crack under the stress and abuse her in one or more ways--which is, in turn, relevant to the mitigation story mentioned above. I suppose there is some merit to this. I can see why JSS would allow the *advertiser censored* evidence to avoid an appeal on this issue.

The "turning on the computer without write-blocker" evidence is independently relevant because the defense is entitled to let the jury know that the evidence was not "pristine," such that there is some possibility there would have been something helpful or corroborative of JA's stories if not for the random overwriting of files.

Thanks AZL. I know the defense didn't ask for the 2008 image until December. But Beth insisted they didn't have to ask. It was the "duty" of the prosecution to turn it over to them at the beginning, therefore creating an appeal issue. I will be so glad when this is over. The legal wrangling wears me down. JA is guilty nd should have been sentenced in 2008. But our system doesn't work that way. Thanks for your answer. Oh and Beth also said Nurmi was one hundred percent correct, that Jodi will never be executed because of the hard drive issue on appeal.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

So here is what's on the agenda for the next 2 days:


Tuesday January 13:

- NO COURT

- Release of the Secret Transcript


Wednesday January 14:

- Re-Trial continues with "Pseudo Witness John Smith"

- Ruling by JSS on the DT's DP/Prosecutorial Misconduct Motion AFTER Pseudo Witness Smith testifies


**NOTE**

The only certainty is that there is no court tomorrow, Tuesday January 13.

The remaining are possible, but not probable, IMO.

 

[Nore]

In my best JSS voice, "I will take this matter under advisement but for now, you will continue. I will have a ruling at the conclusion of this trial"

----------
I am beginning to feel the same way Kensie. We waited all weekend for the decision that never came , would the DP. be dropped. There was to be a witness questioned but no mention of Flores. I realize these things happen but in this case it has happened too often. Most of the time no real reason why. This is no fair mainly to the Jury. There is no regard for these people who deserve it. It is over and over the same thing. I am tired of getting my hopes up and being disappointed. :tears: :bananalama: