Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

[salberg7]

The killer will claim that she is indigent & get her PCR case paid for by the people of the Great State of Arizona yet again.
If she claims prosecutorial misconduct, that issue was pretty well put to bed with her recent appeal denial.
So PCR is the killer’s last chance to claim ineffective council or present any new evidence that was found after her conviction, which I highly doubt will be granted. There is no new evidence available that will exonerate her. Nurmi saved her life in a DP trial so what was ineffective?
So that leaves Federal Habeas Corpus relief that she pays for. Good luck with that.
Unless she gets a law degree while in prison which is highly unlikely, as the “genius IQ” convict first has to have a BA degree & then go to law school using the prison library & pass the bar. That’s about as likely as all of us being given the ok to resume normal life today ( meaning Covid 19 disappears tomorrow).
Sherry Stephens will preside over the PCR trial. She has seen first hand this dangerous the killer is & gave her the correct sentence.
The fact is the killer is a danger to society, pure & simple. She is mentally unstable and belongs behind bars forever.
I must be nuts to still follow this case but curiously enough I do. I have thought about why and & decided first and foremost it’s to hope for Justice for Travis & his family.
And CMJA is diabolical in the sense that I can’t believe she was able to lie so freely & easily without any moral compass. Even when Juan asked her to demonstrate how Travis was lunging at her during the trial she made sure her pose reflected Travis’ head being slightly turned to the exact angle that she shot him in the head. I figure that her lies are truth to her at this point as in her sick mind she believes herself or that lying comes so easy to her.
I was very upset she used self defense as a defense strategy to vilify Travis but accusing him of pedophilia was the absolute lowest of low.
You reap what you sow.
She is too unstable to be released.
After twelve unchecked years in jail with no treatment for her psychopathy and in the company of many inmates like herself, she’s probably much much worse mentally.

 

[nyvictoria]

I guess we’re all a little nuts for still discussing the but she is fascinatingly evil. I agree with you @salberg7. The murderer will get zip from JSS. Stephens made it a point to say the murderer should never be released on parole. I’m glad she didn’t get the DP because it will save the citizens of Arizona and Travis’ friends and family years of expense and heartbreak.

I doubt she’ll do anything regarding her lack of education. Did she even get a HS degree yet? The only thing I see Arias having any ability for is remembering her lies. I guess a lifetime of practice will fine tune those neurological pathways.

I’m happy the only people she will be manipulating for the rest of her miserable life are her fellow convicts. And, of course, her family and deranged supporters. They all deserve each other.

I hope all of you fellow posters and your families are healthy!

 

[RickshawFan]

I seem to have missed something.... Am I reading that Killer lost her appeal? Oh, happy day. I had to pore through posts upthread to figure out where exactly the denial happened, and I still didn't find it! There was more focus on JM's status than the appeal, lol.

Too bad JM got fired. But he won't have any trouble getting a new job IMO.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

I'm thinking that Clark/Adams may get involved in her PCR somehow. Afterall the account was set up for "legal expenses" related to the bar complaints. Who knows where the recent 5 grand went from her appeal fund and the has been dead in the water for months. I have always questioned the legitimacy of that appeal fund primarily because of the questionable people running it. The account still shows around 4 grand still sitting there with no new contributions in months. Even that is questionable like all things related to Jodi Arias.

 

[Hope4More]

Since as stated here 5% of convicted felons are granted PCR, I am thinking due to the first appeal being denied plus the fact the PCR would be heard by Judge Stephens it’s not likely the killer will get any relief.
I’m over the Juan issue. He made his bed, he needs to lie in it. Whether it’s revenge from defense attorneys in his past or more current cases, he needs to own it, as what basically “got” him in the end was his bad decisions and lack of boundaries with women in his workplace. It’s not like there was only 1 complaint from a woman, it was several. You reap what you sow.
He did his job; got bad people convicted, but appeared to show no common sense in what he continued to do over the years. This last issue when he chose to text with an ex-juror who sent him a picture of her breasts was pretty despicable to me. He should have retired after the Arias case. He wouldn’t have been fired or have to appeal his dismissal as he is currently doing. He wouldn’t have lost his retirement benefits (which IMO he is fighting for) but it looks like his ego got the better of him.

I agree that the butcherer has no chance of getting any "relief" from her inevitable attempt at PCR. Nurmi did in fact violate multiple bedrock ethical rules attorneys are bound to, but he did so AFTER she was convicted, and AFTER she had been accorded every last bit of due process to which she was legally entitled, and undue deference beyond that- including the unconstitutional closing of court for her to spew her self serving lies.

No matter that Nurmi was disbarred, she has no legitimate claim to ineffective counsel. Nor, no matter what happens to JM, will she be able to claim any credible "new" exculpatory evidence that wasn't (and according to PCR requirements couldn't have been) produced at trial.

As for JM and his "bad decisions, and/or " lack of boundaries," or reaping what he sowed, aka, getting what he deserved.

I disagree. Most particularly, I disagree because I believe, absolutely, in due process, and because I'm convinced JM has been deprived of that basic right, and for reasons that have nothing to do with anything he has or has not done.

You say that he needs to "own" defense attorneys going after him for revenge. Why would you believe that? The individual defense attorneys he bested in court who are going after him yet again in a Bar complaint(under appeal) had their objections to JM's alleged misconduct heard and dismissed by multiple trial judges in multiple and separate trials; heard and dismissed by multiple appellate judges, and heard and dismissed in multiple Bar complaints, including the most recent one in which JM prevailed, yet again.

His "lack of boundaries" with women in his workplace? As I've posted, at least several times, with documentation, JM does NOT have a decades long pattern of any such behavior, though that allegation keeps getting repeated as fact.

After Karen Clark's sex sex sex Bar complaint was taken up (after being dismissed), Bill Montgomery did do an internal investigation of sexual harassment by JM at MCAO. His findings were placed under seal and remain under seal. All that has been made public is that Montgomery did discipline JM in 2018, including by requiring him to take what sounds like an educational class on the topic of sexual harassment (or some such), and by inference, with a first-time in 30 years less than an A+, glowing performance review.

So, JM was disciplined. And, he didn't repeat whatever his untoward behavior had been at MCAO after being disciplined. Yet, he was fired by a brand new politically appointed county attorney (for an elective office), allegedly for behavior for which he had already been disciplined for two years prior.

What exactly can be considered fair about that?

Last, about the *advertiser censored* photo sending juror and the sex sex sex charges in the Bar complaint against him brought by Karen Clark ON THE BUTCHERER'S behalf.

That dismissed juror, Melissa Garcia, was interviewed by Karen Clark. Did you read her interview? Including the parts in which she contradicts herself about when and why and how often she contacted JM?

Did you read what Tammy Rose said about Garcia in HER interview with Clark? Including the parts in which Rose said Garcia had lied to her about when and why Garcia had contacted JM?

Did you notice that the original reason Clark brought Garcia into her original sex sex sex complaint was largely because she thought Garcia's testimony would support her (irrelevant) allegation that JM had been involved with Jennifer Wood? And secondarily, one may safely conclude IMO, because the salaciousness of GARCIA's actions might serve to taint JM?

Did you notice that the Bar fairly early on DROPPED the Garcia-related charge?

A BTW & at least IMO, what was actually serious about the alleged communication between JM and Garcia had nothing to do with her choosing to send him a photo of her *advertiser censored*. Rather, it was the accusation Clark made AFTER filing her original complaint and AFTER the Bar had first dismissed it, that JM had supposedly asked Garcia to reveal what sitting jurors thought of him/his presentation to date.

(Noting here that Clark seemed either unaware or indifferent that this particular unsubstantiated accusation implied that sitting jurors had violated JSS's daily admonition not to discuss anything about the trial until deliberations).

To end this on the topic of due process. JM was fired before he had his proverbial and actual day in court to defend himself against Clark's charges ( in the Bar
proceedings scheduled for later this month). What exactly is fair or right or deserved about that? Have you asked yourself- why the rush?

Final and redundant BTW. The appointed county attorney who fired JM at least didn't dare allege it had anything to do with how how he conducted himself at trial. How could she, after all, given a paper trail of
29 odd years of performance reviews that explicitly gave JM the highest praise, not admonition of any kind, for his trial conduct and wins for each of those years until the very last?

 

[Augustgurl]

I agree that the butcherer has no chance of getting any "relief" from her inevitable attempt at PCR. Nurmi did in fact violate multiple bedrock ethical rules attorneys are bound to, but he did so AFTER she was convicted, and AFTER she had been accorded every last bit of due process to which she was legally entitled, and undue deference beyond that- including the unconstitutional closing of court for her to spew her self serving lies.

No matter that Nurmi was disbarred, she has no legitimate claim to ineffective counsel. Nor, no matter what happens to JM, will she be able to claim any credible "new" exculpatory evidence that wasn't (and according to PCR requirements couldn't have been) produced at trial.

As for JM and his "bad decisions, and/or " lack of boundaries," or reaping what he sowed, aka, getting what he deserved.

I disagree. Most particularly, I disagree because I believe, absolutely, in due process, and because I'm convinced JM has been deprived of that basic right, and for reasons that have nothing to do with anything he has or has not done.

You say that he needs to "own" defense attorneys going after him for revenge. Why would you believe that? The individual defense attorneys he bested in court who are going after him yet again in a Bar complaint(under appeal) had their objections to JM's alleged misconduct heard and dismissed by multiple trial judges in multiple and separate trials; heard and dismissed by multiple appellate judges, and heard and dismissed in multiple Bar complaints, including the most recent one in which JM prevailed, yet again.

His "lack of boundaries" with women in his workplace? As I've posted, at least several times, with documentation, JM does NOT have a decades long pattern of any such behavior, though that allegation keeps getting repeated as fact.

After Karen Clark's sex sex sex Bar complaint was taken up (after being dismissed), Bill Montgomery did do an internal investigation of sexual harassment by JM at MCAO. His findings were placed under seal and remain under seal. All that has been made public is that Montgomery did discipline JM in 2018, including by requiring him to take what sounds like an educational class on the topic of sexual harassment (or some such), and by inference, with a first-time in 30 years less than an A+, glowing performance review.

So, JM was disciplined. And, he didn't repeat whatever his untoward behavior had been at MCAO after being disciplined. Yet, he was fired by a brand new politically appointed county attorney (for an elective office), allegedly for behavior for which he had already been disciplined for two years prior.

What exactly can be considered fair about that?

Last, about the *advertiser censored* photo sending juror and the sex sex sex charges in the Bar complaint against him brought by Karen Clark ON THE BUTCHERER'S behalf.

That dismissed juror, Melissa Garcia, was interviewed by Karen Clark. Did you read her interview? Including the parts in which she contradicts herself about when and why and how often she contacted JM?

Did you read what Tammy Rose said about Garcia in HER interview with Clark? Including the parts in which Rose said Garcia had lied to her about when and why Garcia had contacted JM?

Did you notice that the original reason Clark brought Garcia into her original sex sex sex complaint was largely because she thought Garcia's testimony would support her (irrelevant) allegation that JM had been involved with Jennifer Wood? And secondarily, one may safely conclude IMO, because the salaciousness of GARCIA's actions might serve to taint JM?

Did you notice that the Bar fairly early on DROPPED the Garcia-related charge?

A BTW & at least IMO, what was actually serious about the alleged communication between JM and Garcia had nothing to do with her choosing to send him a photo of her *advertiser censored*. Rather, it was the accusation Clark made AFTER filing her original complaint and AFTER the Bar had first dismissed it, that JM had supposedly asked Garcia to reveal what sitting jurors thought of him/his presentation to date.

(Noting here that Clark seemed either unaware or indifferent that this particular unsubstantiated accusation implied that sitting jurors had violated JSS's daily admonition not to discuss anything about the trial until deliberations).

To end this on the topic of due process. JM was fired before he had his proverbial and actual day in court to defend himself against Clark's charges ( in the Bar
proceedings scheduled for later this month). What exactly is fair or right or deserved about that? Have you asked yourself- why the rush?

Final and redundant BTW. The appointed county attorney who fired JM at least didn't dare allege it had anything to do with how how he conducted himself at trial. How could she, after all, given a paper trail of
29 odd years of performance reviews that explicitly gave JM the highest praise, not admonition of any kind, for his trial conduct and wins for each of those years until the very last?

Great post.

 

[salberg7]

I’m not saying he Juan is a great DA- he is.
But didn’t you hear what he said to Willmott about f’ing killing himself if he were married to her during a side bar? Was that “professional “? Did it need to be said? No.

He needs to “own” his behavior, words, & actions. This has nothing to do with the defense attorney complaints. And it’s the PERCEPTION now created by Juan’s behavior who knows how many years ago that still and will prevail.

You don’t get fired after 31 years for doing nothing. It can be viewed that Montgomery shielded Juan for many years but coincidentally left it to his successor to finish, who ended up canning him.

I don’t know why Juan just didn’t quit while he was ahead and retire. Ego?

The boob thing really got me. He could have blocked that woman’s call or not gotten to the point where she was sending him pics of any kind.

Ethically he shouldn’t have even put himself in that situation. At all. During a trial. That is a lack of professionalism. That is what he got fired for - continuing lack of professionalism and misconduct.

So much so that the COA had to address prosecutorial misconduct in a separate response to a murderer’s appeal. The COA judge stated he was referring Juan’s conduct to the bar HIMSELF.

Politics? Of course. But again Juan gave them plenty of ammunition. If that conviction was overturned AZ would have to retry CMJA and spend even more that the $3.4 million spent. Juan needs to learn workplace boundaries, excluding sexual misconduct, even. Juan had the power to change his behaviors in court as well but did not.

He is great at what he does, yes, but appears tainted due to personal decisions and poor choices. That event should not have occurred- Juan could have nipped it in the bud, if he indeed had learned ANYTHING from his past write ups.
Neither did it need to occur....this was at the end of the retrial. Why even go there? His choice.

I did read all those interviews with Tammy etc that was years ago. Once was enough. It’s a lot of innuendo. But what about the defense lawyers’ complaints? There are too many complaints to be ignored. You have to admit there were times during the trial his behavior made one flinch where imo his behavior was out of line. One for me was during Lisa’s testimony when he put up Travis’ picture with his slit throat. Totally over the top. That poor girl.

It seems two people ignored and allowed Juan’s behavior to continue - Bill Montgomery and Juan Martinez. Montgomery didn’t want to make waves as he had his prize in mind - Az SC.

It can be difficult interacting with your peers at work these days because of so much “political correctness”. Especially if you are of Juan’s generation in the work force, of which I am a part today as I am still working FT. I need to watch how I say certain things or don’t say them at all. When I began working we still made jokes about sex that we all laughed to - both males and females. That was the 80’s. It’s become tricky since then in that it doesn’t matter sometimes what the truth is, you know you’ve crossed a line. One learns to change with the times & I’m not sure Juan has mastered that yet. It’s a struggle, believe me.

As a prosecutor he is great. He has gained convictions against a lot of bad people. But now to many he is painted as a dirty old guy from way back when it was “ok”to make sexual jokes at work due to his history. When judged by standards in today’s workplace he loses now just by perception. No one gets away with that anymore.

There should not have been ANY communication with JW or the other tart during any trial where the 3 could have intersected. But what you do at work vs your personal life should be well removed from each other. The boob pic and what led up to it imo opened my eyes to his other side.
I love Juan as a prosecutor but if he was dumb enough to even dip his toe in what can clearly be defined as unprofessional behavior I am wondering what else they got against him.
You reap what you sow.

 

[casesensitive]

I’m not saying he Juan is a great DA- he is.
But didn’t you hear what he said to Willmott about f’ing killing himself if he were married to her during a side bar? Was that “professional “? Did it need to be said? No.

He needs to “own” his behavior, words, & actions. This has nothing to do with the defense attorney complaints. And it’s the PERCEPTION now created by Juan’s behavior who knows how many years ago that still and will prevail.

You don’t get fired after 31 years for doing nothing. It can be viewed that Montgomery shielded Juan for many years but coincidentally left it to his successor to finish, who ended up canning him.

I don’t know why Juan just didn’t quit while he was ahead and retire. Ego?

The boob thing really got me. He could have blocked that woman’s call or not gotten to the point where she was sending him pics of any kind.

Ethically he shouldn’t have even put himself in that situation. At all. During a trial. That is a lack of professionalism. That is what he got fired for - continuing lack of professionalism and misconduct.

So much so that the COA had to address prosecutorial misconduct in a separate response to a murderer’s appeal. The COA judge stated he was referring Juan’s conduct to the bar HIMSELF.

Politics? Of course. But again Juan gave them plenty of ammunition. If that conviction was overturned AZ would have to retry CMJA and spend even more that the $3.4 million spent. Juan needs to learn workplace boundaries, excluding sexual misconduct, even. Juan had the power to change his behaviors in court as well but did not.

He is great at what he does, yes, but appears tainted due to personal decisions and poor choices. That event should not have occurred- Juan could have nipped it in the bud, if he indeed had learned ANYTHING from his past write ups.
Neither did it need to occur....this was at the end of the retrial. Why even go there? His choice.

I did read all those interviews with Tammy etc that was years ago. Once was enough. It’s a lot of innuendo. But what about the defense lawyers’ complaints? There are too many complaints to be ignored. You have to admit there were times during the trial his behavior made one flinch where imo his behavior was out of line. One for me was during Lisa’s testimony when he put up Travis’ picture with his slit throat. Totally over the top. That poor girl.

It seems two people ignored and allowed Juan’s behavior to continue - Bill Montgomery and Juan Martinez. Montgomery didn’t want to make waves as he had his prize in mind - Az SC.

It can be difficult interacting with your peers at work these days because of so much “political correctness”. Especially if you are of Juan’s generation in the work force, of which I am a part today as I am still working FT. I need to watch how I say certain things or don’t say them at all. When I began working we still made jokes about sex that we all laughed to - both males and females. That was the 80’s. It’s become tricky since then in that it doesn’t matter sometimes what the truth is, you know you’ve crossed a line. One learns to change with the times & I’m not sure Juan has mastered that yet. It’s a struggle, believe me.

As a prosecutor he is great. He has gained convictions against a lot of bad people. But now to many he is painted as a dirty old guy from way back when it was “ok”to make sexual jokes at work due to his history. When judged by standards in today’s workplace he loses now just by perception. No one gets away with that anymore.

There should not have been ANY communication with JW or the other tart during any trial where the 3 could have intersected. But what you do at work vs your personal life should be well removed from each other. The boob pic and what led up to it imo opened my eyes to his other side.
I love Juan as a prosecutor but if he was dumb enough to even dip his toe in what can clearly be defined as unprofessional behavior I am wondering what else they got against him.
You reap what you sow.

There are two sides to Juan's story. I look forward to his repeal to hear his side. Until then I really can't make a decision. But I agree with you, and have expressed my disappointment in his reckless behavior outside of the court.

 

[TartLemon]

I thoroughly expect JA to file MANY times throughout her lifetime. I also expect she will study and achieve what could be considered a Law Degree. What else does she have to do with the time? It gets her out of the cell and affords 'private' time; great fodder for the narcissism.

 

[Hope4More]

I’m not saying he Juan is a great DA- he is...…..(snipped)

You said: You don’t get fired after 31 years for doing nothing.

But......sometimes peeps ARE fired for doing nothing--without misdeeds or cause, other than being on the wrong side of things politically-- and even after many years of stellar service. There have been plenty of unfortunate examples in recent national news of just that happening, actually.
​

You said: "But what about the defense lawyers’ complaints? There are too many complaints to be ignore.

As you know, anyone can file a Bar complaint, just like anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. Doesn't mean the complaints/lawsuits have any merit.

What DOES make the record of complaints against JM ignorable IMO is that up until the sex sex sex complaint by the killer & Clark, every single complaint has been about JM's conduct at trial, and the Bar has dismissed every single one of those complaints.

In the killer's trial (plus) defense attys' complaint under appeal, JM had no less than the ex-Chief Justice of the AZSC testify on his behalf. Who praised JM's aggressive trial tactics, said that being pitbullish was a standard MO for top notch trial attys, and that he himself had been just as aggressive when trying cases. If not more so. Said he, apparently while chuckling appreciatively.

You said: But didn't you hear what he said to Willmott at sidebar about f'ing killing himself he was married to her?

Well, yep. He did say it in context of what was being discussed, though, not as a random personal insult. He can be sarcastic. And he definitely has been known to cross the line with sharp edged comments.

He did apologize on the spot to her. And in all honesty, I can understand AND empathize how that comment, my guess intended as a joke, came flying out of his mouth. Willmott annoyed the bejeebers out of me pretty much all trial long.

​

You said: That is what he got fired for - continuing lack of professionalism and misconduct.

A "continuing lack of professionalism and misconduct" is not my understanding of the reason(s) for JM's firing, not even of what HAS been made public. Personally, I'd like to see the entire 5 page letter sent to JM. Only several (paraphrased) parts of it have been reported, and those by local media with a long and consistent history of anti-JM bias.

Again, what the County Attorney supposedly did make explicit, though, was that JM's firing had nothing whatsoever to do with "lack of professionalism and misconduct" AT TRIAL. She said the opposite, actually, praising both JM's work and record at trial.

Thing is, I would actually support JM being fired IF the grounds had been prosecutorial misconduct.
State prosecutors who abuse their enormous power should be tossed out.

JM wasn't fired on those grounds for many reasons, but chief among them is that JM in fact hasn't abused his prosecutorial powers. Check out what AZL had to say about (my words, not hers) the different perspectives pearl clutching appellate judges versus down in the trenches trial attorneys have of the verbal battles that are the very essence of ANY trial.

You said...lots about how JM responded to the boob pic sending juror.

My redundant reply to that is to ask you the redundant question- why are you so sure you know what happened between JM and Garcia?

One of my favorite lines in all the Clark interview transcripts was uttered by Garcia (out of a fairly impressive choice of doozies).

Paraphrased, Garcia said rhetorically to Clark: "what kind of a person would I have to be to have sent pics of my *advertiser censored* to him after talking to him once?"

Hmm. The kind of person who upon meeting Tammy Rose ( an alleged MSM reporter) for the first time told Rose that she didn't care if Wood was interested or involved with JM, that she, Garcia considered him "fair game"?

Yet. Garcia also told Rose and Wood too that what she wanted to speak to JM to about was that she felt guilty and bad about being kicked off the jury, and that she wanted him to relay her feelings to TA's family.

JM didn't even return her original call to his office, fgs. It was Wood who gave Garcia JM's personal cell phone number. And it was Wood, NOT JM, who along with Rose was exceptionally eager to interview Garcia, to get a juror's impressions about the trial.

JM told the Bar that he did speak with Garcia. But that he had declined HER invitation to get together for lunch (or whatever). And (further down the investigative road), that he hadn't responded to her after she sent that boob pic, though according to a jealous Wood, Garcia kept bombarding him with texts and phone calls afterwards.

The Bar has explicitly accused JM of lying to them about several specific sex sex sex related matters. Those matters relate to WOOD.

There isn't any reason to believe they wouldn't have also accused JM of lying about what contact he had with Garcia if he had in fact lied to them. Garcia simply wasn't a credible witness, IMO, and it surely does seem the Bar reached the same conclusion.








​

 

[lewcch3]

Happy New Year All!!

Ive come out of lurking long enough to ask some questions that are bugging the heck out of me about the judges on the appeal:
1.It appears from reading the appeal that they only dealt with the first trial and not the second. That strikes me as odd especially considering Nurmi was behaving at his worst, as was Wilmot (who I agree with H4M annoyed the out of me)
2.. It they (the judges) were so bent on burning Juan, just by reading dry appeal records, why not view the court or YouTube tapes of the trial to get the actual flavor of Juan's supposedly misconduct. I would think that would add more and better perspective of his behavior and that it was not consistently done throughout the trial - but only when certain witnesses wanted to play hard ball - IMO he had to use those tactics to get a straight answer out of people like La Violette and the other female doctor during the retrial.

Anyway - I just cant seem to wrap my mind around the way the appellate judges wanted to and did go after Juan.

Good to see you all again and now I shall return to lurking and learning from some great folks!!

 

[salberg7]

Fact is we really don’t know why he was fired & we shouldn’t. It’s private & confidential.

But I doubt realistically it was “for nothing” . You can make excuses for what he said to Willmott in the heat of the moment, that’s fine. But that statement was *not* professional. If Juan doesn’t have a filter and not able to think before he spoke that’s on him. But it’s unreasonable to think that those who were involved were not bothered by that statement. Juan is quick with responses & has a great memory, so why did he say that?

What about the picture of Travis’ cut throat shown to Lisa? That wasn’t necessary either. Shock value? Why Lisa? Weird.

Did Juan ever deny receiving the boob pic? I don’t think so. What Juan should have done is not even put himself in such a position (unprofessional) or brought it to the attention of his superiors. He probably couldn’t do this, however, because he wasn’t supposed to EVER be in such a position.

Juan is only human. He is not infallible. Chances are he wasn’t fired because AZ DA office simply chose to end employment “at will”- which any employer can do if they decide to focus on the behavior of that employee, document infractions and move through their disciplinary process to termination anyway.

Unfortunately his behavior had something to do with it. Other lawyers filed complaints about Juan way before JA. If you note, the DA office DID move Juan through their disciplinary process....write ups, then suspension, then termination. And because an employer can fire someone “at will”, Juan will have an uphill battle appealing his dismissal, imo. Political correctness rules these days. If an employee doesn’t modify their behavior accordingly to the sensitivities of a workplace & thinks “anything goes” (meaning any employee can say anything they want and expect people to just accept it) Juan is wrong.

I have a potty mouth. I do not cross the line with my language when at work. I chose my words appropriately and at times it’s a struggle but I have learned what not to say. It can be an effort but one nonetheless I have to work to abide by. It doesn’t sound that Juan has mastered this. Which is unfortunate for him as it could have contributed to his dismissal. Juan just digs the hole deeper when he says things like that in court, no matter if they had “white noise”. It’s immature and unbecoming.

So who knows if there is another side to Juan? We don’t. We’ll never know. But to assume he had no blame in his termination is unrealistic.
I hope he doesn’t loss his retirement benefits. He may well have. That would be terrible for him.

We’ll just watch and see.

 

[nyvictoria]

I read somewhere that Nurmi was happy that the murderer’s appeal was denied. As Nurmi has not (yet) been accused of being ineffective, I think it’s a testament to JM’s prosecutorial abilities. We have to remember that Clark is not a defense attorney per se. Her job as Arias’ appeal ATTY is to point out every possible opportunity for the verdict to be overturned, throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. In addition, she operates with an agenda to get rid of the death penalty. IMO it’s her primary reason for handling appeals and Bar complaints and I really doubt she gives a rat’s behind about whether Arias got a fair trial. But by submitting Arias’ appeal, she got a lot of free publicity for her cause.

When I compare JM to Nurmi and Wilmott, I find JM’s trial behavior to be almost pristine. The defense attys both repeatedly asked Lisa and Deanna questions about sex and domestic violence that they knew had no basis in fact. They allowed the pedophile lies to be brought out and repeated and dissected for days despite IMO knowing they were false. Nurmi even lied to Skye about the obviously fabricated letters being vetted by an expert. And, if I’m not mistaken, I believe they posed as attys “related to the case” (ie, not defense) and showed the letters to Deanna, who promptly told them they were barking up the wrong tree with those allegations. IMO the defense actions were far more shocking, despicable and dishonest than a stupid remark at sidebar and showing the jury what Travis looked like after Arias was done butchering him.

A trial not a benign process and things can get messy. I accept the fact that the defense attorneys had a job to do. JM had a job to do as well. His ability to do his job and obtain a guilty verdict provides justice for Travis and his family and friends and ensures the safety of the community. IMO JM did an honest and ethical job in the courtroom.

I’ve already posted how I feel about the personal side to the allegations so I won’t comment on them here.

 

[casesensitive]

Why is it that prosecutors are open to investigations of misconduct, and slimy defense attorneys walk away with no repercussions?

 

[salberg7]

I guess we’ll see what happens with Juan & Nurmi’s cases. I absolutely agree Nurmi’s behavior was slimy.

Kirk Nurmi did not walk away without any repercussions either. He wrote a book and surrendered his license instead of going through his professional organization’s disciplinary process.

Why? Because every defendant is innocent until proven guilty & is entitled to a robust defense. And this was a death penalty case.

I absolutely despised Nurmi & Willmott during the trial. The pedophile accusation was way way over the top.

Nurmi tried to withdraw several times. He was assigned JA as a public defender. He had no choice but follow his client’s direction because I am sure JA dictated her strategy.

Even JSS allowed something unprecedented- the court room being cleared to the public to allow that psychopath to testify in private.

I don’t think Juan was fired due to issues in his private personal life.

Thus the killer’s saga continues to adversely impact so many people to this day. But as long as she stays in prison I’m happy and no one else imo could have done it but Juan Martinez.

 

[Hope4More]

A few quick factual points.

1. Karen Clark isn't an appellate attorney, and her representation of the killer wasn't related to the killer's COA appeal.

Clark has brought multiple Bar charges against JM on the killer's behalf, and remains the killer's attorney until all those charges are fully adjudicated and/or dropped.

In theory at least, Clark is bound by the exact same code of attorney ethics as is JM. It's violations of those ethics JM is charged with. Bar proceedings are about determining whether or not JM broke those profession's (specific, as charged) internal rules.

BTW, the Bar views it's primary duty as the instruction, not punishment, of wayward attorneys. Only in the most egregious cases of ethics violations are attorneys actually suspended or disbarred. Like...stealing money from a client; flagrant conflicts of interests that disadvantage clients....or, in Nurmi's case....see below.

2. Nurmi DID go through the Bar process, and he did NOT" volunteer" to surrender his law license. The same Karen Clark brought Bar charges against him on behalf of the same killer client. The Bar's Probable Cause Committee investigated, found the charges against Nurmi were true and accurate, and recommended a specific discipline.

The discipline they recommended was a suspension of his law license. IIRC, the suspension was for 2 years. Suspensions of one year are very uncommon; a 2 year suspension, extraordinary. As I think Nurmi knew and has acknowledged, that discipline effectively amounted to disbarment.

That's largely because regaining permission to practice law after completing the suspension period isn't automatic. Suspended attorneys must in essence requalify to practice law again. And part of that qualification process is being able to demonstrate sufficient moral character and professionalism.

Many to most attorneys who have been suspended don't even try to get reinstated. The process is too arduous, too expensive, too humiliating, and too uncertain to even try.

Nurmi had the right to refuse the Committee's proposed discipline, try to negotiate it down, or to take the process one step further, to a "trial" by the Bar's Disciplinary Committee on the charges levelled against him.

As JM fought, when Prob Cause handed down a one year probation discipline on the defense attys charges. He took it to Discipline, and won a full dismissal. (Now being appealed by the Bar).

And, as JM fought on the sex sex sex charges. I don't think whatever discipline the Prob committee may have proposed has been made public, but what has been is that JM, bottom line, refused to accept it and demanded to take it that step further.

Unlike JM, Nurmi had to have known there was zero chance he could prevail before the Discplinary Committee. As charged, he broke every cardinal rule in the attorneys' rule book by publishing his book about the killer. Beginning, but not ending with blowing to smithereens his duty to maintain atty - client privilege.

Faced with accepting effective disbarment or going out in a blaze of resentment and rage, Nurmi chose the latter. He disbarred himself rather than allow himself to be disciplined by the Bar, and while doing so, told the Bar that he did NOT regret anything he had done, including writing that book. So there, Bar!

 

[Hope4More]

Why is it that prosecutors are open to investigations of misconduct, and slimy defense attorneys walk away with no repercussions?

Any attorney can be subjected to Bar charges, investigated, ordered to pay costs and/or take educational classes specific to the rule(s) violated, and in extreme cases, be put on probation, suspended or disbarred.

What's true (and IMO completely appropriate and necessary) is that prosecutors are (theoretically)
held to a higher standard.

That's because prosecutors embody/are representives of the State and possess enormous power, including over our most fundamental constitutional rights of life and liberty.

At trial, defense attorneys act to preserve the rights of the presumed innocent, including holding the State accountable for meeting it's burden of proof. If a defense attorney crosses the line in some way, the "only" interests potentially prejudiced are those of his/her client.

Prosecutors have FAR more openings/opportunities for misconduct, at every stage of trial. Established rules/laws of trial and appeals have evolved in no small in acknowledgement of and response to that reality.

That's why it's true that defense atty's have a DUTY to cry foul every time even a flimsy case for misconduct can be made before the trial judge. First, because the trial judge may rule in the DT's favor, and second, because the alleged misconduct can be brought up during appeals.

When a prosecutor does actually cross the line at trial, she/he may not have only deprived an innocent of their constitutional rights, but to have done so IN OUR NAME.

The legitimacy of our legal system ultimately depends upon a consensus belief and trust that the State is capable of administering impartial and fair "justice."

The potential damage prosecutorial misconduct does to our perception of the State's administration of justice - and therefore legitimacy- is
why that misconduct is perceived by the US Supreme Court on down to be especially grievous.

(Climbs down from her soapbox..)

 

[nyvictoria]

Thank you @Hope4More for correcting me about Clark. I knew she was a Bar Complaint lawyer but erroneously thought she handled appeals, as well. I find it very amusing that her website refers to the practice as “Arizona’s Ethics Law Firm”

 

[Hope4More]

="salberg7, post: 16007049, member: 52404"

Did Juan ever deny receiving the boob pic? I don’t think so. What Juan should have done is not even put himself in such a position (unprofessional) or brought it to the attention of his superiors. He probably couldn’t do this, however, because he wasn’t supposed to EVER be in such a position.
-----

Replying for now again but only about the boob pic thing. I don't feel any need for us to agree about the significance of the thing. But I kept on being puzzled why it is you hold JM responsible for Garcia sending him a pic of her *advertiser censored*, no matter what the actual known facts are about their communications.

Are you missing or not acknowledging some of those facts, I've wondered, or are you just interpteting them in a different way? Or is it me doing some or all of that?

So, because re-examining a little piece of very familiar territory is far less stressful than trying to process all that's happening out there in the real world, I went back over my own interpretations of the boob thing facts.

1. You say JM shouldn't have put himself in "that position."

I've whole heartedly disagreed with you that JM should be held accountable for Garcia sending him, unsolicited, a photo of her *advertiser censored*. He didn't initiate contact with Garcia; she apparently contacted him under false pretenses; he didn't ask her to send him that photo (even Garcia concedes JM didn't), and he apparently cut off all communication with her after she sent it.

So, what if anything did he do that could possibly be interpreted as "putting himself in that position"?

This is as far as I can reach to agree with you at all on that point:

JM told the Bar that Garcia called him on his personal cell phone, after he didn't return her call to him at MCAO. He also told the Bar he didn't know how Garcia obtained his cell number.

Tammy Rose told Karen Clark that Wood gave Garcia JM's personal cell phone number. What Rose said is hearsay, and beyond that, believing it to be true is contingent upon believing Wood told Rose the truth. There is reason to be unsure, at the very least, that what Wood told Rose was the truth.

Theoretically, though, IF Wood was telling the truth, then that bad is on JM, (again with an IF), IF the reason Wood knew it was because he had given it to her. Whether or not they had a relationship of whatever sort, if JM did give Wood his number, given how far into PP2 it was that the Garcia thing happened, I doubt Wood giving her JM's number (if she did) was the first time Wood crossed boundaries. And so, to toss one last IF onto the pile: if JM had a relationship of whatever kind with Wood, and if he
gave Wood his number, and if Wood felt free to cross several boundaries to give his number to Garcia, then it's more likely than not that JM had (at least) allowed Wood to cross boundaries, rather than drawing firm lines that she must abide by.

That's a lot of IF's, but if the ifs are so, ok, I can agree with you that JM did ( indirectly and unknowingly)
put himself in the position to be on the receiving end of extremely inappropriate behavior that in any scenario, IMO still remains Garcia's to own.

That JM might have done so more directly, actually, is evidenced by the fact he spoke or texted with her more than once. I don't think he did anything wrong by taking her call- once. He could have listened to her express regret and remorse, told her that was a common sentiment of sitting jurors who are dismissed for any reason, and agreed to pass along her regrets to TA's family.

There was nothing else he could or should have told her, other than to make clear that even though she had been dismissed, any further contact or communication between them was inappropriate. The end.

You asked- did JM ever deny receiving the photo from Garcia? No, he didn't. I think you mean that as a bad thing? I see it as meaning JM didn't lie to the Bar when asked if he had.

The Bar largely agrees with what you believe JM should have done in the Garcia situation. In their original dismissal of all charges letter to JM, JM was instructed that the better choice (though NOT an ethical duty) would have been to have informed (MCAO supervisor/s) that he had been contacted by Garcia, and of the fact that she had sent him the pic.

As to why JM didn't make that better choice? Don't know, but I'm not willing to assume bad reasons or that he was acting in bad faith.

OK. There goes my last go-round on the boob pic thing, whether it moves any dial or not.

 

[yawningreyhound]

The State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias ... and Juan Martinez

Guys! Sorry if repeat. Just found this looking for Perryville virus news.

The parts of this article i found interesting are the Martinez case; the author's assertion there was no premeditation; and the apparent fact Martinez changed the order of wounds...I had missed that last. I struggled over the order of wounds, too, since the bullet couldve been moved to the top of blood inadvertently by someone.