Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 19 - Shortest Court Day, EVER

[Ruby]

If your world involves going to the Arias threads on Websleuths and other crime forums, going to Arias pages on facebook, following Arias related tweets on Twitter, and talking about Arias 6+ hours out of every day then yes, you are going to be inconvenienced by having to avoid the very thing you've voluntarily made a part of your life. If you were only 'aware' of Arias and then were selected for the jury (as apparently several people were), your existence might not include much about Arias at all and avoiding the Arias subject when away from court might be a welcome change and not as difficult as imagined. Remember this trial is not being televised.

I could not be part of this jury :blushing:

 

[ElleElle]

"JustDaTruth ‏@

I'll hand it to Nurmi— he finally studied Defense Strategy 101: When Your Client is Guilty as Hell—Distract, Confuse and Stall"

 

[Nali87]

I have not seen JW hugging JA's mother in court. I will take your word for it. IMO, JW was showing some compassion to a mother whose daughter killed a man. I have no problem with it.

That's fine. But she can hug her outside the courtroom then. In the hallway. They can even go out to drinks. Hugging in courtrooms just scream unprofessionality to me. But of course, you can view it otherwise.

 

[RR0004]

I'm seriously still baffled you guys. The COA made it more than clear when secret testimony was allowed in a criminal case; grave danger etc etc Yet we seem to still have another future witness that's referred to as "Pseudonym" in official court documents and can't be named in open court. The COA released it's ruling and the secrecy continues as if nothing happened. Unbelievable.

I kind of remember Nurmi wanting to know if the COA's decision (about secret testimony) pertained to all witnesses. He supposedly was waiting for the Court's explanation/reasoning behind their order. I know the Court responded re:JA's secret testimony, but was there anything written specifically addressing other witnesses?

 

[Sulamith]

Jodi has a history of entering TA home without his permission. She told Flores TA does not lock his door. Deanna is a witness to this behavior. She caught Jodi on TA computer when he was out of town. If *advertiser censored* was brought in before JM crosses then Juan can do what he has done in the past. He asks the witness if they are aware of all of the above? If theres anything on the computer then Jodi is responsible for putting it there.

I would like to know why TA did not change the locks on his house. IMO, he could have kicked her out or called LE when he found her sleeping under the Christmas tree.

 

[kjt300]

If your world involves going to the Arias threads on Websleuths and other crime forums, going to Arias pages on facebook, following Arias related tweets on Twitter, and talking about Arias 6+ hours out of every day then yes, you are going to be inconvenienced by having to avoid the very thing you've voluntarily made a part of your life. If you were only 'aware' of Arias and then were selected for the jury (as apparently several people were), your existence might not include much about Arias at all and avoiding the Arias subject when away from court might be a welcome change and not as difficult as imagined. Remember this trial is not being televised.

If I may............................It all depends upon what you do for a living. In my work, I am highly scheduled and meeting heavy. Due to the nature of my job, I either lead the meeting(s) or my attendance is critical. I would certainly be able to participate on a jury if I knew what days the actual trial would be conducted. For me, it would be a massive professional burden to rework the schedules of tons of people only to arrive in court to be sent back to work after a few minutes. The scheduling damage would already have happened. It could be absorbed on an occasional basis, but in this trial it seems to be the norm and not the standard. My Board of Directors would be breathing down my neck hard at this point.

So anyway, its not so easy just to go back to the job at the whim of the courtroom.

MOO

 

[Dmacky]

Another thing I want to whine about, what is up with JW hugging her client's mom in court? That seems way too familiar and unprofessional for my taste.

I think she hugged her while telling her there was no court today.

 

[Madeleine74]

I could not be part of this jury :blushing:

No one who follows this case here or anywhere would be on the jury, they would have been excluded during voir dire. I wouldn't want to be on the jury simply because I have no patience for this type of case/trial day after day. It's not a "who done it" it's a "yep, she did it and now we're going to spend months on looking at why and if there were mitigating reasons for it." Zzzzzzzz.

 

[MeeBee]

If your world involves going to the Arias threads on Websleuths and other crime forums, going to Arias pages on facebook, following Arias related tweets on Twitter, and talking about Arias 6+ hours out of every day then yes, you are going to be inconvenienced by having to avoid the very thing you've voluntarily made a part of your life. If you were only 'aware' of Arias and then were selected for the jury (as apparently several people were), your existence might not include much about Arias at all and avoiding the Arias subject when away from court might be a welcome change and not as difficult as imagined. Remember this trial is not being televised.

I think you're underestimating just how involved with the trial these jurors become and how consumed they become. I doubt it's as easy as you say and they are probably far, far more frustrated than us with these delays. From the jurors we've heard from, and jurors in other cases, they really do become cosumed and after its all done spend hours finding out all they can about the case. They find themselves thinking about it during the day. How can you not be deeply affected by something like this. It's a very naive idea that these jurors aren't just as frustrated if not more with how this trial is being handled. Juries are anxious for deliberations and can feel when they're being jerked around. And they have been told to avoid SM altogether. Some potential jurors actually declined to be on the jury because they couldn't not go on Facebook for a couple months.

 

[daisydomino]

I would like to know why TA did not change the locks on his house. IMO, he could have kicked her out or called LE when he found her sleeping under the Christmas tree.

He could have—and in retrospect, he certainly should have—but he was having a sexual relationship with her and probably wanted (at least that part of) it to continue. At that time he wasn't afraid of her. It's like a horror movie.

 

[MeeBee]

No one who follows this case here or anywhere would be on the jury, they would have been excluded during voir dire. I wouldn't want to be on the jury simply because I have no patience for this type of case/trial day after day. It's not a "who done it" it's a "yep, she did it and now we're going to spend months on looking at why and if there were mitigating reasons for it." Zzzzzzzz.

You could be a part of this jury in this phase if you've followed the trial.

 

[deedee21]

AZ lawyer, i dont trust expert witnesses that are hired for this case. They are paid to deceive. Its all in the language.

 

[Nali87]

I kind of remember Nurmi wanting to know if the COA's decision (about secret testimony) pertained to all witnesses. He supposedly was waiting for the Court's explanation/reasoning behind their order. I know the Court responded re:JA's secret testimony, but was there anything written specifically addressing other witnesses?

I think what was written applies to everyone: the need for a present and clear danger and no other alternatives. But here's a link to the opinion http://thetrialdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Opinion-.pdf

 

[Madeleine74]

If I may............................It all depends upon what you do for a living. In my work, I am highly scheduled and meeting heavy. Due to the nature of my job, I either lead the meeting(s) or my attendance is critical. I would certainly be able to participate on a jury if I knew what days the actual trial would be conducted. For me, it would be a massive professional burden to rework the schedules of tons of people only to arrive in court to be sent back to work after a few minutes. The scheduling damage would already have happened. It could be absorbed on an occasional basis, but in this trial it seems to be the norm and not the standard. My Board of Directors would be breathing down my neck hard at this point.

So anyway, its not so easy just to go back to the job at the whim of the courtroom.

MOO

I agree that it totally depends on one's vocation. I'm in a lot of meetings too, some days more than others. Remember that the people who are on the jury went through voir dire and were asked about their professions, their schedules, if they could take off to attend this trial, etc, etc, so it's not a complete mystery to the court administrators. Their employers are legally barred from taking away or threatening their employment due to this trial. If it got to be too much or there was a scheduling issue that could not be resolved, then a juror could step down and an alternate would take their place. Yes, at some point they would run out of alternates. Hopefully that won't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

 

[janx]

I kind of remember Nurmi wanting to know if the COA's decision (about secret testimony) pertained to all witnesses. He supposedly was waiting for the Court's explanation/reasoning behind their order. I know the Court responded re:JA's secret testimony, but was there anything written specifically addressing other witnesses?

No, because Nurmi's initial appeal to the CoA involved JA only. He tried to reference other witnesses during his argument to them, but they reminded him that they had no info. about other witnesses and that his appeal did not address them.

 

[LinasK]

BBM:

Of course he is only the audio guy. Nurmi & Willmott wanted Nuemeister because they thought he would be an impressive witness. Maybe 'Pseudonym' is not classified as an expert witness. Whatever, but I think Nurmi and Willmott have overplayed their hands, lol, and know they could be in real trouble if what was done to Travis' computer while in CMJA's possession is uncovered. Something is way out of line here, IMO, and I can't wait to find out what it is.

Nurmi & Willmott has made a circus out of what should be a very, very serious trial and penalty phase, IMO. I am sickened that any judge anywhere in this country would grant the Defense carte blanche over this court. The Defense has brought up side issue after side issue and been allowed to delay, delay, delay what should have taken a week. This is just all wrong. It hasn't been about Travis' and his family's victims rights at all or justice for his horrible, unspeakable murder.

Nurmi is just plain NUTS, and JSS is too paranoid. Maybe it is not usual for the Chief Judge of this county to step in and direct the trial judge (JSS), but this is not the usual case and it needs to happen. This has just gone beyond the pale and needs to be put a full stop to. Judge Perry was the Chief Judge down in Florida and I don't think he would have allowed one of the judges under his direction to drag this out the way JSS has. He surely would have been cognizant of the fact that there is not an bottomless well of tax dollars. He was also way more appreciative of the jurors, their time, and their sacrifices even though they got the verdict all wrong.

CMJA has been found guilty of First Degree Murder with Aggravators, FGS. It's time she was sentenced and started her incarceration. I am thoroughly disgusted.

MOO

And yet, JSS got a conviction in this case, Judge Perry didn't and also allowed onto the jury a juror who refused to judge because the Defense Team bullied him!!!

 

[Madeleine74]

You could be a part of this jury in this phase if you've followed the trial.

Voir Dire would have delved into how someone knew about the case, and if they read about it and discussed it with others, etc, etc. Not just be aware of it, but case followers like those on WS who are talking about the trial day in and day out would be booted from juror consideration (and they should be, I don't have a beef with that). Since I've followed the case in detail and have formed opinions about the case and would disclose that during voir dire, I would not be a part of this jury even if I wanted to (which I wouldn't want to, but my desire to or not is neither here nor there).

 

[Nali87]

And yet, JSS got a conviction in this case, Judge Perry didn't and also allowed onto the jury a juror who refused to judge because the Defense Team bullied him!!!

I would say that JM got a conviction despite JSS tbh. When it comes down to it this was a simple case of premeditated murder that somehow got twisted into the madness it ended up turning into.

Casey Anthony's case was much harder to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt). I don't think we can really compare the two results.

 

[LinasK]

I would like to know why TA did not change the locks on his house. IMO, he could have kicked her out or called LE when he found her sleeping under the Christmas tree.

He should have. But he was too nice a guy/too naive, didn't have a clue what he was up against. When he wrote about dating an ax-murderer, he wasn't serious, he had no idea what she was capable of.

 

[Nali87]

He should have. But he was too nice a guy/too naive, didn't have a clue what he was up against. When he wrote about dating an ax-murderer, he wasn't serious, he had no idea what she was capable of.

I agree. Hindsight. He might have not wanted to bring more attention to their relationship/make what was going on public either by involving others or the police.