Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 33

[FinallyRegistered]

Death sentence voided

...

The three-judge panel of the appeals court, vacating the death penalty, cited prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective legal counsel for Sechrest.

"A prosecutor's misleading and inflammatory arguments may violate a defendant's due process right to a fair trial," said the opinion, written by Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson.


http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/06/nation/na-deathpenalty6

FYI, the LA Times article cited above is not a full summary of the court's opinion. Not only does the opinion address the prosecutorial misconduct, also includes a ruling regarding mental health witness testimony in that DP case.

Here's the link to the whole opinion: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FCO 20081205080.xml/SECHREST v. IGNACIO

For example, one paragraph from the opinion:
"Dr. Gerow's testimony cannot be considered merely "cumulative" because of his role as the only medical doctor to discuss Sechrest's criminal past and pathology during the penalty phase. While other lay witnesses may have touched on some of the same points that were presented by Dr. Gerow, only Dr. Gerow had the education and experience necessary to evaluate Sechrest's dangerousness. Thus, his opinion carried more credibility. Dr. Gerow's connection with the defense, and his inability to say anything positive or even mitigating about Sechrest, meant that the prosecutor's misleading remarks and the erroneous jury instruction likely had particular impact on the jury."

 

[elementary]

Apparently, the test did not reveal a high enough score for her to bring that in. In the first trial, she just brought up BPD and I guess she had to stay with that.

I find that hard to believe.

 

[Truth Detector]

I still think the sentence will come down to especially cruel murder and the only thing that can mitigate cruelty in some jurors' minds -- remorse.

JM has used his witnesses and JA's own words to obviate remorse.

JA herself has demonstrated her cruelty through her actions and words, no help needed from JM there.

 

[bsk]

Apparently, the test did not reveal a high enough score for her to bring that in. In the first trial, she just brought up BPD and I guess she had to stay with that.

I find that hard to believe.

Maybe she's never said enough truthful things to enable you to set a scale for her on which to measure truth vs lies.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I still think the sentence will come down to especially cruel murder and the only thing that can mitigate cruelty in some jurors' minds -- remorse.

JM has used his witnesses and JA's own words to obviate remorse.

JA herself has demonstrated her cruelty through her actions and words, no help needed from JM there.

IT was especially cruel. I hope Juan uses those words in closing. Because that sums it up well.
Travis sadly opened his door one more time to a killer who had a plan and first slept with him and then killed him while he cleaned up.
So horrible to think about what he went through in those crazy moments. What she must have looked like as she stabbed him over and over...

Gosh. Poor Travis.

 

[kaRN]

What the heck does it even mean? Were the other 'experts' asked this question? No they weren't. WTH?

I think the juror is just confused as to the role Dr D was hired for. They asked her the question because she came across as the real Doctor in the sea of PhD's the DT flooded us with so that's a good thing. It's difficult to imagine a doctor identifying an illness but not treating it. The juror needs reminding Dr. D is not JA's doctor. She's the specialist who was called in to consult on the x-ray, nothing more. It was her DT's job to ensure their sick little snowflake received all the monitoring she needed in jail. But a mentally ill JA didn't suit their agenda back then. MOO

 

[Amster]

FYI, the LA Times article cited above is not a full summary of the court's opinion. Not only does the opinion address the prosecutorial misconduct, also includes a ruling regarding mental health witness testimony in that DP case.

Here's the link to the whole opinion: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FCO 20081205080.xml/SECHREST v. IGNACIO

For example, one paragraph from the opinion:
"Dr. Gerow's testimony cannot be considered merely "cumulative" because of his role as the only medical doctor to discuss Sechrest's criminal past and pathology during the penalty phase. While other lay witnesses may have touched on some of the same points that were presented by Dr. Gerow, only Dr. Gerow had the education and experience necessary to evaluate Sechrest's dangerousness. Thus, his opinion carried more credibility. Dr. Gerow's connection with the defense, and his inability to say anything positive or even mitigating about Sechrest, meant that the prosecutor's misleading remarks and the erroneous jury instruction likely had particular impact on the jury."

This makes zero sense to me....the defense teams doctor had nothing good to say so that's the prosecutors fault??????

 

[Ricki]

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 43s44 seconds ago
Nurmi asks De if she knows TA's bday. De does. #jodiarias


Whats up with this question?

 

[rose222]

The most frustrating part of this trial is that we don't know when it will end. The Judge obviously keeps the jury informed but we're kept in the dark. Is it normal for a Judge to ignore the media/public and give them no information regarding the trial schedule etc.? So strange.

 

[Mindmatters]

I still think the sentence will come down to especially cruel murder and the only thing that can mitigate cruelty in some jurors' minds -- remorse.

JM has used his witnesses and JA's own words to obviate remorse.

JA herself has demonstrated her cruelty through her actions and words, no help needed from JM there.

May you be 100% correct TD!!!

 

[bsk]

FYI, the LA Times article cited above is not a full summary of the court's opinion. Not only does the opinion address the prosecutorial misconduct, also includes a ruling regarding mental health witness testimony in that DP case.

Here's the link to the whole opinion: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FCO 20081205080.xml/SECHREST v. IGNACIO

For example, one paragraph from the opinion:
"Dr. Gerow's testimony cannot be considered merely "cumulative" because of his role as the only medical doctor to discuss Sechrest's criminal past and pathology during the penalty phase. While other lay witnesses may have touched on some of the same points that were presented by Dr. Gerow, only Dr. Gerow had the education and experience necessary to evaluate Sechrest's dangerousness. Thus, his opinion carried more credibility. Dr. Gerow's connection with the defense, and his inability to say anything positive or even mitigating about Sechrest, meant that the prosecutor's misleading remarks and the erroneous jury instruction likely had particular impact on the jury."

It sounded like there were two biggies. One was over this expert witness who flipped to the state. The other was over the prosecutor telling the jury that the board that controls pardons could overturn a LWOP verdict. It seems interesting.

I wonder if during closing the DT will try to make the case that under current AZ law, LWP is the same as LWOP so no matter what happens if they vote down death she will never walk the streets again. That seems like a highly improper argument, but I wouldn't put it past them to try to sneak that in just in case there is a juror who'd tend to vote for death as the only way to keep her locked up for sure.

There is nothing to guarantee anyone can be locked up forever no matter what. Verdicts or sentences can be overturned, governors can issue pardons, laws can change, etc.

 

[TupeloMz]

You are making me feel better by saying the jury can't be told. But Nurmi might slip it in there. I don't trust him. As for what deMarte was supposed to say? I wasn't attacking her. I just wished she had dug deeper. DeMarte has her opinion. I have mine. Jodi's a psychopath.

Says me. No training. Not a psychologist. Not a lawyer. Just a mother of two sons and there's no way I ever want them to meet a Jodi!!!

Iirc Nurmi did say that Jodi could not continue her testimony because of her mental illness. I just can not recall if he said it in front of the jury (but I am thinking he did) ��
Does anyone else remember?

 

[Paintr]

I have to laugh at this every time I read it. Jodi was very near 28 and only 2 years away from the deadly feared Adult Ward and remaining forever single. She's a couple years younger than TA.

Guess it only matters that the murderess was young? LOL

Jumping off your post.

What happens after a Mormon leaves the Singles Ward at 30. They obviously don't fit in with the Marrieds. So, is there an Over Thirties Ward? Surely these 30+ people are not now considered to be unsuited for marriage? :thinking:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It sounds to me as if the jury is paying attention, They seem smart.

I just can not imagine anything that has happened here support LWP instead of DP.

She butchered Travis.
If she had just shot him and left him, I would be good with LWP. But she tortured him. Stabbed him, Shot him, Slit his throat. She brutalized him and I think she enjoyed it. Someone squeamish about killing does it in a way they don't have to handle the person or get close and personal. I believe this was first degree premeditated and that she enjoyed it. For me that means DP.

I hope that is the same for the Jury.

I agree.

I re-read the jury questions and after doing so they don't seem that bad.

But due to the terminology used in many of them, I would suspect they are coming from one juror, and IMO, I still think it is the psychologist that is on the jury. I just don't think a lay person would use some of the wording that was used and in the manner it was used to form the questions.

Even the question about her having BPD before she met Travis seems to remove any question that he made her have this disorder and she was already a handful to be around for anyone.

I am sure there are people sitting on the jury that either has some type of phobia or knows someone who does......even that can be considered a mental illness. The jury knows she functioned with this disorder for almost 28 years without committing murder.

I don't think one of them thinks JA didn't know right from wrong nor believe she was so mentally ill that she was hearing voices and incapable of knowing what she did was wrong. The evidence totally supports she was very cognizant of the entire murder and that is why she lied and tried to cover her tracks.

Maybe the jury is off tomorrow because JSS is letting Wilmott take care of whatever happened today or the juror who has been coughing like crazy may have said she needed a day off to recoup or go to the doctor.

I hope the psychologist does not get chosen. I am afraid they will try to diagnose JA themselves and may think they are a know it all. I don't want their professional position to sway the rest of the jury who's opinions count as much as any other juror. If that does happen I hope like hell the other jurors reports this juror ASAP!

 

[Amster]

Iirc Nurmi did say that Jodi could not continue her testimony because of her mental illness. I just can not recall if he said it in front of the jury (but I am thinking he did) ��
Does anyone else remember?

Nope....it was in his latest mistrial motion IIRC

 

[AZlawyer]

Some jurors default to the faulty position that if the judge allowed it in, he/she must believe it is or at least could be true.

Since JSKS allows in bogus testiphony regarding pedophilia, some jurors will believe either that she thinks it is or that it could be true.

And in these jurors' minds, if a judge's imprimatur is stamped on it, the testibaloney takes on import beyond merely reasonable doubt.

This is something that has really alarmed me since I came to WS. I had no idea so many people believed that judges could throw out testimony if it is just a bunch of obvious lies. I've got to figure out something to add to my closing arguments to let the jury know this is not true.

One of the things Juan needs to hammer home. Who cares, how old Jodi was when she committed her first felony? Travis is FOREVER 31, thanks to Jodi.

The AZ Supreme Court has ruled that defendants have to be able to make the "youth" argument if they were under 30 at the time of the crime.

Right. A juror or more than one are believing the liar. And, why not? He secret testimony hasn't been challenged. As far as the jury knows, Juan just decided not to cross exam so everything she said is the truth. Sherry, again, allowed the victim to be trashed in her courtroom. Vile

Her secret testimony has been challenged like crazy. That's what Juan's been doing this whole time.

Still catching up....but this is a huge issue, especially b/c they are not being informed why she isn't getting back on the stand.

Huge fail on JSS's part

*irked*

I wish the tweeters had told us if JM asked for any particular instruction in that regard. Personally, I don't like to leave jurors in the dark either, because they tend to make up (incorrect) explanations on their own. But I'm not sure what she should have said. Maybe "Ms. Arias has chosen not to continue her testimony on the witness stand. You may consider what she said as allocution [explain allocution], however."

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Nope....it was in his latest mistrial motion IIRC

That just makes no logical sense whatsoever to me.

She testified just fine for 18 days. Did anyone think she was so mentally ill she was unable to testify?

Imo, this motion will go no where.

 

[Mindmatters]

"Source of information contained in this post: Beth Karas from her site, KarasOnCrime.com"​

This is what I have on juror questions for Geff as reported by BK--in case anyone wants to compare and contrast...

1. Are other incarcerated individuals included in norms tests? RG: usually they are not in the norms tests. Some tests look at the MMPI with incarcerated individuals. The general norms group would not include inmates.
2. Many tests were administered many years after incarceration. How accurate are the test results? RG: That's a good question. If looking at overall pattern of functioning, it wouldn't matter as much--those are general tests. I'm looking for consistency. In an ideal situation, we would have had testing before and after incarceration. A diagnostic impression is almost all inference.
3. Depression, anxiety and PTSD would manifest in jail. How can you tell the occurred before? RG: Yes, they can occur in jail. But based on history and people who knew her, there was depression. Darryl says there was a sadness at times. Personality tests look at a person throughout their lives. The say of the death caused a traumatic reaction. The question is whether there was anything else. RG lists other factors of prior abuse that validate these before the murder.
4. How likely is it that JA intentionally scored low on aggressiveness knowing these results would be shown in court? RG: There are a lot of questions that go into each scale. Can someone take one scale and figure out which questions apply to? It is unlikely. She was administered 28 validity scales from all sorts of tests including malingering. What are the odds she can make the validity the same? Unlikely.
5. About TA masturbating to pictures of male child, other than the verbal allegation reported far later, is there any other corroboration in the record? RG: I don't believe so but there is some "indirect corroboration"--like witness #1. There is no direct corroboration.
6. Do you find it odd that someone who journals like she did would not have some reference to the incident? RG: I can't say it's typical or not how someone writes in a journal... There's the issue of dissociation too.
7. I understand the cycle of abuse. How is she choosing to continue contact considering the emotional abuse? RG: That's the problem. With DV victims, there's this hope for change that it won't happen again. There's also the learned helplessness where you don't see a way out.
8. Do the records show that other significant things were happening that were not being written about? RG: The journals are not a blow by blow of every day. There were lots of details that were not in the journal. Can't recall any major significant events in her journal. It's really her perception of significant.
9. Were the IM messages from 12/07 where he is calling her pure evil in the journal? RG: I don't recall right now but I don't recall it being in the journal. In Jan. 08, she starts saying some things.
10. Did JA know that TA was seeing Lisa Andrews when he proposed again in January? RG: I don't think it was January. I don't remember when. She was pulling away in January.
11. In your interviews with JA did you ask why she uses T-dogg sometime and Travis other times? RG: Yes, T-dogg was the more macho man; the sexual part of him.
12.Who was the intended recipient of the coded magazines? RG: I have no idea. A friend or something.
13. Is JA's PTSD centered more on her relationship with TA or her past? RG: It's all tied up. A child victim is at greater risk of being victim of DV later in life. Vulnerability.
14. Did you find anywhere in the info supporting documentation that there was a physical altercation on 1/22/08 or is it only from JA? RG: It came from JA. The only thing we know is the apology after.
15. Is it your opinion that DV/physical abuse took place? RG: Yes
16. Why do you think that in May 2008, she writes as if she is stronger and wants to move on but in reality is doing the opposite? RG: It's part of being sucked back in. She still has strong feelings for him.
17. It may seem to the lay person that the scores on the objective tests are the result of committing the murder. Are there indicators to determine if symptoms were present prior to the murder? RG: The only thing is history (what other people say) and journals/writings. If there was no other history of abuse, then I'd be confident saying it this incident alone.
18. On 12/18/14, a witness explained that TA yelling was powerful enough for JA to write about it. Can you explain why she would write in her journal about the yelling despite the Law of Attraction but not other abuse? RG: Writing was only toward the end.
19. Wouldn't the writings of suicide also violate the Laws of Attraction? RG: I didn't ask her that. I would view it as negative.
20. Did the incidents in the journal really happen? Any other evidence? RG: No, not really. We had some people saying she was different and something caused it. Matt saw bruises and he told her to get a restraining order but she said she was moving in two days.
21. Are there entries in JA's journal after the murder? RG: Yes.
22. What do they say about her state of mind? RG: It's pretty mixed--a lot of emotion and discussing the relationship they had.
23. Is it typical of a heterosexual man to view *advertiser censored* including child *advertiser censored* of both genders? RG: There are people attracted to kids. Then there are qualifiers--some prefer children. Some are only attracted to children. Then there are those attracted to both genders and those with a gender-specific attraction. There are some offenders who are married and having sex with children.
24. Was JA right or left handed IIRC was the ?: RG: JA is left handed.
25. Did TA ever talk to JA about attraction to children before the masturbation incident? RG: After. He also told her he was sexually abused.
26. Do you find it surprising she would have sex with him after this incident? RG: I would like to think I'm surprised but after 30 years not much surprises me. In her view, if he's having sex with her.
27. Did JA ever admit ????
28. How many days did the 1st female psych interview her? RG: 2 days
29. Were notes were handwritten or typed? RG: Both but now RG says the April 29 was not.
30. How long can someone stay in a dissociated state? RG: Depends on the person. Can be a very long time and not know what you're doing. Some are brief--day dreaming.
31. Do people still functioning normally during dissociative times? RG: Could be. Some traumas can be blocked out and you go on day to day. Could affect one in other ways--nightmares, body reacts to a trigger,
32. How do you discriminate between the two DAPS tests where she answers about before and after the murder? RG: The only thing we do is ask her to go back in time then how the events are affecting her now.

"Source of information contained in this post: Beth Karas from her site, KarasOnCrime.com"​

 

[KPinMN]

I still think the sentence will come down to especially cruel murder and the only thing that can mitigate cruelty in some jurors' minds -- remorse.

JM has used his witnesses and JA's own words to obviate remorse.

JA herself has demonstrated her cruelty through her actions and words, no help needed from JM there.

I think *most* DP qualified jurors would only consider remorse, intellectual issues (i.e. substantially low IQ), severe mental illness (i.e. severe schizophrenia) or children of defendent (i.e. DP harms innocent children of defendent). The only one in CMJAs case possible is remorse, which we all know is unlikely to be believable coming from CMJA.

This statement of course only applies to jurors that are actually DP qualified, not stealth jurors, and is imho only.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Jumping off your post.

What happens after a Mormon leaves the Singles Ward at 30. They obviously don't fit in with the Marrieds. So, is there an Over Thirties Ward? Surely these 30+ people are not now considered to be unsuited for marriage? :thinking:

The crazy thing about that is I just read an article that more and more people are getting married in their 30s now instead of in their 20s.