Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

Just watched the COA arguments...and I have a few thoughts.

I know trial watchers love JM and he can do no wrong in the eyes of some. However, I feel like he crossed ethical and professional boundaries during the trial. Even the state conceded that as they should. JM was unnecessarily combative with witnesses/defense counsel and his cross-examinations unnecessarily long. I've seen many trials and I've never seen a prosecutor behave that way. He's one of a kind. And I know that's what some like about him but IMO, it's unnecessary and wastes everyone's time. There was no way in he** JA was going to be acquitted. The evidence was overwhelming and her self-defense claim was laughable. Any jury with half a pulse would've convicted her. It was simply unnecessary for JM to be so contentious. If I were a juror, I would've been frustrated with how long his cross-examinations took. Cross examination of defendants is typically short and sweet (as much as us trial watchers hate it, there's a strategic reason for it) and yet convictions are obtained. There was no need for a several days long cross-exam of many of the defense witnesses.

JM bought into JA's game. He played the game her way. And that is not what a prosecutor should do IMO. He's supposed to be above that.

In any case, I don't believe his behavior caused prejudice. I think the appellate judges view of JM characterizing Samuels as having feelings for JA was incorrect. I don't know how they arrived at the view that JM was inferring a sexual relationship. That surprised me, TBH. The state's attorney clarified exactly what the premise was for that question, and it was justified. Both Samuels and LaViolette were clearly biased and unprofessional. They were both hired guns willing to say anything to help JA - that's what JM was attacking and rightfully so. There's no question on that front.

As for the death threats, intimidation, and other outside courtroom shenanigans by 3rd parties, there's nothing the court can do about that. That's something that should be reported to law enforcement. I'm not even sure why that's being raised as an issue for the COA to cure.

As for JM signing an autograph and taking pictures, I don't find that a compelling issue. Jury didn't see it and even if they had, I don't see how that prejudices JA.

JM making caustic remarks to Wilmott at sidebar was way out of line.

And finally, Judge Stephens! I've never seen such a passive judge! She let JM and defense run the courtroom. JM was hostile and combative and Wilmott was wasting everyone's time by objecting unnecessarily and asking for sidebars. Good grief!! Wilmott was also helping defense witnesses by making speaking objections. It was so blatant. Judge made half-hearted admonishments that both sides basically ignored. Can you imagine if Judge Hankman was the judge?? He would've whipped everyone into shape. That's what this trial needed - an authoritative judge!
 
I haven't watched the hearing from today, but I just watched the JA trial for the first time about a month ago. JA is clearly guilty, but IMO, JM is a horrible prosecutor. I truly feel he should be disbarred.

I agree with you on JM. I have seen better prosecutor's get the job done without bulling witnesses.

I also think JA would have been convicted if there had been a different prosecutor.

IMHO JMO
 
Just watched the COA arguments...and I have a few thoughts.

I know trial watchers love JM and he can do no wrong in the eyes of some. However, I feel like he crossed ethical and professional boundaries during the trial. Even the state conceded that as they should. JM was unnecessarily combative with witnesses/defense counsel and his cross-examinations unnecessarily long. I've seen many trials and I've never seen a prosecutor behave that way. He's one of a kind. And I know that's what some like about him but IMO, it's unnecessary and wastes everyone's time. There was no way in he** JA was going to be acquitted. The evidence was overwhelming and her self-defense claim was laughable. Any jury with half a pulse would've convicted her. It was simply unnecessary for JM to be so contentious. If I were a juror, I would've been frustrated with how long his cross-examinations took. Cross examination of defendants is typically short and sweet (as much as us trial watchers hate it, there's a strategic reason for it) and yet convictions are obtained. There was no need for a several days long cross-exam of many of the defense witnesses.

JM bought into JA's game. He played the game her way. And that is not what a prosecutor should do IMO. He's supposed to be above that.

In any case, I don't believe his behavior caused prejudice. I think the appellate judges view of JM characterizing Samuels as having feelings for JA was incorrect. I don't know how they arrived at the view that JM was inferring a sexual relationship. That surprised me, TBH. The state's attorney clarified exactly what the premise was for that question, and it was justified. Both Samuels and LaViolette were clearly biased and unprofessional. They were both hired guns willing to say anything to help JA - that's what JM was attacking and rightfully so. There's no question on that front.

As for the death threats, intimidation, and other outside courtroom shenanigans by 3rd parties, there's nothing the court can do about that. That's something that should be reported to law enforcement. I'm not even sure why that's being raised as an issue for the COA to cure.

As for JM signing an autograph and taking pictures, I don't find that a compelling issue. Jury didn't see it and even if they had, I don't see how that prejudices JA.

JM making caustic remarks to Wilmott at sidebar was way out of line.

And finally, Judge Stephens! I've never seen such a passive judge! She let JM and defense run the courtroom. JM was hostile and combative and Wilmott was wasting everyone's time by objecting unnecessarily and asking for sidebars. Good grief!! Wilmott was also helping defense witnesses by making speaking objections. It was so blatant. Judge made half-hearted admonishments that both sides basically ignored. Can you imagine if Judge Hankman was the judge?? He would've whipped everyone into shape. That's what this trial needed - an authoritative judge!

I agree 100% with your assessment of Stephens. Much of the blame for an overly long trial/retrial and for unprofessionalism in the courtroom lies squarely on her.

But I disagree with your assessment of JM. And not because I am a he-can-do-no-wrong fan of JM. There were & still are those kinds of fans, but you won't find many here. The die-hard, still paying attention trial watchers JM supporters here that I'm aware of believe he did an outstanding job based on an informed assessment
of his performance & strategy. I'm definitely of that opinion & for that reason.

Long ago I actually broke down the amount of time each side took to present their cases in chief, then crosses. It's just factually incorrect to say JM's crosses or direct were prolonged, much less unnecessarily so. JM went in, did his work, and got out. It was the DT who stretched out the testimony of virtually every single witness, including that of their client.

As JM & Nurmi have both said (and for obvious reasons), expert psych testimony was the core of the DT's case. Agreed, their 2 key witnesses -Samuels & LaV were dreadful, ethically challenged hired guns. The DT's direct of each was ridiculously drawn out, and it was clear neither had been provided with the heaps of available evidence that contradicted their biased assessments of the killer.

JM needed to put a stake in the heart of their credibility, and he did. The process at times was aggravingly slow. IMO, that was because both Sam & LaVa fought tooth & nail to avoid answering the questions he asked they didn't like, and both were extraordinarily unprofessional on the stand, in turns combative & simply unresponsive.

I disagree with you most strongly that JM "bought into her game, played the game her way."

Is that in reference to how he dealt with her on cross, I assume? If either can be said to have owned the other or set the rules for the game, it was JM. His cross of her was nothing short of brilliant, start to finish, with the exception of the minor hiccup of his occasional frustration at doing non-stop battle with a manipulative, pathological liar who changed stories mid -sentence with ease & delight.

Last. I definitely don't agree that this was an easy, nearly inevitable conviction. Did you listen /read any of the post verdict interviews with jurors? At least 2 bought into the DT's lies about TA, felt sorry for her, and sounded regretful about their own verdict.

Yes, her claim of self defense on that day was absurd
and readily shredded. But proving self defense wasn't the DT's strategy. Their strategy, insisted upon by the killer herself, was to portray TA as such a monster, and she the most sympathetic victim of his abuse, that she was justified in killing him.

That even one juror in PP2 felt sympathetic towards her said again there was nothing inevitable about her conviction.
---
(BTW . ..the State's opening brief & reply to the killer's brief spell out the instances in which they think JM crossed the line. There weren't many and they were not egregious. The 30 odd times thing said by one of the COA judges referred to the number of objections Stephens sustained during JM's cross (I believe) of DT's psych witnesses. A sustained objection is not evidence of misconduct or ethical transgression, obviously. Most problematic is if JM repeatedly asked the same question Stephens had forbidden him to ask. Would have to reread killer's brief to see if that informed the basis for their misconduct charges.
 
Last edited:
@Hope4More I've heard similar arguments made on behalf of JM. I've tried really hard to be persuaded and remain open-minded about this but it just doesn't add up for me.

Here's where I agree with you:

Yes Samuels and LaViolette were evasive, played dumb, and at many points simply refused to answer questions. They were infuriating. I'd argue, however, that JM's combative style made things worse. The more he badgered them, the more resistant they became, esp Samuels. It's just common sense: the more you argue with someone that they are wrong, the more they stick to their guns. LaViolette was a piece of work from beginning to end. (She was also out of line in many other ways off the stand. And I still really want to know what the in-chambers meeting was that involved her.) Tactically speaking, JM's approach didn't do anything except wear everyone out. Because neither were going to say 'Yes, Mr. Martinez, I'm full of crap, you got me!' Most of the time it seemed like that's what he was trying to get out of them.

Many defense experts are evasive and dance around direct questions. They never go up there and agree with the prosecutor. They always advocate for the defendant. That's what they're paid to do. JM had a lot of facts that totally discredited the defense experts. Both also did a good job discrediting themselves. They showed their bias and shoddy work. All he had to do was raise all those facts and sit down and then argue it later in his closing and through his expert. But going several rounds with them was frustrating to listen to, pointless, and tedious.

Lastly, JA was not a special kind of monster. She's not unlike all the other defendants we've seen in these high profile cases. She's a borderline personality and anti-social. Not uncommon in most criminals. This was a DP case. So her attys had to keep her on the stand for several days to humanize her and make it harder for the jury to sign her death warrant. That happens in almost all DP cases. Although I'll concede not as long as hers. And like all defendants who testify, they spend very little time on the actual crime in their direct examination. Just because defense had her up there for several days doesn't mean that JM had to match it. I've never seen that in any other trial.

As a recent example, Markeith Loyd's cross exam was succinct and to the point and he got convicted. He's no more or less sociopathic or manipulative than JA. He was just as unpredictable and difficult as JA. If the prosecutor had gotten up and tried to spar with him over several days, I'm not sure what that would've accomplished. He flat out said he was the victim in all of this. That's what the prosecutor ended on. And it was brilliant! A woman and her unborn child are dead and her brother was badly injured yet the defendant says he's the victim! There's no need to go several rounds to get him to say what you want him to say. He's not going to. And going on and on would be playing into his game. That's what JM did by going on and on and on and fighting with JA.

There are always 1 or 2 jurors who are dumb and lack critical thinking skills. We have our education system to thank for that. But these jurors eventually come around and are able to be persuaded by the others. Sometimes these jurors cause mistrials. It happens. JM didn't do anything special in this case that caused the conviction. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

On a personal note: I read your hypothesis that Jodi was trying to blackmail Travis with the recorded phone call and that she had come over that day under the guise of evening things out by allowing him to take compromising pictures of her. But of course that was a ruse to get him to open up. That is the most insightful thing I've read about this case! So kudos to you for that theory! And it makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
Weki...

I'm on my phone and can't cut/paste, bold, etc, so am replying here, and just on a few of your points.

First, though, thanks for your civility, and for the thoughtfulness of your opinions.

1. Agreeing to disagree works for me, especially when the subjects at hand have been thoroughly dissected, discussed and analyzed, and especially when opinions are based on subjective aspects of the trial.

I like JM's style, and think it's effective. My approval may in part be because aggressive intellectual combat is one of my hobbies. And sarcastism comes as readily to me as it seems to with JM, at least during trial.

Overall, do I believe JM's style won the day & trial, and no other approach could have? Nope. But I do think his aggressiveness with the killer, which resulted time and again in her revealing her real self, was in fact key to her conviction.

I also think there was purpose to his doing battle with Sam & LaV. They would have been recalcitrant no matter what, because yes, of course, they get paid to disagree with the State.

They did reveal their own bias etc, but not without it being beaten out of them. What JM elicited by beating it out of them was the extent of their unprofessionalism. And, most damaging, that unprofessionalism made his point they both seemed mightily more like advocates for the killer than dispassionate, objective experts.


2. Is the killer a special kind of monster, or not unlike others with her disorders we've seen at other trials? Well, yes and no, IMO. Monster isn't a word that works for me in any case, so I'll stick with "sociopathic remorseless murderer (SRM). "

No, I don't think she was extra-specially sociopathic or remorseless, and though stabbing a victim dozens of times, nearly decapitating him & shooting him to boot qualifies IMO as a very brutal murder, it isn't singular in it's viciousness. So there's that.

But, I also believe what makes her different, though not unique, is the degree of her sadism. Not most notably as reflected in the murder itself, but in the deep pleasure she took (and still takes) in causing the maximum amount of pain she can to those who dared to love TA. Monster isn't a word I use, but I can readily understand why others might.

3. As you well know, those one or 2 jurors don't always "come around," no matter the strength of the case presented. It's just a wild guess, but my bet is that the guilt phase trial jury would have hung if, say, the holdout juror of PP2 had been on it.

4. Killer on the stand. No, it's not typical for a DP defendant to take the stand. IIRC, Nurmi didn't want her to, though of course she couldn't resist being the star of her own show, who absolutely believed she could con the jury into an acquittal, or at least, out of convicting her for 1st degree murder.

The quite sympathetic to her jury foreman said afterwards that her time on the stand worked against her ("did her no favors," to paraphrase).

5. Last. Sorry to disappoint, but the theory you mention isn't mine. It might be the only theory I never entertained/argued, actually, lol. :)

[ First part aside.. some of my few constants are that I never believed he knew she was coming & I don't
believe he was remotely happy to see her. That he deleted the AM photos within a few hours IMO, without her knowledge, suggests to me other reasons why he agreed to the photo taking. (Hi, Geevee. :D)
 
Last edited:
Weki- I left out..

About what happened in chambers with LaVi. I posted this some months ago, maybe longer, don't remember, and don't remember now where I read this (primary source...brief perhaps), but...

Several of the out of view showdowns in chambers with LaVi, at least, resulted from LaVi acting wildly inappropriately between turns on the stand.

*That she had approached and spoken to a member of TA's family (Samantha, iirc).

*That she had, in violation of Stephens' explicit instructions to her, taken to returning calls made by
disapproving/irate trial watchers.

**And once, after her heart palpitations thing, Stephens offered to seal the courtroom (!!) during her testimony if that would make LaVi feel safer. This star chamber episode happened ex parte, over JM's strong objections. Nurmi leapt in to the discussion, telling Stephens -absolutely not, that he wanted the viewing masses to "see JM in his full glory," or words to that affect.
 
Do you all remember trial watcher Paul Sanders The 13th Juror? He just posted an excerpt from his book about attending the Supreme Court hearing regarding JA testifying in secret. If you read his book (which I didn't ) you'll already know this, but I just found it interesting. Hope this link works. Paul Sanders
 
Well said, geevee!

My opinion: The killer’s appeal will be denied and she won’t get a new trial. JM’s conduct - which is not nice IMO & if I were his SO & knew he did this I would dump him. His conduct was abhorable toward women- especially the last juror who he allowed to send him pictures of her breasts. He could have simply blocked her & moved on.
But....Juan’s transgressions are not even close enough as evidence her trial was unfair.
Just no.
BTW Nice to see the gang back as the drama that is JA continues. I always wonder how TexMex is...he was also so valuable to the discussion.
I betcha we get the decision before Christmas.
 
JA had nothing to lose by filing an appeal. She is a stone cold killer. Even if by some magical fluke, she is eligible for another trial, (which I do not believe is going to happen) she would have a very large bond, and re-tried. It would not be double jeopardy, if there were trial errors.

Our criminal justice system run amok, again. When psychopathic killers hold the justice system to task. And tax dollars pay for her incarceration and attorneys for her appeal process. And it can go on for decades.

She killed Travis Alexander. That is not in dispute. Society cannot afford to let killers like this go free, and should not have the justice system made a mockery of, that Jodi Arias did not have every single "i" dotted correctly during her trial. She is the one who turned the entire event into a circus, with her detailed testimony about every sex act she performed with Travis Alexander. She acted like she was a movie star, playing a starring role. Her narcissism is epic.
 
After rewatching Jodi’s detective interrogations, media interviews and performance on the stand, it’s clear that she is an unpleasantly unhinged individual. Her bearing and her affect are phony and off putting.

There are three things I still don’t get:

1- The sex Travis was getting from motor mouth Jodi wasn’t worth having to put up with her. Other women [Chaityana Lay, Maria Avila] were available to him. I just can’t believe Jodi was intoxicating enough in bed for a man to overlook her fakey rotten personality. Why did Travis not nip this thing in the bud?

2- At what point in her upbringing did her narcissism manifest itself? Can borderline personality disorder be prevented or was Jodi hopelessly just a bad seed?

3- Did Jodi tell Travis she was coming to Mesa for that last visit? He had roommates, and the chances they’d wander into the house during the murder were huge.
 
Same, I thought he gave on areas he should and held firm also where he should have.

The 'attaching double jeopardy' by Arias' team was eye-popping, under what legal theory does double jeopardy attach so that even with overwhelming evidence of guilt, the conviction is not only overturned but due to double jeopardy, she is not tried again, and just set free, as if guilt free? The mind boggles.


WHEN DOUBLE JEOPARDY ATTACHES, ARIZONA


1. Her attorneys argue that JM’s misconduct was egregious, deliberate, and so pervasive that it was impossible for the killer to receive a fair trial, no matter Stephens’ rulings that upheld the DT’s objections, and her corrective instructions to the jury.


2. What happens if the COA finds such egregious misconduct by JM? AND that it was intentional? AND so pervasive as to deny the killer a fair trial?


3. A finding of prosecutorial misconduct by JM that egregious wouldn’t just overturn the killer’s conviction. She would also walk free immediately after the COA issued its ruling.


4. Why? Because the AZ Supreme Court has held double jeopardy attaches when a conviction is reversed for egregious and intentional prosecutorial misconduct that “structurally impaired” the trial.


5. AZSC’s holdings:

“Retrial should be barred when the prosecutor intentionally engages in conduct he knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for an improper purpose with indifference to the significant danger of mistrial or reversal.”


“Whether or not the defendant (made motions for) for mistrial (during trial), if the misconduct is so prejudicial to the defendant it can’t be cured short of a mistrial, double jeopardy attaches.”
 
HOW OFTEN HAVE AZ VERDICTS BEEN REVERSED / PROSECUTORS DISCIPLINED IN AZ CASES IN WHICH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WAS ALLEGED?


1. One study (by the CA Innocence Project) reviewed AZ criminal convictions (total number not provided) between 2004 and 2008.

2. The authors found TWENTY state and federal cases in which prosecutorial misconduct was alleged and considered during appellate review.

3. Of the 20 cases, 5 convictions were reversed. Not a single prosecutor was disciplined in any of the cases, including those in which convictions were reversed.

4. A second study, by the Arizona Republic, looked at the direct appeals of death sentences reviewed by the AZSC between 2002-2013.

5. The AZSC reviewed 82 direct appeals in those years. Of the 82:

-- 42 included allegations of prosecutorial misconduct or impropriety (NOT interchangeable terms); 33 of the appeals originated in Maricopa County (includes Phoenix, which has by far the busiest of AZ county Superior Courts).

--The AZSC found that prosecutorial misconduct or impropriety occurred in 17 of the 44 cases/appeals.

-- Only 2 convictions were reversed.

--Only 2 prosecutors were disciplined for their misconduct.

----------------------------------------------
JM’S RECORD ON APPEAL, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT


1. JM obtained 8 DP convictions between 1988-2013 (including TA’s killer).

2. He was accused of misconduct in 7 of the 8 trials/appeals.

3. Upon direct appeal, the AZSC found misconduct by JM is a single trial (Cory Morris,)*** and “numerous examples” of impropriety in another.

4. No conviction obtained by JM has ever been overturned.


****Cory Morris misconduct. The AZSC ruled that a specific statement JM made to the jury during closing argument constituted misconduct.
 
WHEN DOUBLE JEOPARDY ATTACHES, ARIZONA


1. Her attorneys argue that JM’s misconduct was egregious, deliberate, and so pervasive that it was impossible for the killer to receive a fair trial, no matter Stephens’ rulings that upheld the DT’s objections, and her corrective instructions to the jury.


2. What happens if the COA finds such egregious misconduct by JM? AND that it was intentional? AND so pervasive as to deny the killer a fair trial?


3. A finding of prosecutorial misconduct by JM that egregious wouldn’t just overturn the killer’s conviction. She would also walk free immediately after the COA issued its ruling.


4. Why? Because the AZ Supreme Court has held double jeopardy attaches when a conviction is reversed for egregious and intentional prosecutorial misconduct that “structurally impaired” the trial.


5. AZSC’s holdings:

“Retrial should be barred when the prosecutor intentionally engages in conduct he knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for an improper purpose with indifference to the significant danger of mistrial or reversal.”


“Whether or not the defendant (made motions for) for mistrial (during trial), if the misconduct is so prejudicial to the defendant it can’t be cured short of a mistrial, double jeopardy attaches.”

Thanks for doing the legwork on this Hope, and ugh, I have serious doubts they'll reverse her conviction on either pros. misconduct or excessive publicity, but it's a very uncomfortable thought that she could possibly walk free.
 
Pervasive, cumalative misconduct: State v. Hughes, etc.
-----------
During oral arguments (and in their brief), killer's attorneys cited 2 AZSC cases as precedent for having her conviction overturned on the basis of egregious prosecutorial misconduct and "cumalative error."

Here's a link to Hughes, one of those 2 cases, and the only known AZSC case that specifies "cumalative error" as grounds for overturning a conviction.

//www.ecases.us/case/ariz/c1405581/state-v-hughes

For those who don't want to plough through the thang, here's a nutshell comparison of the misconduct in that case versus JM's alleged misconduct during the killer's trial (Zawanda prosecuted Hughes).

Zawanda's misconduct is to JM's "misconduct" as a mountain is to an ant hill. As a dictionary is to a single word. Seriously, there really is no reality-based comparison to be made, factually or in the law.

Here's an oversimplified, not-even-summary of the factual case against Zawanda for egregious & intentional & pervasive misconduct.

Hughes shot & killed his sister's BF. Undisputed, ever. How Zawanda handled Hughes' insanity defense was the problem: he refused to acknowledge the possibility Hughes was insane, before and during trial. Zawanda's refusal did indeed permeate every part of the trial.

Even trying to summarize the extent & thoroughness & instances of his misconduct would exhaust me. So I won't. ;)

Just some examples: Zawanda refused to hire expert psych evaluators (pretrial-- several times over, during the long process to find Hughes competent for trial) or expert psych witnesses for trial.

He directly accused the DT and their psych witnesses, at trial & with the jury present, of outright fabricating Hughes' (all too real) mental illness. He opened his case by telling the jury that Hughes was "a mean drunk," and didn't have a lick of mental illness. And Zawanda closed by telling jurors to imagine someone innocently sitting outside on a bench & being murdered by the mean drunk Hughes if they didn't convict him.
----
Not. Even. Close.
 
After rewatching Jodi’s detective interrogations, media interviews and performance on the stand, it’s clear that she is an unpleasantly unhinged individual. Her bearing and her affect are phony and off putting.

There are three things I still don’t get:

1- The sex Travis was getting from motor mouth Jodi wasn’t worth having to put up with her. Other women [Chaityana Lay, Maria Avila] were available to him. I just can’t believe Jodi was intoxicating enough in bed for a man to overlook her fakey rotten personality. Why did Travis not nip this thing in the bud?

2- At what point in her upbringing did her narcissism manifest itself? Can borderline personality disorder be prevented or was Jodi hopelessly just a bad seed?

3- Did Jodi tell Travis she was coming to Mesa for that last visit? He had roommates, and the chances they’d wander into the house during the murder were huge.
Regarding the sex, if I recall correctly, the killer would come to his house when he was asleep and get in his bed. So difficult to resist.

I also wonder if he knew she was coming. I know that there are good arguments on both sides. She called him from the road - maybe she said she was returning his journals? I don't remember all the pros and cons, but I this appeal may have me going back deep into the particulars of the trial.
 
Thanks for doing the legwork on this Hope, and ugh, I have serious doubts they'll reverse her conviction on either pros. misconduct or excessive publicity, but it's a very uncomfortable thought that she could possibly walk free.

Wow! I had no idea that if there were errors made, that she could possibly be free.

Once again, justice system run amok! Killers should not be able to be free because of some errors.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
1,430
Total visitors
1,518

Forum statistics

Threads
589,166
Messages
17,915,089
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top