Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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!
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.”
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.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.
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.