Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/3/14 Hearing

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just have to wonder if JSS will seal the hearing as with so many others... :thinking:
 
I find all these talks of threats by defense ironic because JA's family has no problem being front and center with their comments to the public on social media and a donations video on YouTube. It does not seem to be an issue with them. jmo
 
There have been other high-profile trials complete with crummy defense lawyers and crummier defendants. Arias is not the first criminal to be hated and despised. I don't believe that there are any real threats. Even if there are, closing the courtroom doors is not an adequate remedy. It's simply a matter of weeks/months before the names/testimonies are released to the public. Who will protect them then? Nurmi will now suggest that their names be sealed for the next 50 years or that they be provided with round-the-clock bodyguards. Diddums! (Thanks again, Gerard!).
 
Re: The YouTube video:
Note the date on the video in the beginning: September 2014. This was just uploaded yesterday though. It's a painfully obvious attempt to incite more online vitriol. Jodi and the DT keep saying that the media and the "haters" (what an adolescent term!) won't allow them a "fair trial." And yet her supporters are the ones who keep "leaking" inflammatory information and posting things to poke at the Alexanders and anyone who voices sympathy for the Alexanders. They stir the hornets' nest and then try to use that to claim that a lynch mob is making sure Jodi doesn't get a fair trial because that's all they've got. She confessed, is already convicted, and she herself stated in that post-conviction interview that she "has no mitigating factors." And let's not forget that for someone who feels persecuted by the media, SHE'S the one who keeps actively seeking out interviews.
 
The video was opened for comments at first. You would of thought that JA supporters would of been offering their support the parents and their money but what we saw were comments from supposed JA "haters", which I believe were actually JA supporters told to put those kind of comments there. Then the comment section was closed, not to long after. Makes you think that this video was put there for the reason you state. I guess they think we have no reasoning skills.
 
Will the press be at today's hearing? Will it be conducted entirely at sidebar?
 
elementary: As I understand it from reading the article, the order was about the stay. It isn't clear that everyone now in court is confuzzled by what 'lesser restrictions' means.
The article doesn't explain that that order has two parts:

1. It orders a stay on Judge Stephens' court closure. There is no room for disagreement here - The court cannot be closed to the public. Period.

2. It orders that the court may impose "lesser restrictions". This is the only ambiguous part of the order.

I think it's safe to assume Martinez and Nurmi are going to disagree about this second part:
(a) whether any instructions should be imposed (in addition to the broadcast ban), and
(b) what those might be.

I also think that this is where Judge Stephens needs to make the decision, now that she is clear what the parameters are.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1jaeKiCAAAN0rv.jpg:large
 
Brent @ Kleinman Law ‏@brentjkleinman 8h8 hours ago
#JodiArias followers plz understand #Stay granted today doesn't grant definite access to media. It stops secret testimony from continuing
 
Will the press be at today's hearing? Will it be conducted entirely at sidebar?

I sure hope the Appeal Judges had a nice small "sidebar" with JSS last night and kindly explain to her what she has the legal power to do.

She needs to just reverse her original ruling about kicking out the public and just make the attorneys follow that decision. Its too bad if Nurmi doesnt like it. If the witness doesnt want to testify, then too bad, thats on him.

This is not up for debate amongst the attorneys and JSS. It should be just JSS making the decisions here.
If she cannot handle it, then please get on the phone and ask advice of other judges to do the right thing here.

It is so obvious she is being walked on by the DT because they know they got her wrapped around their finger.
It is really sad. I really like JSS as a person, but she has proven over and over that she has gone way too far in allowing the DT way too many concessions. And finally it is proven that she has allowed the DT rights that they legally do not have.
 
So one more day the Alexander family has to pay for hotels and rental cars and eating out while members of the Court haggle over things that, to me, seem like they should have been taken care of prior to the jurors being sworn in
 
Brent @ Kleinman Law ‏@brentjkleinman 8h8 hours ago
#JodiArias followers plz understand #Stay granted today doesn't grant definite access to media. It stops secret testimony from continuing

But it does though. The stay is for the order for the media and public to clear the courtroom so that secret testimony can be conducted. The stay puts a hold on that order, meaning secret testimony ceases and they are let back in for witnesses that do not intend to testify in secret. It's why the media was immediately let back in yesterday.

The motion also basically advises the judge to impose lesser restrictions, such as what she was considering on Thursday before kicking everyone out. She was going to have the media go to the overflow room. They're suggesting she does this and, presumably, there will be no more need for the media's appeal to be heard, unless they feel that isn't good enough, which it should be.

They are telling her: just no more secret testimony.
 
The article doesn't explain that that order has two parts:

1. It orders a stay on Judge Stephens' court closure. There is no room for disagreement here - The court cannot be closed to the public. Period.

2. It orders that the court may impose "lesser restrictions". This is the only ambiguous part of the order.

I think it's safe to assume Martinez and Nurmi are going to disagree about this second part:
(a) whether any instructions should be imposed (in addition to the broadcast ban), and
(b) what those might be.

I also think that this is where Judge Stephens needs to make the decision, now that she is clear what the parameters are.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1jaeKiCAAAN0rv.jpg:large

Right. This should not be up for debate at all. The judge herself (i.e., the court) can make lesser restrictions if she wants to. Not the attorneys. So JSS needs to allow the public back in the trial OR something similar to where we can at least get a transcript of the proceedings.

Regarding the stay, the judge could force Nurmi to proceed with new witnesses with public present. Nurmi should have no vote in the matter. It is the court/judge who needs to decide things here.

Its flat too bad if Nurmi doesnt like it. Case law will back the judge so long as she makes the right call here.

But having sidebars to discuss is a horrible idea. Make a tough decision and stick to it please.
 
The article doesn't explain that that order has two parts:

1. It orders a stay on Judge Stephens' court closure. There is no room for disagreement here - The court cannot be closed to the public. Period.

2. It orders that the court may impose "lesser restrictions". This is the only ambiguous part of the order.

I think it's safe to assume Martinez and Nurmi are going to disagree about this second part:
(a) whether any instructions should be imposed (in addition to the broadcast ban), and
(b) what those might be.

I also think that this is where Judge Stephens needs to make the decision, now that she is clear what the parameters are.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1jaeKiCAAAN0rv.jpg:large

The lesser restrictions are definitely things that are less drastic than kicking the media out. Monica Lindstrom mentioned these include sending media to over flow room, barring cameras, etc. Judge apparently already considered these. They're telling her to do those and put this thing to rest.
 
But it does though. The stay is for the order for the media to clear the courtroom so that secret testimony can be conducted. The stay puts a hold on that order, meaning secret testimony ceases and they are let back in for witnesses that do not intend to testify in secret. It's why the media was immediately let back in yesterday.

The motion also basically advises the judge to impose lesser restrictions, such as what she was considering on Thursday before kicking everyone out. She was going to have the media go to the overflow room. They're suggesting she does this and, presumably, there will be no more need for the media's appeal to be heard, unless they feel that isn't good enough, which it should be.

They are telling her: just no more secret testimony.

Right. The writing is on the wall for the judge to see. She really should just reverse her wrong decision about blocking public but to help her save face, here is what she should do.

1-Make a decision to allow just that 1 witness to testify in front of Jury with cameras rolling to a video feed just to 1 overflow room where public + media can watch + tweet on it.

2-No more witnesses will be allowed this privelege unless it is requested, and if requested, say NO because there is not a compelling argument for said witness.

3-The End. Numi doesnt get a vote in the matter.
 
Will the press be at today's hearing?

Will it be conducted entirely at sidebar?


1. Yes ... just in case it is held in "open court."

2. Not sure if it will be a side bar, but I think JSS will close the courtroom to everyone so that the attorneys can discuss with JSS how they want to proceed.

JSS does NOT like the cameras and does NOT want any more criticism ... oh, and she likes to hold these discussions in "secret."

Also, the jury was told to report tomorrow -- Wednesday -- so even IF they hammered out how to proceed, they would not continue today because the jury will not be there.

In summary, JSS is not competent to preside over this trial, so one more wasted day towards Justice for Travis !

JMO and :moo:
 
I just think about Juan, having agreed to the family's wishes of no stay, listening to Nurmi thinking, "I could argue the crap out of this."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
870
Total visitors
990

Forum statistics

Threads
589,929
Messages
17,927,795
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top