- Oct 1, 2008
- Reaction score
^^^^K, this topic is confusing as hell :lol: I won't even try and figure it out, bc I don't think I will ever fully understand it, despite all the great questions and expert answers!
My question is this: I know that pre-trial (?) defense filed a motion to preclude the state from arguing lack of remorse during the penalty phase.
1) at the eleventh hour DT threw in the "lessor charge of MS," during closing. At that point wouldn't that "void" (sorry idk correct terminology) that notion since they basically abandoned the self defense claim which the motion was based on? Also
2) Given that the self defense defense was abandoned in favor of embracing the BPD diagnosis *eyeroll* during the penalty phase--and will likely figure heavily in the retrial phase--cant the state now bring up lack of remorse?
To me this would be very effective if possible...not only does it show how cold blooded JA really is, but it also IMO, helps to illustrate how insincere most of her allocation was, i.e., her story of her mom seeing the Alexander family and "understanding their pain," the fact that she never truly apologizes, as well as when asked "if she could do things differently," none of her responses convey a scenario where travis ISN'T DEAD!!!
(1) The motion to preclude the state from arguing lack of remorse was not, I think, dependent on the self-defense argument. I believe it would be improper for the state to argue lack of remorse regardless of the defense, unless the defense argued remorse. For example, if the defense were "I didn't do it," I don't think the state could argue lack of remorse during the penalty phase. Also, the request for the manslaughter instruction was not an abandonment of the self-defense claim. That's why the self-defense instruction was still included. The two arguments were being made "in the alternative"--i.e., this was self-defense, and if you don't buy that, then it was manslaughter.
2) The self-defense argument was not abandoned at the penalty phase either, but there was no point in mentioning as it appears the jury did not buy it. If Jodi claims remorse, the state can argue lack of remorse. I don't suppose she will, though, because she still claims self-defense.
Good Morning and TIA for your help!
I'm trying to understand what evidence is allowed in this new sentencing trial. I'm confused by ALL the evidence presented in the guilt phase as opposed to evidence of the crime itself.
Is there a distinction and are there general rules that apply? I can't imagine any evidence pointing to either DV, the "fog" etc would be allowed since the previous jury rejected this in whole.
Perhaps you have a reference? Again, thanks very much.
During the penalty phase, the jury is to consider any evidence relevant to the issue of what penalty to impose that was admitted during the guilt phase or aggravation phase. Therefore, anything relevant from those two phases that the parties want the new jury to consider will have to be re-presented. Relevant information would be evidence of cruelty (because the jury needs to balance this evidence against the mitigating evidence), and evidence relating to mitigation, which concerns the defendant's "character, propensity, history, record, or circumstances of the offense."
The (alleged) DV is DEFINITELY relevant, was relevant in the last penalty phase as well, and was argued by the defense as a mitigating factor. The jury did not necessarily reject the allegations of DV just because they found Jodi guilty of premeditated murder. DV is not an excuse for murder. It just makes it a little easier to prove self-defense. If the jury decided she was abused but still didn't act in self-defense, then the abuse can and should be considered as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase.
The "fog" might or might not be raised in the new penalty phase. The defense might, for example, argue that it would be unfair to put Jodi to death because the part of the crime that really qualified her for the death penalty is the part she doesn't remember. Similarly to the DV, there is no way to know whether the jury rejected the "fog" information. A verdict of guilt or cruelty tells you nothing about their opinion of the "fog."
Well then, can JM also bring in the "drawing by tracing" as proof she is NOT a talented artist but is, in fact, breaking copyright law by showing examples of her offending artwork - which, would in itself, show just one one more example of her countless lies? There have been various Internet "reports" that a couple of companies/magazines have issued a cease and desist order against JA due to her blatant copying. And if JM can use this kind of info, is there anyway to contact him to make sure he is aware of this?
Yes, JM could bring this up if she argues her artistic talent as a mitigating factor again. I'm sure the Alexander family is aware of the tracing/copyright issue, and they are in the best position to offer this information to JM.
Thanks for the reply. I don't why I'm so fixated on this point, as given the mistrial it is entirely moot, but there you have it.
CroakerQueen 123 has a youtube video with just this piece of the trial " jodi arias trial, deliberations part 1."
JSS reads the missing instruction relating to the life sentence. She explicitly states that there currently is no procedure in place to grant parole after 25 years.
JW makes statement to jury saying that if the jury shows mercy and votes life, the killer WILL (emphasis hers) die in prison because there is no parole.
JM rebuts, saying:
LWOP means natural life, but just because there is no procedure in place for parole now doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Giving LWOP guarantees she will never be released, but if the judge grants life with the possibility of parole JA will be "vested" in that procedure.
Two JM statements follow, with a difference in phrasing (JW objected to the 1st as a mistatement of the law, JSS overruled the objection, JW did not object to the 2nd).
Quote: (If vested in the procedure )JA will be "given the right to be eligible after 25 years."
Quote: ( She will be )"given the legal right to be considered after 25 years."
Neither statement says that she WOULD be eligible for a parole hearing in 25.
Sorry to be so persistent about this non-issue, but does any of the above change your opinion
Someone posted the exact transcript a page or two back, so I will rely on that. But are you drawing a distinction between having a legal right to be considered for release and being eligible for a parole hearing? Those are the same thing IMO.
I do think that JM MEANT to say that, if she were given 25-to-life , then she would be "vested," and THEN, IF AND ONLY IF PAROLE PROCEDURES WERE REINSTATED IN AZ, at THAT point she would, after 25 years, have a legal right to be considered for parole.
But what he seemed to say instead was that, if she were given 25-to-life, then she would be "vested" AND THEREFORE WOULD HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RELEASE IN 25 YEARS, so the fact that there wasn't a procedure in place now didn't mean there wouldn't be one in the future, because Jodi would have a "legal right" to the procedure in the future.