Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by geevee, Jul 24, 2013.
See that they are in a hearing right now.. closed door.
Remember when C.M. tweeted that she hadn't decided whether to accept a plea bargain or to appeal? I think she gave away right there the limited options she will consider. She will waive all appeals, challenges & future remedies if given life. We know that because she laid it out as either - or. Someone offered her a deal if she would give up those rights. Apparently she remains undecided, even though that is a bargain on the table but treading the paces of a series of appeals is still attractive to her.
By October 24, I think she will accept the offered resolution of this sentence phase. However, I also believe she will in future call it a deal with the devil and attempt to subvert the waivers in the agreement. I sure don't want anybody to assume I don't trust her.
Jodi Arias ‏@JodiAnnArias
I'm not currently accepting donations 4 appeals. Just don't know yet if I will plea or appeal.
1:36 PM - 22 Jun 13
I have an interpretation which is different from yours. My thought is that at the time, she was unsure as to whether she would offer, or consider a plea offer. I don't believe that the State had made any plea offer at that time.
News reports from later in July:
One of the most recent messages on her Twitter page, @jodiannarias, said, "The State rejected my third request for a plea to settle quietly and less expensively. Off to retrial we go. Sorry, taxpayers."
Maricopa County's top prosecutor said Wednesday that Arias is either not telling the truth or misinformed.
The obvious question is: Who is in charge of this woman's defense? There's a repetition here. Her defense attorneys must have been going crazy throughout this whole thing.
I don't know much about trials and have learned a lot during this case, but what happens if a defendant insists on a certain amount of control even though the state of AZ is paying for her defense?
Another oral argument date has been added to the calendar:
10/4/2013 8:30 Oral Argument
10/18/2013 10:00 Oral Argument
10/24/2013 10:00 Settlement Conference
The state wants you dead prisoner 2013, if you agree to that you will save the taxpayers money and give the family and Travis the justice they deserve.
LOL!! I know, Ive read every body language book, article, etc I could get my hands on since I was in my teens, It first fascinated me, then I just wanted to be able to read through all the BS,Masks & Lies I realized a HUGE percentage of the human race spews out on a daily basis.The best education I got was from someone I was raised by, Studying their BL, movements, listening to their voice,speaking patterns,tones & pitch & when they changed. I learned to know what she was hiding,lying about by the way she chose to hide it. Its become one of my best tools in trying to SEE people. I felt from the moment I saw the 48 hrs on CMJA in 2009,I think it was,that she was lying and played a role in poor Travis' killing.NEVER did I think before I saw all the pics,emails/texts(the Evidence) that she was on the Level that she is though.I knew something was off, That she was Not Genuine, nor sincere and mostly full of crap. But I never thought I would be watching and analyzing someone who has almost EVERY Personality Disorder ever named or not named yet and takes it to the Ugliest/Most Evil & Diabolical level there is,IMO..
What a Waste of human flesh she is, besides the studies of her brain after her death. She gets to me more than anyone else Ive ever observed in my life, I truly think..Sorry guys, she triggers an angry rant out of me every once in awhile that I Must release..:banghead: I Apologize..
Why was she not charged with perjury on top of everything else? Obviously she lied on the stand. Some of it was proven. Granted, she will never ever be outside of prison, but I'd want that perjury charge just to show "hey she is a liar under oath."
Like you, I have learned a lot about the trial process through this case.
Legal counsel represents the defendant, therefore she should have a certain amount of control over her defense. I'm fairly certain that she has gone against the advice of counsel numerous times throughout this lengthy process.
One of the things that I do wonder about is the court's obligation to her if she continues to undermine the judicial process. She has attempted to have forged letters introduced as evidence and the coded message on the magazine are proof of attempted witness tampering. Her family has posted on FB that new evidence has come to light after the trial; in my mind, this can only be fabricated evidence and so I wonder what, if anything could or should the court do?
It will be interesting to read the minutes and motions once they are unsealed.
...if we're still alive by then...:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
But seriously, the twitter motion obviously came from JA, and the media in the courtroom objection may have as well. (Is she going to be in her stripes during this penalty phase retrial?) Sometimes I wonder whether the judge and her lawyers grant some of these frivolous motions just to placate her so that the trial can continue.
What say you? :seeya:
The only information regarding any plea on her part that I have read sounded more like a threat than a plea:
I'm not a lawyer, so this is my layman's point of view.
I don't see the motion to limit media coverage, motion to sequester or motion for change of venue as being frivolous. Quite to the contrary, these should be expected motions and there is a strong argument to support these motions, although the legal precedent in Arizona does not favor having them granted. Whether or not these motions are granted is dependent on the relative strengths of the arguments presented and Judge Stephens opinions in these types of matters.
There are a number of articles written on the subject of media coverage in high profile cases and they do make for interesting reading. It is an age old problem for the courts and is not due to the advent of 24 hour cable television and the internet. To me, the argument really boils down to the integrity of the jurors and it is apparent that Nurmi does not trust jurors to abide by admonishments.
This quote from an excellent article http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n2/impartial.html written in 1997 sums it up well for me:
"In a media-saturated society, jurors who know nothing about high-profile cases may be jurors who know nothing."
Keep in mind that if motions are not made during trial, they cannot be brought up as appellate issues.
The twitter motion is an interesting one, but this strikes me as being more Nurmi than CMJA. I am still not certain of the ulterior motive of the motion; is it to gather more personal information on jurors who might tweet so as to tailor the mitigation phase or is it designed to detect any grounds for mistrial due to juror misconduct? Martinez should make a very strong argument against this motion on two main points; granting this motion would represent a serious invasion of privacy for jurors and secondly, the defense should not be monitoring juror twitter accounts. If the accounts were to be monitored, it should be a burden of the courts, which could be an onerous burden.
Anyone new to the case should definately read the above. It was good for me to read. I was reminded of ja's. intentions right from the beginning. I'd never read this before. No wonder she was so shocked at the verdict! Now she needs to be reminded the verdict cannot be changed. Just between all of us I think her DT. built up her hopes too much. Thanks again janx. :seeya:
Hi Scarpetta, I agree with you 100%. Jodi is the entire problem. I think she is set on getting a sentence which comes with 2nd degree. It cant be done. she's guilty of 1st degre and refuses to acknowledge it! I too would be happy with LWOP . She should give her life one way or the other. I want to look up the changes in penalties for murder 1. I believe AZ. Lawyer posted them early on. This has gone on soooooo long! Time to get her to Perryville. :seeya:
I think all these extensions are on purpose to delay the transfer to Perryvile but what do I know?
I agree with you about the defense, and what can they do with a client like that? She is already prone to some kind of magical thinking, and Lord only knows what she does if she doesn't get her way.
It's easy to make fun of these defense attorneys (I have done it myself), but we need criminal defense attorneys in our legal system. Nurmi and Willmott seem to be dealing with a nightmare of a client.
I wonder what they are really going through and dealing with...? Are they going forward with the domestic violence charade because they are simply unethical and greedy? Do they believe it? How can they believe it? The logic just isn't there.
That's why LaViolette fell on her face. This case isn't about domestic violence, and she was called upon as a domestic violence expert, so she had to try and make it fit. ???
Of course they are. She will end up there in any case, but the defense is trying to save her from going to death row. They know she's going to Perryville eventually.
The delays and extensions are also probably the result of the defense's inability to find someone who will speak up for the defendant. No one would speak in her defense during the penalty phase last time, so who will do so in the retrial of the penalty phase this time?
I also need to add that the grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure in this document are so bad that it's difficult to understand the meaning of it.
Who wrote it? Is it composed of parts from other documents or document writers?
Pathetic. All of them.
Many times when I read motions or other paper work submitted by the defense....I cannot believe it comes from the lawyers, or even any law person, but rather it comes from FJA....just the way it is written, statements are made, words used. That is JMO.
Thanks to all who post the updates, making it easier for me to keep up with the events.