Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Jan 14, 2015.
Please continue posting here.
Oh boy! #1
I get to sit by Steely!!
Sliding in, with my wine, my blanket and my pillow.
We need some fireworks to start off this thread to celebrate Judge Stephens ruling to dismiss the DP and smackdown the defense::fireworks::fireworks::fireworks::smiliescale::justice::jumping::jumping::jumping::skip::skip::skip::happydance:
I am so glad Travis's family can take this break knowing their brother has been vindicated of the accusations of porn.
My local Tucson news on the trial...motions not motion silly KGUN9
KGUN9 On Your Side ‏@kgun9 · 44m44 minutes ago
A judge has denied a motion by Jodi Arias' defense team to take the death penalty off the table. http://on.kgun9.com/1IMjFXM
AZL, how does it work at the appellate level for the DT now? Now we're into more of the traditional appeal situation vs special actions. Say KN and JW want to take these 17 smackdowns and write up for each one how they think the judge was off her rocker and they should overrule her. How does it work?
- Do they file 17 different appeals? Do they file 1 with everything? Or do they pick a few that they think they have the best shot at?
- Does each appeal consist of only some relatively small amount of paperwork and copies of transcripts and exhibits?
- Do they also need to cite relevant settled case law to back their argument up?
- Ignoring stays, can the COA just refuse to hear the appeal, letting the lower court ruling stand, or do they have to issue more than that in each case?
- If there are to be oral arguments, I presume they have to be short and to the point, like the earlier ones. (Those were all short, but not necessarily all to the point haha.)
- What is the COA's take going in? Is their attitude along the lines of "We've got what you sent and we've read the judge's decision. You have 15 minutes to convince us that her logic was flawed."
Thanks - you can see what I'm getting at. It seems like the same sorts of things that a trial like this encourages from the defense: obfuscation, inept/lying witnesses, arguments all over the map/contradictory, time-wasting, interrupting the other party endlessly, etc. all are exactly the wrong approach to use on appeal. I suppose that's why there are people like you who specialize in appeals - you don't have to change gears for appeals since you operate in the right gear already. It might be a struggle for you to handle a normal case in a regular court for similar reasons - it's just a different way of operating.
Ya closed on me! lol.
Oh no no no. Far from it. I just have a severe case of know-it-all-itis.
If you want to discuss the judge and her decision, fine. Let's not start bashing her. The rules apply to JSS as well as anyone else we are discussing on this thread. Discuss how she handles the case is okay but snarky remarks stop here. New thread. Let's move on.
Wow. I didn't expect the thread to close in midstream.
I’m elated that all the DT’s motions were denied but I’m also upset about part of the court’s rulings. Specifically, the two State motions which this judge denied with NO explanation. I want to know WHY she denied them. IIRC, these motions were in reference to the BN’s failure to give Juan a copy of the disc he worked on. BN’s testiphony was based on this disc and the magical appearance of the incinerator which was not even in existence at that time. I want to know who installed the incinerator and who was behind this. After failing several times to provide a copy of the disc, Juan filed a motion for sanctions. Why was the motion denied????
Could you give us an example of bashing and/or let us know its definition? If someone backs up their argument with examples or has a negative opinion, is that bashing? In other words, what the heck is bashing?
I noticed in the latest transcripts that JM often said, "Leading" and JSS answered, "Overruled" with an occasional "Sustained" thrown in. Why can't most objections be quickly handled this way, rather than the nonstop, prolonged "proaches"? These constant DT interruptions of the prosecution, this time and last, is what I fault JSS for most, not her motion responses.
I want to know who that secret sealed testimony witness was. BN?
12/9/2014 SDO - Order to Seal Documents - Party (001) 12/12/2014
NOTE: NOTICE OF SELF DISCLOSURE
O/T, I think JSS must be a poker player or a Scorpio. j/k
Amidst all the virtual tantrums the procedures go on without much understanding or insight until spectators get a little peek into what's going on in sidebars and in written motions. Perhaps some of the judge's actions will serve to keep Arias from ever having a successful appeal in the future. Arias will appeal, that's 100% certain. Instant gratification will never be a part of this case and this will continue to be as it ever was. The outcome is still fairly certain. The killer will never be executed and that too is nearly 100% certain. Hopefully every future avenue for appellate relief will be blocked.
:woohoo: So what happens to Sue? Is it still possible for the DT to prove the prosecution removed evidence?
BBM: With the excessive number of motions filed by the DT, the 2 Motions filed by Juan and JSS's decision on these Motions have been forgotten and lost in the shuffle.
So glad you brought this up because I forgot about it... so hopefully, there will be an answer as to WHY Juan's motions were denied!
Never say never :0) but I agree it's pretty unlikely. What her life at Perryville will be like depends on whether she gets the DP or LWP and that's a big issue to me.
From the previous thread:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
With all due respect, what has style and form got to do with it? She's a really, really bad manager and she has prolonged this case, IMO, in a way that did not have to happen; there have been consequences and that's the most important issue. And if that is just style and form speaking then it makes the law courts look insane. There is nothing timely about this trial and Travis' kin are suffering for it. She is weak in controllng the courtroom and lame when it comes to decisions. Sure, she came charging out of the gate now, but at what cost?
She dismissed the motions to remove the DP? Well, why shouldn't she? It doesn't make her exceptional in my books. In fact, it makes her tardy. At the same time, her word has proven to be not reliable.
I am not going to applaud her for finally getting to a place she should have gotten to a while ago, not to mention the crap she has left in her wake.
Separate names with a comma.