Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Jan 11, 2015.
Please continue posting here.
Who wants to be first?
I'll gladly defer.
IF JSS is against the DP, as some have opined, then why did she deny the defense's multiple (at least 20 or more) motions to dismiss the DP from consideration?
I don't know how many times AZLawyer has told us the reasons for various decisions by the judge, not all of which make sense, but certainly many of them are a result of the judge either not having a choice at all (her hands are legally tied by the laws of AZ) or she is trying not to provide any reason for a successful appeal by Arias in the future, when everyone knows with 100% certainty Arias will be appealing regardless.
But little of what AZLawyer informs seems to be believed and spectators continue to insist JSS rules as she does because she either secretly supports the killer, or is against the DP, or hates the prosecutor, or wants to subvert justice, or any other number of reasons, none of which have any factual basis behind them. JSS is a weak scaredy-cat judge, but I don't see where she's on the side of the defendant.
Perhaps it would make people feel better if JSS ruled exactly how they themselves want, laws of the state and future appeals be damned.
Several days ago I suggested that one of the holdups is that the court reporter has to do the transcripts and it takes more time than the average person may realize. I also said that court reporters often have other work/other cases they are doing as well and that can add to a delay. That suggestion was poo-pooh'd in favor of the judge must be lying, the judge wants to subvert justice, the judge wants to defy the AZ supreme court, etc, etc, etc.
Turns out there was a pending appeal at the supreme court, which had to be decided first, and the court reporter does indeed have to do the work and transcribe/scope/verify the testimony and (gasp) it takes more time even though everyone insists it absolutely shouldn't. But yet it can.
Thanks for the nice clean thread lamby!
I wanted to carry on from the other thread, the rumored part of testiphony cmja was at. It was rumored indeed rumored that she wasn't yet at meeting travis when the COA intervened on 11/3. The reason I believe this is likely the case, is we all know lkn and jw style is sloooow and illiciting "how did that make you feeeeel" after every single question. I can easily see that after 1 1/3 days on the stand they are probably still up to age 13-15
I love that new thread smell! :happydance:
Is this transcript going to include 100 pages of "How did that make you feeeeellll" crap? :facepalm:
And "that's interesting, Jodi. Let's walk this back a little to gain perspective on why everyone finds you so fascinating yet does you so wrong"
JSKS hasn't merely forgotten the laws of the state, the CoA says that she has violated them.
I think what this adds up to for many WS'ers is that in the course of running her court -- it is her court, and she's in charge of it; a big job with no one else to hide behind -- she has unnecessarily delayed justice and unconstitutionally perverted it.
She has granted special rights to this one convicted murderer that no other similarly situated defendant enjoys.
I think what tipped the scales for some was her accommodation of the killer's demand to secretize witness names, witness lists, evidence, and actual testimony.
At the behest of this one killer, JSKS hides testimony from the public in violation of the laws of Arizona.
My significant dissatisfaction with the judge is less about her human imperfection in the job and more about the unconstitutional favoritism she shows to this guilty, especially cruel, lying murderer.
But she isn't accountable to me.
It's up to legislators to impeach her or voters to replace her -- or not.
I almost never post but, I am wondering if hear say can be used can Juan use the 911 call where the girl calling is asked who might have killed Travis she answers Jodi. Can he speak about the all her stocking actions ?
This is probably old news to those of you who keep up with Twitter better than I do:
William Pitts (@william_pitts)
1/10/15, 2:58 PM
@Justice4TravisA @12News unfortunately i don't have the whole thing...
I can stop waiting for raw hearing video from Friday I guess!
If it turns out JSS pulled a "long con" on JA and basically forced her & team to take their secretPrivateNoMedia issue all the way up the AZSC with the media appealing and KN filing, which is exactly what has happened, and this issue gets decided and the supreme court smacks down Arias and says "no you cannot secretly testify," which is exactly what has happened, and thus this issue can never successfully be raised on Arias' appeal, will the opinion on this (maneuver by the judge to force defense's hand) change? Why or why not?
Prediction: once the transcripts are released, it will be a lot of drivel and whining and more lies by Arias, which will enrage people reading it and cause regret in spending the time to wait for it and then the time reading it. Vegas odds: 2 to 1
My point was that spectators are the ones who want the judge to rule they way they (the spectators) want, regardless of the laws and regardless of the future appeals.
Question: has any other attorney in any other case either with JSS or any other AZ Superior court judge pulled the crap that Nurmi & team have pulled? Has any other judge there had to deal with these particular issues: a defendant facing a DP sentence who refuses to testify unless the courtroom is cleared & the media can't report on it? Or is this the first time such a thing has been attempted by a defense team in AZ Superior court on a death case?
I understand you believe the judge is showing unconstitutional "favoritism" to the killer. I disagree.
I think JSS is so scared of the coming appeal and the possible opportunities for a CoA to overturn that she is doing everything she can to prevent such a thing, to the point of abject fear and paranoia. If she really favored the killer, then she'd be doing things like allowing the DP to be taken off the table from one of the scores of motions Nurmi has filed to ask just that (she's denied them all), and helping to create future appealable issues for the killer, like making mistakes that would benefit the killer on an appeal.
That people watching think she "shows" favoritism means they might not understand what's going on beneath the surface. And that's fine, as long as Arias never has a successful appeal. Remember: if Arias does get the DP there will be automatic appeals, paid for by the citizens of AZ.
What I've gathered from our resident attorneys, is that in phase the rules of evidence are relaxed for the defendant, however the state cannot produce evidence that would be unduly prejudicial against her.
Not answering your question, exactly, but I hold the unpopular view that JSS's extreme caution around appeal issues is a good thing. I think she knows exactly what she's doing. Hopefully because of JSS's comprehensive approach, the Alexander family will know, once this is over, that JA will die in prison with no hope of ever getting out.
BBM- it is precisely why we do not hold secret star chamber courts in this country. Our judicial system is constitutionally protected to be transparent for public and press to see. It is for this exact fact that you outlined that the public may not understand what's going on beneath the surface. In our country there is no surface in the judicial system, it is to be held in the most public manner possible so that the public doesn't have to look under veils of secrecy, we aren't supposed to guess what is going on under seal and in secret. This is a problem for every citizen who enjoys their constitutional freedoms. The way the entire trial had been conducted, which you agree is THE problem. If motions were able to be read, if testimony were able to be seen or at least heard then secret Stephens wouldn't be dealing with the theories we are seeing now. Every scrutiny she received, she earned when choosing to conduct Herr court room like she was in the KGB in cold war USSR
The Court of Appeals might know what's going on beneath the surface, and they've reversed the judge.
And now she's finally obeying the law.
Their opinion seems to hold some sway.
I agree with you that she is being extremely cautious, but I'm not sure it's a good thing she's doing it since it's coming from a place of fear and paranoia (IMO). However, either way, and with either sentence, as a result of the judge's caution, the appealable issues should be very few and possibly nil.