Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/17-11/18/14 In recess

Status
Not open for further replies.
From AZ Family:

There was another surprise in the Jodi Arias retrial Monday, as court proceedings came to an abrupt stop.

Superior Court judge Sherry Stevens returned from the afternoon recess, and announced that there had been an emergency situation, and she was sending the jury home until Thursday.



Link: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Jury-sent-home-in-Jodi-Arias-retrial-283000491.html#ixzz3JRKJaxhj


:gaah: NOTHING -- absolutely nothing is a "Surprise" in this case !

:moo:
 
There's a reason 'no violence' and 'no sex' among prisoners are TOP of the list of rules.
 
JSS should arrange for this trial to run on Friday & Saturday, and continually until it's over. I believe the CA judge had Saturday court. This trial is absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. I haven't criticized this judge but come on! If I were an Arizona taxpayer I would be calling Bill Montgomery's office and complaining. The State of Arizona has too many issues to waste money on this "farce" of a trial. Imagine the waste of money - transporting the murderess to jail, back, salaries of jail and court staff, DT billing hours, ridiculous.

Not to mention JSS should be deeply concerned about losing jurors at this point. Certainly she can see what Nurmi's attempting to do - cause a mistrial, imo.
 
Doesn't JM have other cases he needs to prepare for? Are those other cases on hold while JSS tiptoes around? Hoping there won't be an appeal? A successful appeal? Then, she shouldn't be presiding over any trial. Especially, a DP one. There will be appeals!! Her lack of confidence and fear of KN whispering "appeal" and "mistrial" in her ear is pathetic.
 
I really would have thought by now that at least a "rumor" about "the emergency " would be circulating.
 
AZL question - are jurors expected to go back to work during days there's no court? If so, isn't that risky as to what they may see or hear concerning the trial? TIA

From the Viktionary:
Balloonimous - adj: filled with much hot air, as in, "the defense's argument was balloonimous."
Buffoonimous - adj: acting foolishly, as in, "the attorneys put on a buffoonimous defense."

Yes, most employers would expect the jurors to report for work on the days there is no trial. Most of them have probably been working on Fridays already.
 
I really think the use of that mass email to imply Travis was a pedophile was totally unprofessional. And what was the strategy behind that, anyway? To make JM's cross more awesome??
 
I really think the use of that mass email to imply Travis was a pedophile was totally unprofessional. And what was the strategy behind that, anyway? To make JM's cross more awesome??

Because sex talk and underage sex are apparently the only two things that Nurmi believes matter in a court of law. Apparently Judge Stephens agrees.

That's all we heard the first go around..........same here.
 
KCL and AZL and others were talking last night about what's wrong with our system. I think the problem is simple, but the fix is not.

Our system is based on honorable opponents facing off against each other and acting in good faith, but it's not that way any longer. DAs may have certain biases and obviously have a story they want to paint. In some cases they are crooks too - we had a famous one exposed in Central Texas's Williamson County not that long ago. But defense attys - at least in high profile cases - seem to engage in the most awful tactics and couldn't give a rip about acting in good faith. "It's the DA's job to fix it he doesn't like the way I presented my case - I'll do whatever it takes to win."
 
I really think the use of that mass email to imply Travis was a pedophile was totally unprofessional. And what was the strategy behind that, anyway? To make JM's cross more awesome??

As a juror, the effect that DT tactic would have on me would be blue fury. It makes it look like they'd turn anything, no matter how innocent/trivial, into an implication of wrongdoing on Travis' part. I wouldn't take anything that witness said seriously after that, and I'd be insulted and angry that they tried it.

Jehovah's Witnesses tried to witness to my son when he was a preteen. He answered the door and they just started in on him. I told them that I thought it was inappropriate for them to say those things to a minor child without a parent's consent/presence (I was in the other room when he called me to the door). By DT and Dr. Fonseca's "standards", I suppose that someone hearing my words to them could now accuse them of being pedophiles.
 
Because sex talk and underage sex are apparently the only two things that Nurmi believes matter in a court of law. Apparently Judge Stephens agrees.

That's all we heard the first go around..........same here.

Believe it or not she can't stop him from pursuing an unprofessional, disgusting and strategically doubtful line of questioning. I think the TV judges give people the idea that judges can do these things. :)
 
Believe it or not she can't stop him from pursuing an unprofessional, disgusting and strategically doubtful line of questioning. I think the TV judges give people the idea that judges can do these things. :)

I see.......so making up complete and total fabrications of the facts is okay in our court of law ? There is absolutely NOTHING to back up Jodi's allegations when it comes to the little boy thing. Her and Nurmi just dreamed that up for shock value, and we all know it. It isn't relevant at all, and it is most likely completely untrue anyway. It's hearsay based on the word of a known liar.

It should have never been allowed.
 
As a juror, the effect that DT tactic would have on me would be blue fury. It makes it look like they'd turn anything, no matter how innocent/trivial, into an implication of wrongdoing on Travis' part. I wouldn't take anything that witness said seriously after that, and I'd be insulted and angry that they tried it.

Jehovah's Witnesses tried to witness to my son when he was a preteen. He answered the door and they just started in on him. I told them that I thought it was inappropriate for them to say those things to a minor child without a parent's consent/presence (I was in the other room when he called me to the door). By DT and Dr. Fonseca's "standards", I suppose that someone hearing my words to them could now accuse them of being pedophiles.

Exactly. If Travis had had a Facebook page, she'd be saying, "And here we see that he clicked 'like' on a picture of a friend's little girl in a splash pool. You will notice he clicked like after 11 pm, when in my experience nobody is using Facebook. That's already an indicator of unusual sexual proclivities. But then he actually took the additional step of adding a comment, saying 'what a cutie!' This shows that Travis used terms of endearment ordinarily reserved for love interests when referring to children."
 
I really would have thought by now that at least a "rumor" about "the emergency " would be circulating.

If it was absolutely anything that benefitted this murderer it would have been leaked. The fact that it hasn't tells me it's something pretty bad and people are respecting it (although I believe if something terrible like Juan Martinez' mother died--not knowing if she's even alive--it would still be leaked and somehow blamed on him). I'm deducing from the way the media rolls in this case that something really difficult has happened in one of the major players' lives and the journalists are respecting that even if they know what it is.
 
Exactly. If Travis had had a Facebook page, she'd be saying, "And here we see that he clicked 'like' on a picture of a friend's little girl in a splash pool. You will notice he clicked like after 11 pm, when in my experience nobody is using Facebook. That's already an indicator of unusual sexual proclivities. But then he actually took the additional step of adding a comment, saying 'what a cutie!' This shows that Travis used terms of endearment ordinarily reserved for love interests when referring to children."

Yes, that is just how far this thing has gone down the rabbit hole.
 
I see.......so making up complete and total fabrications of the facts is okay in our court of law ? There is absolutely NOTHING to back up Jodi's allegations when it comes to the little boy thing. Her and Nurmi just dreamed that up for shock value, and we all know it. It isn't relevant at all, and it is most likely completely untrue anyway. It's hearsay based on the word of a known liar.

It should have never been allowed.

DINGDINGDING

This is as "fair" as making a black person drink from a different water fountain which was once deemed acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
935
Total visitors
1,098

Forum statistics

Threads
589,935
Messages
17,927,879
Members
228,005
Latest member
vigilandy
Back
Top