Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/3 -12/04 In recess w/hearing

[MeeBee]

Nothing today. Computer/*advertiser censored* hearing is tomorrow, and then there is some hearing on Friday but I am not exactly sure what the subject is.

I think the Friday hearing will be regarding the most recent motions about the defense witnesses not testifying.

 

[bsk]

I agree with your reasoning and agree the doc was a disaster for the defense. The problem with Jodi's defense is that there isn't a defense for her actions, she plain and simple tracked Travis down and killed him. None of the mitigation testimony offered by this Doc. provides a reasonable "reason" for the brutality Jodi executed on Travis. When it is all said and done, it will be more apparent than not that she "has no excuse" for her actions, other than she is a killer.

I suspect the bright side of this is that when it goes to the AZ Supreme Court if she gets DP, they will look for errors on appeal. But I think (AZL could offer better insight) they also consider whether any errors would have had a material effect on the outcome. If JA's defense is that she was a vigilante eliminator of alleged child *advertiser censored* practitioners who happened to be ex-boyfriends, then it seems to me like they would think that whether or not some other bit of shaky so-called evidence re *advertiser censored* came in that it wouldn't matter a bit.

 

[AZlawyer]

I suspect the bright side of this is that when it goes to the AZ Supreme Court if she gets DP, they will look for errors on appeal. But I think (AZL could offer better insight) they also consider whether any errors would have had a material effect on the outcome. If JA's defense is that she was a vigilante eliminator of alleged child *advertiser censored* practitioners who happened to be ex-boyfriends, then it seems to me like they would think that whether or not some other bit of shaky so-called evidence re *advertiser censored* came in that it would matter a bit.

The appellate courts definitely consider whether errors at trial mattered to the outcome. IMO the AZ Supreme Court as currently constituted would find it was "harmless error" if some *advertiser censored* evidence didn't come in.

ETA: The hearing, of course, is not about whether *advertiser censored* evidence comes in but whether the police/prosecution destroyed evidence of child *advertiser censored*.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

The presiding judge wouldn't get involved in micromanaging the courtrooms, and I don't think JSS would ask for advice, because the answers are obvious. There are, however, periodic meetings of the capital case judges to ensure all the cases are moving along on schedule...don't know what to tell you about that.

Thank you for your reply, AND your replies to all of our never-ending questions through this process

Oh, how I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the periodic meetings re schedules..........I'd love to hear JSS' versions of events and how her brain works in describing the court status.

 

[G&AMom]

For those of you who are feeling a lot of anger and sadness about this case so far, I know how you feel. But I keep reminding myself that we are probably going to hear from more witnesses for the prosecution, primarily Dr. DeMarte.

I had a lot better sense before when we could actually watch the trial, but I'm having a hard time believing the jury put much stock in Dr. F. If I were a juror, hearing that she didn't look at the "voluminous" material but somehow just focused on the 30 or 40 documents that she somehow divined were the "kernel" of the case would have discouraged me from taking anything she said seriously. And when she told the jury not to be "distracted" by the prosecutor but listen only to the experts, I would have been done with her.

 

[tandt]

Having never been in the Alexander family's shoes in terms of this tragedy (never even close), I hope this doesn't come across rude or disrespectful at all.

I hope the family finds a point of peace in whatever happens during this trial. Should they want to just get this over and settle for LWOP, or continue to go the distance and hope for the DP. But, how heartbreaking would that be to hold out and not get what they desire?

The circus is just going too far and I can't imagine their emotions and toll on their lives. Every minute, hr, day and week that this drags on will never bring closure. Even w/ a DP verdict, the appeals will never end.

I sorta wish they would just lock her away forever-- LWOP-- and everyone will forget about her. She'll rot in prison or another prisoner will give her the DP themselves.

Sorry for the rant-- just thinking so much of the family right now.

 

[Hope4More]

Rereading BK from yesterday. At the very beginning of court she says a bailiff came out of the jury room, then handed a note to JSS, who promptly called counsel up the bench.

Hmm. A juror problem that had nothing to do with questions?

 

[Frigga]

One big thing has made me feel better about this trial, I reviewed Juan's closing statement from the first trial and I am convinced that if anyone can put the puzzle together and tie up all the strings for the jury, Juan Can.

It was really a thing of beauty, worth watching again.

Thanks ShadyLady, I'm taking your advice and going to watch it. We are all so affected right now. I am just thankful that I haven't been sent "on vacation" from here, this time around... so far. Yesterday, I came close. Off to go soothe my soul with that video. Hugs everyone.

 

[G&AMom]

You know what really gets me about Dr. F? This is what I got from her testimony:

Because Travis tried to follow his Mormon beliefs, all the struggle, problems, whatever, were caused by him. Jodi, who had no religion (that she practiced), no morals, no standards, no code of conduct, no nothing, just followed where Travis supposedly lead her. And that's fine, as far as Dr. F is concerned.

 

[ICit]

I have read a lot of chatter about court being more out of control yesterday. It was, because of the witness.

IIRC when Alyce was on the stand she was admonished by the judge several times after Juan requested it. I believe Juan wanted the jury to see how unprofessional Fonseca was behaving.
When Dr. Demarte testifies she will be seen as a professional because she is.
Alyce, Fonseca and Dr. Demarte were all paid witnesses , however only Dr. Demarte demonstrated
the demeanor and intelligence of a true professional.

Dr. Demartes confidence shows the difference between the real education she received and the unaccredited-correspondence-course degree Fonseca received.
A real professional has no need to raise their voice, avoid answering questions or behave like a child that has been caught in a lie.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Rereading BK from yesterday. At the very beginning of court she says a bailiff came out of the jury room, then handed a note to JSS, who promptly called counsel up the bench.

Hmm. A juror problem that had nothing to do with questions?

I have a hard time believing that it had to do with questions. The questions are anonymous, right? How would they have figured out so fast which juror wrote the offending question? Wouldn't that juror be summoned back to chambers and questioned? Isn't that how it worked in the first trial? I don't know - I just have a hard time figuring out a way to make the dismissal about a written anonymous question.

And don't forget too that sometime in the beginning of the trial it was reported that JA was practically giddy, smiling and chatting up Nurmi. I wonder if the juror asked to be excused for personal reasons (and was done so at the conclusion of the witness' testimony) and JA knew it was coming.

ETA: when I see posts about BK's site I realize I really should just pay the money and go over there, LOL

 

[Steve44]

Is Court dark today? I thought for some reason that a hearing had been squeezed in at the last minute. Wishful thinking?

Maybe more like a pcychotic break... Apparently they tried to get the computer genius to move his testimony from Thursday to Wednesday, but he was 'busy, busy, busy', to quote Kurt Vonnegut.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Maybe more like a pcychotic break... Apparently they tried to get the computer genius to move his testimony from Thursday to Wednesday, but he was 'busy, busy, busy', to quote Kurt Vonnegut.

Wriggly little character, isn't he? Perhaps he needs a subpoena!

 

[Hatfield]

it's always possible she could be suffering from an illness and I don' think the law can be prejudiced by disability. Maybe she is in the beginning stages of something and it can't be proven that it is hindering her judgment.

My spouse just had an interesting theory. She was wondering since she seems to favor sidebars that maybe she is not skilled enough and actually wants to hear the attorneys talk privately about their objections so it helps her to learn how to handle them properly.

That theory may have some weight when we factor in how she also likes to favor taking lots of time to make rulings. Seldom do we see her make an immediate ruling and she likes to "take things into advisement" first.

If it is related to her skillset and knowledge of how to properly handle decisions and how to properly handle the courtroom, then we should have seen other complex court cases where some of these same concerns would be raised. This is the only case I have seen her in so I have no idea how she presents herself in other complex cases.

Maybe most of all her other cases have not been as complex as this one.

 

[Quiet Time]

I must be in the minority about the jury and verdict, which is OK, I'm quite accustomed to being there.

I think she's going to get the DP. And I don't think jurors were swayed in any meaningful way, if at all.

I've really tried to put myself in their place. They were instructed that she has been convicted of premeditsted, first degree murder, and that she killed him in an especially cruel way. They have seen the photos that conclusively prove that cruelty.

They were also instructed that they MUST accept that verdict. That their job was to listen to mitigation and weigh whether or not she deserves life rather than the DP.

OK. They hear one week of recap, a very abbreviated version of what happened and who is who. Many of us thought that the recap was likely confusing to these new jurors. As in, where di we come in?

Then heartbreaking VIM's, which left every single juror crying or stunned. Awful. Reality sets in.

Imagine sitting there for what came next. The court room cleared, the murderer on the stand and then not, delays, days upon days off, attorneys up talking to the judge every few minutes. Nothing gets explained.

Then, this witness, who seems to want to only talk about sex and to speak ill of the dead, of the murder victim. For days. If they're focused on their duty they are asking themselves....what are we being told here about mitigation?

For most, I bet its beyond their comprehension that they're being told her mitigation is that the victim may or may not be a pedophile. The quack spoke almost not at all of physical abuse. It was sex sex sex and the victim's dark side , his hiding and shaming a 3 hole wonder.

They got to ask questions. IMO they asked the questions they did because they're trying to make sense of how talk of a Mormon boyfriend in a 5 month long relationship having some issues is relevant. Where is the part about her feeling sorry? Remorse? Anything?

By any objective measure that quack was a disaster for the defense, and besides a murderer, that's about all they have. JM is brilliant, he knows how to read juries, and he has to convince a jury of one single truth- that she doesn't deserve their mercy.

As long as there aren't any stealth jurors, Im actually increasingly confident she'll get the DP.

Thank you for your positive post.

 

[Wysteria]

I must be in the minority about the jury and verdict, which is OK, I'm quite accustomed to being there.

I think she's going to get the DP. And I don't think jurors were swayed in any meaningful way, if at all.

I've really tried to put myself in their place. They were instructed that she has been convicted of premeditsted, first degree murder, and that she killed him in an especially cruel way. They have seen the photos that conclusively prove that cruelty.

They were also instructed that they MUST accept that verdict. That their job was to listen to mitigation and weigh whether or not she deserves life rather than the DP.

OK. They hear one week of recap, a very abbreviated version of what happened and who is who. Many of us thought that the recap was likely confusing to these new jurors. As in, where di we come in?

Then heartbreaking VIM's, which left every single juror crying or stunned. Awful. Reality sets in.

Imagine sitting there for what came next. The court room cleared, the murderer on the stand and then not, delays, days upon days off, attorneys up talking to the judge every few minutes. Nothing gets explained.

Then, this witness, who seems to want to only talk about sex and to speak ill of the dead, of the murder victim. For days. If they're focused on their duty they are asking themselves....what are we being told here about mitigation?

For most, I bet its beyond their comprehension that they're being told her mitigation is that the victim may or may not be a pedophile. The quack spoke almost not at all of physical abuse. It was sex sex sex and the victim's dark side , his hiding and shaming a 3 hole wonder.

They got to ask questions. IMO they asked the questions they did because they're trying to make sense of how talk of a Mormon boyfriend in a 5 month long relationship having some issues is relevant. Where is the part about her feeling sorry? Remorse? Anything?

By any objective measure that quack was a disaster for the defense, and besides a murderer, that's about all they have. JM is brilliant, he knows how to read juries, and he has to convince a jury of one single truth- that she doesn't deserve their mercy.

As long as there aren't any stealth jurors, Im actually increasingly confident she'll get the DP.

Please do keep sharing your opinion. I'm glad that you feel okay with being in the minority.
Additionally, there are lots of people that are here just to read and are not members.
Maybe you are not in the minority at all.

When I read your posts, I feel calmer and relieved. Unfortunately, those feelings do last as long as I would like.

I disagree and think that this jury is going to hang. I know that we haven't heard everything yet and this portion of the case is still ongoing.

I can't shake off this bad feeling I have. One of the reasons I feel this way is due to other cases that damaged my opinion regarding juries.

I don't think though; based on some of the questions from the jury, that this jury is not as smart as you and some of the other members here.
That ^ is my greatest worry.

I think that some of the juror questions indicated that one or two of them gave the "Dr." credence and thought that she was a good witness for the truth.

I think that LWP is not and option as far as the outcome of this case.
If the decision is not the DP it will be LWOP. I will accept either of those two options, although I'd rather the DP.
As an aside I would not qualify to be a juror on a DP case, but I would have no problem with it in this particular case. (hypocritical, but I don't have the emotional maturity to handle being a part of another human beings' death).

 

[Hope4More]

Yesterday in numbers.


1. The court day lasted approx. 6 1/2 hours.
2. Of that time 2 1/2 hours were taken up with recesses, including lunch.
3. There were 23 sidebars yesterday alone. (!!!!!)
4. The longest lasted 9 minutes, the 1st of the day.

Here are the times for sidebars..

9:33, 9:45, 9:49, 9:57, 10:04 , (10 min recess), 10:20, 10:33, 11:21, 11:30, 11:33, 11:37 (?'s reviewed, then lunch), 1:49, 2:03, 2:07, 2:16, 2:28, 2:32, 2:39, 2:42 (15 min recess which lasts 40), 3:43, 3:45, 4:00, 4:08.

 

[Dmacky]

If that was true, then what's stopping her from complying with one of Nurmi 186 motions to have the death penalty dismissed? Why wouldn't she have done that a long time ago?

I just disagree. I think she thinks the death penalty is just is this case and she is doing her damnedest to make sure it sticks.

Thanks MeeBee, good post as usual.


I have a feeling that JSS "HATES" Jodi as much as we do. She has had to deal with JA a lot since the trial in 2013. JA's motions just never seem to stop.

*She had to grant JA's motion to represent herself ( to get info)
*JA then submitted another motion saying she no longer wanted to
represent herself.
*Jodi asking for a "new attorney" because she wanted Kurmi out.
*KN asking/pleading/begging numerous times to get off the case.

I really think she is "overcompensating" for fear of a mistrial.

 

[geevee]

Is Court dark today? I thought for some reason that a hearing had been squeezed in at the last minute. Wishful thinking?

Hearings tomorrow and Friday, according to azfamily.

 

[tinkabella]

Are we getting live tweets of today's hearing or will this be another secret day?