Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 6 - Part 3

[Hope4More]

Beth's thoughts don't make sense to me as is.

It had to be CMJA 's decision to take the stand. Couldnt force her to or prevent her from doing so.

 

[neesaki]

:blushing: Sorry! Enough reading for me! My eyes are getting blurry... well, the right eye is, anyway.

If, indeed, it was JA on the stand, I'm betting Nurmi will attribute the "3 leaks" to TA's family!

Yes, so team CMJA can then ask for a mistrial ? Is that what all of this high drama, secret witness, big to do is all about? A DT ruse, a game to create conditions ripe for grounds for a mistrial ?

 

[DexterMorgan]

I blame the judge for not making the decision when the jury was deadlocked on the sentencing. The burden should not have been passed to another jury when the 200k a year judge could have just given the sentence. Does'nt the jury just reccomend and then its up to the judge. Why are we still dealing with this? I blame the judge and not the original jury.

 

[AZlawyer]

The stumbling into the courtroom thing is possible, actually, because IIRC there are two courtrooms on that floor, with courtroom numbers on them but not judges' names, and you could open the wrong door. The doors wouldn't be locked and there are no guards at the door. JSS could have instructed her bailiff to stand by the door but I doubt it would occur to her to do so. But then how would there have been THREE sources for the story?

 

[AZlawyer]

I blame the judge for not making the decision when the jury was deadlocked on the sentencing. The burden should not have been passed to another jury when the 200k a year judge could have just given the sentence. Does'nt the jury just reccomend and then its up to the judge. Why are we still dealing with this? I blame the judge and not the original jury.

No, she could not have done that. The AZ statutes provide for a second sentencing trial (by a jury) if the first jury is deadlocked.

ETA: And no, the jury's decision is not just a recommendation.

 

[krkrjx]

I was reading some posts on the last page of the last thread. Some think maybe Jodi is telling this jury how much she loved Travis (just wanted to stop his pedophilia, etc) but she never wanted to hurt him.

At what point did she think it didn't hurt? After the first stab, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and so on? Or maybe when she slit his throat she REALLY didn't want to hurt him? Or maybe it was that gun shot to his head. Ouch, that wouldn't hurt too much. I mean. Come on. She never wanted to hurt him but she thinks he deserved it, right?

Picture yourself as a juror who honestly knows nothing of this crime, which is unbelievable in itself. Would you believe the murderer (who has already been found guilty of murder with aggravating cruelty) if she said she never wanted to hurt Travis? Ok, let's say she believed her own lies of pedophilia, why not go to the police? Do you kill someone because you are concerned? Crap!

This was nothing more than a low life, scheming, conniving murderer who was jealous and enraged that Travis was not going to marry her. There is no goodness in her. Nothing redeemable. The jury will see it.

Of course she hurt him, over and over and over. And then again long after his death, she hurt him over and over. And she knows she hurt him, and fully intended to hurt him. But she will testify otherwise...put on a huge act of contrition for the jury so they think she the victim of circumstance and was forced to kill him (defend herself) and then speak ill of him in court (had and continues to have no choice as her life is on the line).

Jodi knows it hurts to be stabbed. And she didn't care one bit about having to speak ill of Travis to save herself--in fact I think she relished it. But again...she will testify otherwise.

Chance are at least one juror will fall for it. Hopefully the sane ones on the panel can talk some sense into them.

JMO.

 

[RR0004]

The stumbling into the courtroom thing is possible, actually, because IIRC there are two courtrooms on that floor, with courtroom numbers on them but not judges' names, and you could open the wrong door. The doors wouldn't be locked and there are no guards at the door. JSS could have instructed her bailiff to stand by the door but I doubt it would occur to her to do so. But then how would there have been THREE sources for the story?

Die-hard media hanging out in the hallway?

 

[Mindmatters]

I think you mean the right of the defendant to a fair trial. Yes, this would have to be the analysis, but then the question is how does allowing JA to testify in secret protect her right to a fair trial? There has to be something more than just "I want to."

No, what I wrote was accurate. The reference was not "right of defendant to a fair trial", it was the right to testify. Thank you for weighing in. Yes, to me it is common sense that she doesn't have to testify therefore she has no right to demand special treatment. Just curious, do the rules of testimony, evidence, etc... vary greatly or provide different protections for the accused between the guilt and sentencing phases? Thank you so much for your insight.

 

[Hope4More]

The stumbling into the courtroom thing is possible, actually, because IIRC there are two courtrooms on that floor, with courtroom numbers on them but not judges' names, and you could open the wrong door. The doors wouldn't be locked and there are no guards at the door. JSS could have instructed her bailiff to stand by the door but I doubt it would occur to her to do so. But then how would there have been THREE sources for the story?

You doubt it would occur to her to have someone guard the door? Of a super secret hearing, the legal basis of which was already being contested by attorneys ?

I don't know which would be more shocking. That it didn't occur to her, or that the story of seeing CMJA is false and meant to protect a source. Three sources.

 

[AZlawyer]

No, what I wrote was accurate. The reference was not "right of defendant to a fair trial", it was the right to testify. Thank you for weighing in. Yes, to me it is common sense that she doesn't have to testify therefore she has no right to demand special treatment. Just curious, do the rules of testimony, evidence, etc... vary greatly or provide different protections for the accused between the guilt and sentencing phases? Thank you so much for your insight.

The rules of evidence are semi-suspended for this phase. However, the defendant has no extra special rights in this phase that come to mind.

 

[DexterMorgan]

No, she could not have done that. The AZ statutes provide for a second sentencing trial (by a jury) if the first jury is deadlocked.

ETA: And no, the jury's decision is not just a recommendation.

Okay you maybe right. But that is a heavy burden on people who maybe church goers or just people whom no longer find themselves able to vote for death . But as long as the judge can sleep better at night.

 

[Nosey Parker]

The stumbling into the courtroom thing is possible, actually, because IIRC there are two courtrooms on that floor, with courtroom numbers on them but not judges' names, and you could open the wrong door. The doors wouldn't be locked and there are no guards at the door. JSS could have instructed her bailiff to stand by the door but I doubt it would occur to her to do so. But then how would there have been THREE sources for the story?

Mum, brother and sister, as per Arias' previous instructions. Oops - IMO

 

[LambChop]

The stumbling into the courtroom thing is possible, actually, because IIRC there are two courtrooms on that floor, with courtroom numbers on them but not judges' names, and you could open the wrong door. The doors wouldn't be locked and there are no guards at the door. JSS could have instructed her bailiff to stand by the door but I doubt it would occur to her to do so. But then how would there have been THREE sources for the story?

I believe there were two tweets. One was from her favorite reporter and another was reported by Katie as a JA supporter. Of course, she would have to share that information with her supporters. LOL This is a guess on my part. jmo

 

[Hope4More]

If that door wasn't guarded, it was really her on the stand, and Nurmi wins a mistrial because that info was leaked, JSS should be removed from the bench.

 

[AZlawyer]

You doubt it would occur to her to have someone guard the door? Of a super secret hearing, the legal basis of which was already being contested by attorneys ?

I don't know which would be more shocking. That it didn't occur to her, or that the story of seeing her is false and meant to protect a source. Three sources.

I'm just saying, normally when you kick everyone out of the courtroom (which does happen albeit rarely), you don't expect them to try to come back in, and she might not have thought of the possibility of an accidental "peeker." And normally an accidental "peeker" makes no difference because noone other than the people kicked out care about the case lol, so there's no concern about them reporting what they see. And normally you're not worried about what anyone sees, but only what they hear... so I'm just saying it's possible.

It's also totally possible that this is a cover story for the source(s).

 

[AZlawyer]

If that door wasn't guarded, it was really her on the stand, and Nurmi wins a mistrial because that info was leaked, JSS should be removed from the bench.

I just can't fathom that JA is the secret witness, even if she was on the stand for some unknown period of time (e.g. for foundation testimony). And I can't imagine JSS giving her a mistrial for that information being leaked, if none of the actual testimony is leaked. And I can't imagine the AZ Ct App overturning JSS for not granting a mistrial for this trivial piece of information being leaked.

 

[Mindmatters]

AZLawyer thanks again. So if the rules of evidence are different, could the basis for the DT argument be that she now has "evidence" that could save her life thus the Judge feels that to protect JA's right to a fair sentencing--because she JA refused, threw a fit, lied, whatever it is that she did--warranted the actions she took. Also, many have speculated that JSS's unprecedented decision was made to ensure failure of future appeals, what do you think about this possibility? TIA

 

[Love Never Fails]

If she needed to provide foundation for someone else's testimony. For example, to say, "Yes, I hear this person's voice on the phone and I recognize it as being Mr. X. Mr. X knew me [and Travis?] because [of whatever reason] and was in a position to observe [him/me/us] blah blah blah."

Makes more sense to me. Thank you.

 

[Hope4More]

I'm just saying, normally when you kick everyone out of the courtroom (which does happen albeit rarely), you don't expect them to try to come back in, and she might not have thought of the possibility of an accidental "peeker." And normally an accidental "peeker" makes no difference because noone other than the people kicked out care about the case lol, so there's no concern about them reporting what they see. And normally you're not worried about what anyone sees, but only what they hear... so I'm just saying it's possible.

It's also totally possible that this is a cover story for the source(s).

Normally. But nothing about that day was normal. It was gross negligence if she allowed a random person roaming the hallway to undo her extraordinary work of taking the trial underground.

I'm voting for protecting a source, which I find equally appalling as those three sources had to be connected to the DT.

 

[Nali87]

So basically Azlawyer, you just can't imagine it being JA because there would be no legal basis for JSS to grant such request?

Does she have a reputation for doing stuff like this or would this be totally out of character for her?