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

[BritsKate]

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.

During voir dire, if a juror expresses a concern they could not, would not, vote for the death penalty for whatever reason, to include moral or religious objections, they are disqualified and excused from service. Jurors must be what's termed death penalty qualified - able and willing to sentence someone to death if they conclude the legal hurdles have been met, such as aggravating factors. Not that they will, but that they can.

Because of Arizona law, the judge has little to with determining JA's sentence at this point. However, if this jury is also unable to reach a conclusion, she must sentence Jodi to life, with or without parole. Every state that still uses capital punishment has different rules regarding the process.

IIRC, that is. Been awhile since this case was 'fresh' in my head. HTH

 

[AZlawyer]

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

No, there are too many links missing here. If she has evidence, what's the problem with showing it in the public courtroom? Refusing and throwing a fit aren't reasons. Same thing for an appeal--cases are not overturned on appeal because the defendant threw a fit and the judge did not give in--they are overturned if there is some LEGAL mistake made.

 

[Nali87]

No, there are too many links missing here. If she has evidence, what's the problem with showing it in the public courtroom? Refusing and throwing a fit aren't reasons. Same thing for an appeal--cases are not overturned on appeal because the defendant threw a fit and the judge did not give in--they are overturned if there is some LEGAL mistake made.

Maybe JSS granted this motion when she shouldn't have. That could explain it being JA even though, based on what you've been sayng, it really shouldn't be.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

Well, the only history she has that I know of is that, in THIS case, she keeps sealing things and having in-chambers meetings to the extent that it's almost impossible to believe that there are the usual good reasons for those rulings. And as for her ruling placing all bench conferences under seal before they've even happened, there is no way to justify that.

 

[Love Never Fails]

So don't tell us her explanation...but can you tell us whether she was saying it made sense legally--or just that it made sense that the people who said it was JA were telling the truth?

She feels JSS is balancing the defendants right to testify against the publics right to know and she said the ruling was extraordinary.

 

[Nali87]

Well, the only history she has that I know of is that, in THIS case, she keeps sealing things and having in-chambers meetings to the extent that it's almost impossible to believe that there are the usual good reasons for those rulings. And as for her ruling placing all bench conferences under seal before they've even happened, there is no way to justify that.

So she's very willing to seal and hide things even when there aren't any (apparently) good reasons. Seems like she'd be easy to convince to seal and hide JA's testimony as well. She's too quick to seal things, I think. And she might have gone to far this time...

 

[Mindmatters]

No, there are too many links missing here. If she has evidence, what's the problem with showing it in the public courtroom? Refusing and throwing a fit aren't reasons. Same thing for an appeal--cases are not overturned on appeal because the defendant threw a fit and the judge did not give in--they are overturned if there is some LEGAL mistake made.

After this I promise to stop asking questions, just want to understand. Is there a legal reason related to defendants with mental illness--btw I am convinced that the DT will attribute her new found remorse to MH treatment, i.e., medication, should JM introduce a demonstrated lack of remorse in last sentencing phase--that could precipate Judge Stephens' decision? I have learned a great deal from your posts, which I greatly appreciate AZlawyer.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL...say....if it was CMJA....and she needed to take the stand in order for other witnesses to testify....and refused to testify unless granted a closed court .

If she didn't testify, and therefore her expert couldn't, she couldn't put on a complete mitigation case. Would that scenario pose a legal dilemna for JSS or could she just say your choice and move on? Which she did the first time around when Nurmi threw a fit.

 

[AZlawyer]

She feels JSS is balancing the defendants right to testify against the publics right to know and she said the ruling was extraordinary.

Oh, OK. Someone had posted that she thought it made sense, and I was like, wait, didn't she go to law school? Or do I have her confused with someone else?

So she's very willing to seal and hide things even when there aren't any (apparently) good reasons. Seems like she'd be easy to convince to seal and hide JA's testimony as well. She's too quick to seal things, I think. And she might have gone to far this time...

She's definitely too quick to seal things in this case. If she sealed JA's testimony for no good reason, though, I will have to personally campaign against her when she's up on the ballot next. In 4 years I think. :banghead:

 

[Nosey Parker]

Is there any "proof" who this NZ guy is really?

No, just in general circulation that there is a Jodi-ite in NZ, who sounds screwy. What are the odds that there is a witness in NZ who is not him? It did set me to thinking though - there is a devout Arias fan in England, webmaster of one of her support groups, IIRC. This NZ thing could be pure speculation and it could be anyone, from anywhere in the world. IMO

 

[AZlawyer]

After this I promise to stop asking questions, just want to understand. Is there a legal reason related to defendants with mental illness--btw I am convinced that the DT will attribute her new found remorse to MH treatment, i.e., medication, should JM introduce a demonstrated lack of remorse in last sentencing phase--that could precipate Judge Stephens' decision? I have learned a great deal from your posts, which I greatly appreciate AZlawyer.

No, there's no legal concern there.

AZL...say....if it was CMJA....and she needed to take the stand in order for other witnesses to testify....and refused to testify unless granted a closed court .

If she didn't testify, and therefore her expert couldn't, she couldn't put on a complete mitigation case. Would that scenario pose a legal dilemna for JSS or could she just say your choice and move on? Which she did the first time around when Nurmi threw a fit.

No, there would be no legal dilemma.

 

[Spycraft]

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?

That makes me visualize a scene from The Three Stooges stacked up and peeking into a doorway.!

 

[Love Never Fails]

She feels JSS is balancing the defendants right to testify against the publics right to know and she said the ruling was extraordinary.

I went to the site and stated it just as Beth said it for you. She didn't mention a fair trial.

 

[Nali87]

After this I promise to stop asking questions, just want to understand. Is there a legal reason related to defendants with mental illness--btw I am convinced that the DT will attribute her new found remorse to MH treatment, i.e., medication, should JM introduce a demonstrated lack of remorse in last sentencing phase--that could precipate Judge Stephens' decision? I have learned a great deal from your posts, which I greatly appreciate AZlawyer.

You won't be able to keep that promise lol!
But ditto, AZlawyer. I imagine we'd all be lost without your input. Thank you!

 

[LambChop]

Well, the only history she has that I know of is that, in THIS case, she keeps sealing things and having in-chambers meetings to the extent that it's almost impossible to believe that there are the usual good reasons for those rulings. And as for her ruling placing all bench conferences under seal before they've even happened, there is no way to justify that.

So, at this point what would Jodi have to lose by throwing a fit and demanding to have the courtroom empty if she were the only mitigating witness the defense can put on? We know Nurmi told her she nothing to mitigate. What is the worst that can happen to the judge for making this decision? What bothers me is, it went from media in the video room to no media and public at all? How did that happen with no one in the judge's chambers except JM, KN, JW, JA and the Alexanders?

 

[Love Never Fails]

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, actually it was defendants "right to testify". I know. Strange. But isn't this whole trial?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If I could type what I really think of Arias I'd get banned. Suffice it to say that if Travis could tell us what he thinks of her now then he'd call her all those names again and 'beg' her for her to get the death penalty. She meant nothing to Travis. Her words mean nothing.

He called her those names because she acted just like the names he called her. If a woman wants respect they have to earn it. She really didn't care what he called her.. as long as he called her.. and as long as she thought she had a shot at trapping him. Its obvious that she loved Travis to say dirty sexual things to her. She also talked filthy yet to hear the murderess everything was Travis fault... which is a glaring trait of a sociopath... who never takes responsibility for their own actions. Its always someone else's fault and boy has she blamed everyone under the sun but herself.

I do think about the horrific words this woman has said about Travis. If Travis was alive those words would pain him as much as the knife she shoved into his chest.

Travis had tried so hard to overcome his childhood and Travis was successful in doing so.... by being kind, gentle, helpful, and the one person everyone could rely on when times were bad. Travis would be devastated beyond all belief that anyone could say such untrue hurtful things about him. And to say he was a pedophile would be the ultimate betrayal for Travis. Everyone that had children who knew Travis well for years always knew he was kind and respectful to all children. Even the mere untrue words spoken would cut Travis like a knife.

By such cruelness what JA has tried her best to do is to wipeout Travis' true legacy and wants to replace it with false allegations so horrible that it boggles the mind. She is so obsessed with him, even in death, that she wants no one to love him, admire him, or respect him. Of course that will never happen among those who really knew Travis and what he stood for but it wont be for lack of trying on the murderer's part. When she said she hated to tell what Travis had done (cough-cough) was merely another lie. Everyone was going to pay because the state refused to buckle under her threat when they wouldn't agree to second degree. She was going to show everyone what happens when she doesn't get her way, and she has certainly done that a thousand times over, and I suspect, more lies are to come.

I have said all along I could give JA the death penalty for the cruel way in which she slaughter him but I would also consider the way she has tried her level best to destroy him in death, and that would weigh heavily in my decision to vote for death if I was a juror. It would convince me beyond any doubt that she is deserving of death and nothing but death.

To me there is nothing worse than to premeditatedly murder someone...then murder them three different ways, and then compound it by also trying to destroy the victim's character. That is the epitome of evil. That is a person with a decayed dead soul with no redeeming value.

There is overkill in his death and overkill in how she now tries to destroy him after his death. I don't think I ever remember another case where the victim has been victimized as much as Travis has. I have seen defense attorneys try it but the Judge shut them down.

Travis has been on trial from the moment KN got up to speak.

IMO

 

[AZlawyer]

I went to the site and stated it just as Beth said it for you. She didn't mention a fair trial.

Thanks. I think she's saying "right to testify" but she really means "right to a fair trial." But it doesn't really matter. Either way, there's no right for a defendant to testify in secret, or without being embarrassed, or without being stared at.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Jodi has Noooooooooooooooo mitgating factors that can help her against receiving Death. So it should only take 2 days for both sides to argue on why or why not should she get the death penalty. If JA was a guy and TA was a woman; We wouldn't be discussing this. TA's family has been through enough. So the judge needs to skip the preambles and have both sides use 1 day each to sway the jury their way and then let the jury decide. Dang.

 

[Love Never Fails]

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.

You make perfect sense but unless the foreman from her guilty trial is there, the other jurors should know killing someone three times is not self defense. Driving 1000 miles to be abused makes no sense.