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

[AZlawyer]

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?

Jodi would have nothing to lose, but the judge would have nothing to lose by saying no either. Literally zero percent chance of a successful appeal on that issue.

There is a phone in chambers.

 

[Love Never Fails]

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 agree Hope.

 

[Nali87]

This ruling is insane.
It shouldn't be JA (see AZLawyers post).
It shouldn't be an expert (since they get paid and know the risk of testifying for sicko's).
It probably isn't a child (since the identity and testimony will be revealed after the verdict).
The new zealand guy sounds nuts, it probably isn't him.

That leaves who? Aunt Sue, the CFO of Jodi's Fund corporation, who everyone has seen smirking and smiling in court last year? If it's a relative - what could they have argued that would justify such a drastic action? And if it's a good reason like " I fear for my life", then when the testimony is unsealed after the veridict (in a couple of months) people are still going to find out who the person is - and threaten him or her if they want. So what would be the point to seal now, if it'll all be out in the open soon anyways?

So many questions! And by the way...
Diana had to talk about her sexlife in front of the whole world. Her testimony wasn't sealed.

 

[LambChop]

Jodi would have nothing to lose, but the judge would have nothing to lose by saying no either. Literally zero percent chance of a successful appeal on that issue.

There is a phone in chambers.

:floorlaugh: BBM: What do you think the chances are that Jodi would have a friend who was just like her?

An unknown witness could have their name changed and be blocked from public view to protect them. What bothers me, too, is JSS is saying this will all be released after the retrial is over so what are they protecting if it will be eventually revealed who is testifying?

It boggles the mind. That is why I think it is Jodi. LOL

 

[Madeleine74]

My feeling is this: If people don't make a big deal about Arias having the courtroom cleared, then it simply won't be a big deal. Let her play her games--it's all she has. The judge totally called her bluff. Okay JA, you can have a cleared courtroom. One more thing you won't be able to argue for an appeal. Fine. No biggie.

If you look at the big picture and take the long view you'll remember that in a matter of a few more months she'll be sentenced and off to Perryville. And that will be that. She'll be gone for the rest of her life... certainly gone for the rest of many posters' remaining lives since Arias is younger than many by one to three or more decades.

So no worries. None of this will ultimately matter in the long run. She's already been convicted--keep reminding yourselves of that. That was the most important outcome of this case! Worrying beyond that is wasted energy and wasted emotion, and just plays into the goal of the murderess to create drama. Don't give in to that. Yawn and carry on! IMO.

 

[Mindmatters]

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?



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:

RBBM--hwow:Oh my goodness, very sorry for not being clear. The following was in no way said by Beth, they are my thoughts; "And to be honest her rationale provided me with a perspective that actually made sense as to why the Judge made this decision. And while I am very uncomfortable with the rights of defendants becoming so absurdly over the top, it led me to accept that it just might be JA testifying."

 

[geevee]

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.

AZ - is new evidence allowed in this retrial? I thought not, so even if it were JA on the stand shrouded in this mystery media blockage, wouldn't anything she'd say have already been heard? Or are the rules for this phase so lax that new stuff that the first jury didn't hear can come in?

 

[Love Never Fails]

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?



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:

Yes IIRC, Beth said it made sense IF she was balancing the defendants right to testify withthe publics right to know. And at the end of her post, she said the ruling was extraordinary.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ - is new evidence allowed in this retrial? I thought not, so even if it were JA on the stand shrouded in this mystery media blockage, wouldn't anything she'd say have already been heard? Or are the rules for this phase so lax that new stuff that the first jury didn't hear can come in?

New evidence is definitely allowed. It's a new trial on the mitigation phase. Starting from scratch.

Yes IIRC, Beth said it made sense IF she was balancing the defendants right to testify withthe publics right to know. And at the end of her post, she said the ruling was extraordinary.

Well, see, those two thoughts seem contradictory to me. Of course the judge is balancing the defendant's rights against the public's rights. And her ruling is extraordinary, because it makes no sense. And if the witness is JA, the ruling ESPECIALLY makes no sense because there is no right of the defendant that could possibly be affected by having her testify publicly.

 

[krkrjx]

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.

How ludicrous would it be for JSS to pull out all the stops to shoo everyone out and forbid cameras because secrecy demand by the killer's attorney was determined to be valid--then neglect to ensure the door was guarded??

And yet, it would not surprise me to hear confirmation that that's exactly what happened.

Oy...I wish I still smoked.

 

[Love Never Fails]

AZlawyer, it sounds like you are as stumped about this as we are. I sure do appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter since you have a legal mind. I am furious that the killer has gotten away with so much for so long. This needs to end.

 

[Nali87]

JSS changed her mind so quickly too! She went from kicking the media out - to allowing them to stay - to kicking them out again. It doesn't seem like a well-thought-out decision.

 

[janx]

Jodi would have nothing to lose, but the judge would have nothing to lose by saying no either. Literally zero percent chance of a successful appeal on that issue.

There is a phone in chambers.

What is the chance that there might have been a fit, but also a surprise? That is, what if JA brought in some kind of law library info. or nonsense from her fans and produced it at the last minute?

The reason I ask is that based on the sketchy info. from the courtroom yesterday, the judge was vacillating for awhile. Media were told to go to the overflow room, then told they could stay, then kicked out along with members of the public.

??

There's something missing.

 

[Love Never Fails]

New evidence is definitely allowed. It's a new trial on the mitigation phase. Starting from scratch.



Well, see, those two thoughts seem contradictory to me. Of course the judge is balancing the defendant's rights against the public's rights. And her ruling is extraordinary, because it makes no sense. And if the witness is JA, the ruling ESPECIALLY makes no sense because there is no right of the defendant that could possibly be affected by having her testify publicly.

I agree. That is why I am scratching my head. I just wondered if somewhere along the way, JSS lost her bearings on this case. Guess we will all know in time. I certainly hope Juan is on top of all these shenanigans.

 

[Zuri]

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.

What if the "sources" are Alexander Family supporters who were told who testified and they leaked the info accidentally on purpose?

 

[Quester]

All I can come up with is that someone is knowingly testi-lying and would be humiliated at the thought of being publicly seen doing so. JMVHO

 

[Madeleine74]

How is any of this going to help the convicted murderess?

It can't help her.

The best she can get is life in prison.

She's toast. Has been since the day the guilty verdict was announced. No worries.

 

[LambChop]

AZL, I have another question. There was a poll just released by one of the media outlets that said 96% of the people who voted would vote for death for JA. Could she have used that against the media being excluded because she felt they might have an influence on what the jury might hear outside of court? She clearly has no intentions of ever telling the truth as far as what motivated her to kill Travis.

 

[elementary]

What are the chances she was seen on the stand but she's still not the mystery witness? Does that question even make any sense at all?

Then why was the court closed?

 

[twomanywords]

My feeling is this: If people don't make a big deal about Arias having the courtroom cleared, then it simply won't be a big deal. Let her play her games--it's all she has. The judge totally called her bluff. Okay JA, you can have a cleared courtroom. One more thing you won't be able to argue for an appeal. Fine. No biggie.

If you look at the big picture and take the long view you'll remember that in a matter of a few more months she'll be sentenced and off to Perryville. And that will be that. She'll be gone for the rest of her life... certainly gone for the rest of many posters' remaining lives since Arias is younger than many by one to three or more decades.

So no worries. None of this will ultimately matter in the long run. She's already been convicted--keep reminding yourselves of that. That was the most important outcome of this case! Worrying beyond that is wasted energy and wasted emotion, and just plays into the goal of the murderess to create drama. Don't give in to that. Yawn and carry on! IMO.

You make some great points , but my thoughts are how this affects other trials and defendants who feel the need to do this. So much has been happening in our government that seems to challenge the constitution that that is what concerns me.