Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 7

[Hatfield]

If the court sides with the Judge then expect more sealed testimony. Witnesses like Demarte might want to refer to this secret witness' testimony , Juan himself may use it in his closing. So we're looking at a lot of sealed information. If the court rules in favour of the media then expect lots of tantrums and drama from the Defense. Interesting--or should I say exhausting day ahead of us.

Good Points. This really is a big deal because of all the ramifications. The whole rest of the case will be impacted just like you mentioned.
Not just this trial but I am willing to bet if this is allowed here, then others will try this in other trials.

Its the whole principle of the thing that bothers me. We cannot allow our constitution to be trampled on.
Are public trials going to become private just because of JA? I sure hope not.

 

[MeeBee]

Didnt the media request an immediate stay from the appeals court?

I am not sure if the trial can continue or not.

The media asked for a stay from the judge of the secret testimony while they appeal. Neither side wanted one and Nurmi said he could not call witnesses out of order so she said no. The trial moves forward. It would have anyway.

 

[Ruby]

I understand about the may or may not have media coverage - and that is up to the judge with valid reason.

But to not allow the general public, is really going overboard and in my opinion unconstitutional -
but I am not a lawyer nor a judge to know better :dunno:

I do hope the appellate courts rule that the public can be allowed - maybe having no media recording devices can be the compromise.

 

[bsk]

Can someone clarify the whole Karp business? I'm confused since some of my memory from the original trail is, well, in a fog.

As I read it here, the DT wants to keep her out because she'll out JA as lying to other 'experts' like Samuels and ALV. But that makes no sense to me - if she told Karp there was lots more abuse, then why couldn't she use that to her benefit and say she lied to others because "The Fog Part 2" rolled in or whatever excuse she can come up with. More abuse = better for her doesn't it?

I must be missing something. It seems pretty well established that she is a liar already, so it doesn't seem like more evidence of that will add anything to the state's case.

 

[Love Never Fails]

So far, no word on the courtroom being open for today's proceedings?

Maybe we are all overreacting. Maybe we think we have rights that we don't actually have. We all know the defendant has rights up the wazoo...but people who are enraged by brutal murder and demand justice are considered oglers, vindictive and out for revenge. And then court is closed because all that makes a killer too uncomfortable to elaborate on some already impressive lies.

So go ahead appeals court and side with this killer. Let her have her way and the citizens will step back, having been duly put in their place. Let's just conduct all court proceedings in private so no one has to feel uncomfortable when asked to answer for their deeds. In fact, our entire government could just go underground and leave the citizens out completely--why not--it serves us right for expecting to be part of something that apparently we have no real rights to be a part of.

Carry on in secret, JSS. Oh, don't forget to keep the verdict under seal. We know you would not want the convicted murderer feeling like anyone might gloat.

You have spoken well for all of us.

 

[hindsight2020]

I do not think JM wants a delay. He seems to want to move forward and did not object to it being closed. That should tell us something. jmo

I don't think Juan objected to a stay as well. . . .and if it means that a closed court will speed things up and less shenanigans, then I am all for it. I don't like it because our Constitution states trials are meant to be public, and all citizens, not just the media but the public as well, should be able to witness our judicial system in action, but it is what it is.

 

[geevee]

Are we all go for usual time today?

'Morning Josie, Daylight Saving Time ended here so AZ is an hour earlier than it was on Friday.

ETA: Wait a sec, you're in Scotland so maybe the time is the same for you?

 

[MeeBee]

I don't think Juan objected to a stay as well. . . .and if it means that a closed court will speed things up and less shenanigans, then I am all for it. I don't like it because our Constitution states trials are meant to be public, and all citizens, not just the media but the public as well, should be able to witness our judicial system in action, but it is what it is.

We don't know if Juan objected or not to the media being kicked out. And I think Juan didn't necessarily object to the stay, but he made it clear he was not in favor of it so declined to make an argument. The family clearly told him please no more delays at all, we're so ready to be done.

 

[geevee]

We don't know if Juan objected or not to the media being kicked out. And I think Juan didn't necessarily object to the stay, but he made it clear he was not in favor of it so declined to make an argument. The family clearly told him please no more delays at all, we're so ready to be done.

There were tweets that JM objected to the stay, saying the case for 6 years old and he didn't want further delays.

ETA:
William Pitts ‏@william_pitts · Oct 31
Martinez is opposing a stay because the case is 6 years old. #JodiArias @12news

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · Oct 31
Martinez: "This case is over six years old and the family wants to get thie case done." #JodiArias

 

[Love Never Fails]

I do not think JM wants a delay. He seems to want to move forward and did not object to it being closed. That should tell us something. jmo

Juan Martinez is a good prosecutor but all this tells me is that he is a part of the system and the system is locking out our first amendment rights, regardless of his reasonings.

 

[MeeBee]

'Morning Josie, Daylight Saving Time ended here so AZ is an hour earlier than it was on Friday.

ETA: Wait a sec, you're in Scotland so maybe the time is the same for you?

AZ doesn't observe DLS time I think so it's actually an hour later. For instance, central time is now an hour ahead instead of two hours.

 

[blefuscu]

'Morning Josie, Daylight Saving Time ended here so AZ is an hour earlier than it was on Friday.

ETA: Wait a sec, you're in Scotland so maybe the time is the same for you?

Our clocks went back in October so I think it will be an hour earlier than usual for us here in the UK.

 

[MeeBee]

There were tweets that JM objected to the stay, saying the case for 6 years old and he didn't want further delays.

I heard that but I don't know if made an official objection or just made that comment. When the judge asked the sides whether they objected or not, Juan had nothing to say. But still, we're saying the same thing. He doesn't want it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It must not be as easy as we think. She already spent one jury.

I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately everyone isn't as quick to hand out the DP as I would be in a case where confession is involved.

If there isn't another stealth juror on this particular case (and I do believe the Foreman was one) then this decision shouldn't be hard.

If the jurors truly told the truth and can apply the death penalty if it is warranted in this case then they should recommend she be put to death.

The decision that death is the appropriate and just punishment should be based on these factors. 1) The planning and aforethought that went into the premeditation before it was carried out. 2) The cruel and heinous sub-human nature in which the defendant murdered the victim. 3) The aftermath where the defendant not only hasn't shown one bit of remorse but has also told countless lies to re-victimize the victim for their own personal gain.

What should be excluded, imo. is the gender of the murderer and even the gender of her victim. The premeditation/crime/ and what she has done afterwards should only be weighed when coming to a decision.

I have seen other death penalty cases that didn't have nearly this much solid evidence in it and death was given. There is no need for a confession when the insurmountable evidence shows guilt beyond all doubt as it does in this case. The only reason JA finally had to admit she killed Travis is she couldn't refute the evidence showing she did. Until then it was 'you need to look at the roommate' 'I wasn't there' 'the ninjas did it' and then on to 'Travis made me do it.' She changed her story because she knew the evidence showed she indeed was the guilty one.

I have been on a jury that was a death penalty case and when I was asked if the evidence supported death could I consider it and I truly meant what I said when I told them that I could. I would never ever lie to the court knowing all along I couldn't vote a verdict of death if it was supported by evidence, and not one of my fellow jurors, lied either.

So if these jurors are also honest and look at the aggravating factors in this case they will know hands down the aggravating factors far outweigh any foolish mitigating factors trumped up by JA and the DT.

In fact, imo, personally, I have seen that juries don't like it when the defendant doesn't take full responsibility for their own actions but instead tries to make excuses why they did such a hideous thing to another human being. What we do see if the defendant is a female that excuse is tried in just about every case. It is like females in the justice system have a tattoo on their butt that says 'oh don't forget the abuse excuse.' Gahh, I am so sick of it. None of this would even be brought up if she was a male defendant and over 750K men a year call 911 because they were being abused by a female domestic partner. Just like Travis should have called and reported his abuser and stalker but men are the least likely to report DV when the predator is a female.


The thing the jury needs to keep in mind, and any DV expert will say this, the last thing an abused victim will do is travel 1000 miles to be with the abuser that is no longer around them. When someone is really abused when the abuser either moves away or the victim does is the first sigh of relief they have had during the entire abusive relationship.

But what they also need to keep in mind is when a truly abused victim (Travis) finally gets to the point they cant take the abuse any longer and tells their abuser to leave them the hell alone it is the most dangerous time in that victim's life. Travis is proof of what can and does happen when they finally have the courage to tell their victimizer 'no more' and 6 days later Travis Alexander was slaughtered.... just like so many victims of DV have been and will be in the future.

 

[Hatfield]

I understand about the may or may not have media coverage - and that is up to the judge with valid reason.

But to not allow the general public, is really going overboard and in my opinion unconstitutional -
but I am not a lawyer nor a judge to know better :dunno:

I do hope the appellate courts rule that the public can be allowed - maybe having no media recording devices can be the compromise.

That is a good logical compromise if anything is disallowed. Why throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the judge could allow the public back in and just ask to have all phones turned off.

I think in other trials it was asked of the viewers to be sure to keep phones off. Ive seen examples of that when people forget to put their phones on mute and judge got mad.

 

[geevee]

I heard that but I don't know if made an official objection or just made that comment. When the judge asked the sides whether they objected or not, Juan had nothing to say. But still, we're saying the same thing. He doesn't want it.

I edited my post to add the two tweets I saw, JM did object but it's really neither here nor there as JSS denied the stay motion. I do think as an emergency appeal the court will hear it soon, where did the 25th date come from, do you know?

 

[MeeBee]

Well, I guess if Juan opposes a stay, then it's an objection. So yeah.

ETA: yes, we're still saying the same thing. I did already see the tweet about him saying the family is waiting 6 years. That's what I mean by obviously the family told him no delays.

 

[MeeBee]

I believe it was AZLawyer who reported the November 25th date.

ETA: yes, it was.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...di-Arias-Day-6-Part-3&p=11159140#post11159140

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Bringing over YESorNO's List of Tweeters:

Originally Posted by YESorNO (As far as I know) Tweeting Live #jodiarias


Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq

Monica Lindstrom ‏@monicalindstrom

Dave Erickson ‏@ericksonvision

Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial

Katie Conner ‏@KatieJConner

KTAR News on 92.3 ‏@KTAR923

AZ Family ‏@azfamily


ETA:

Court: Monday - Thursday

Days off:

Wednesday - October 29th

Monday - November 10th

Tuesday- November 11th

Thursday and Friday - November 26th and 27th (Thanksgiving)


NO Court on Friday.



Please add any additional tweeters ! TIA !

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I would hope the appellate court would take this case immediately, they know how much it is costing and are as aware as everyone what a circus it has become, MOO, hopefully they would get this moving asap one way or another to avoid a mistrial , or huge delay.

:seeya: I hope so too !

But on the other hand, nothing would surprise me when it comes to this trial ... nothing !

:moo: