Jodi Arias Trial Part 2, starting with JM cross of JA

[MaryAnnDVC]

Did anyone see last Friday's In Session through to the end? I had it recorded and watched the end to see if they mention anything, and this is how Jingasaurus ended it:

"Thank you to all of our guests today. And today as we close out the week, we want to recognize all of the people who work behind the scenes, because they put YOU on the front row seat to justice. Goodbye everybody."

And then they showed clips from some of the bigger recent trials, interspersed with behind the scenes photos from the show, and each person involved in the show got their own tagline; it ended with a clip from the Jodi Arias trial...Nurmi saying "And in that tape you said that no jury would convict you, something to that effect; remember saying that?" "Yeah, I did say that." The end.

I remember people were up in arms when Vinnie Politan suddenly disappeared from Bloom & Politan. Seems to be their MO...just casually slip in major changes like they're nothing, with no explanation.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Oops. Double post.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Catherine Crier, now she was a great legal commentator!

I'm just surprised Direct/Dish/whatever doesn't have a decent channel to broadcast live trials. Then again, CourtTV went to TruTV and The Learning Channel went to Honey Boo Boo.

Catherine Crier really was. She was smart and reasonable and not into drama.

I was thinking the same thing. Instead of cutting down on live trials, I'd think there'd be a channel devoted to them.

I know, huh?...Honey Boo Boo is just the epitome of "learning" programming. Ugh.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Catherine Crier really was. She was smart and reasonable and not into drama.

I was thinking the same thing. Instead of cutting down on live trials, I'd think there'd be a channel devoted to them.

I know, huh?...Honey Boo Boo is just the epitome of "learning" programming. Ugh.

Dang that Honey Boo Boo, that is how I got my Boo Boo tag. I despise these reality shows.

 

[crz4mm2]

Dang that Honey Boo Boo, that is how I got my Boo Boo tag. I despise these reality shows.

I really hate them too.
I gave DH the remote as I was watching a movie on line.... Pawn Stars...

 

[Uncle Remus]

This cancellation of In Session via TruTV could be worse than we think it is. Isn't it TruTV that has the, for lack of a better word, contract to broadcast the trial and local affiliates (the ones we watch online) feed off that broadcast. If TruTV decided to pull the plug on broadcasting these trials (In Session), I wonder what the incentive is for them to continue to broadcast the entire trial or future trials via the feeds (local affiliates)?

 

[crz4mm2]

This cancellation of In Session via TruTV could be worse than we think it is. Isn't it TruTV that has the, for lack of a better word, contract to broadcast the trial and local affiliates (the ones we watch online) feed off that broadcast. If TruTV decided to pull the plug on broadcasting these trials (In Session), I wonder what the incentive is for them to continue to broadcast the entire trial or future trials via the feeds (local affiliates)?

I agree. It is nuts that they have "decided" to stop the trial coverage..
I don't know what we can do about it other than go to the live feeds.

 

[reelmom]

I read on another site where Beth Karas said she thought that HLN would show the live afternoon testimony. So at least we will have that. Or part of it since there are so many commercials.

Another thing about re-cross. According to an article on Criminal Law of Arizona Judicial Branch, there is a possibility that Juan Martinez could have the opportunity of re-cross. I have pasted what it says. I bolded the part about re-cross.

may choose not to give an opening statement.

Witnesses

The prosecuting attorney will begin the case by calling witnesses and asking them questions. This is direct examination.

Witnesses in all trials take an oath or affirmation that what they say in court is true. All trial evidence, including testimony and physical evidence such as documents, weapons or articles of clothing, must be acceptable as defined by the Arizona Rules of Evidence before it can be admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. The judge decides what evidence and testimony is admissible under the rules.

In a criminal trial, the prosecuting attorney presents evidence and testimony of witnesses to try to prove the defendant committed the crime. The attorney for the defendant may present evidence and witnesses to show that the defendant did not commit the crime or to create a reasonable doubt as to the defendants guilt. The defendant is considered innocent of the crime charged until proven guilty.

When the prosecutions side has completed its questioning of a witness, the defense is allowed to cross-examine the witness on any relevant matter.

After cross-examination, the attorney who originally called the witness may ask additional questions of the witness to clarify something touched on in the cross-examination. This is redirect examination. The judge may allow an opportunity for the opposing attorney to recross examine.

When the plaintiff or prosecution has called all the witnesses for its side of the case and presented all its evidence, that side rests its case.

At this point, the defendants attorney may ask the court to decide the case in the defendants favor because the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney did not present sufficient evidence to prove the case against the defendant. This is called a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.

If the judge agrees that there is not enough evidence to rule against the defendant, the judge rules in favor of the defendant and the case ends.

If a judgment of acquittal is not requested, or if the request is denied, the defense may present evidence for its side of the case. The attorney for the defense often waits until this point in the trial to make an opening statement.

The defense may choose not to present evidence, as it is not required to do so. Remember, the defendant in a criminal case is not required to prove innocence. The prosecution is required to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the defense does present a case and call witnesses, the same rules and procedures that governed presentation of evidence by the prosecution now apply to evidence presented by the defense.

At the conclusion of the defendants case, the prosecutor may present additional information to respond to evidence offered by the defense. Following this, the defense is given another opportunity to present additional evidence on the defendants behalf.


Hopefully, the judge will allow him to re-cross. Here is a link to the article

http://www.azcourts.gov/PublicServices/CriminalLaw.aspx

 

[Uncle Remus]

This cancellation of In Session via TruTV could be worse than we think it is. Isn't it TruTV that has the, for lack of a better word, contract to broadcast the trial and local affiliates (the ones we watch online) feed off that broadcast. If TruTV decided to pull the plug on broadcasting these trials (In Session), I wonder what the incentive is for them to continue to broadcast the entire trial or future trials via the feeds (local affiliates)?

I agree. It is nuts that they have "decided" to stop the trial coverage..
I don't know what we can do about it other than go to the live feeds.

But what I mean is I think HLN or TruTV are the ones controlling the main broadcast feed. And that unless HLN/TruTV contracted with some other independent broadcast company and the feeds that we watch have also contracted with that company for broadcast, that we may not have any live internet feeds to watch.

I read on another site where Beth Karas said she thought that HLN would show the live afternoon testimony. So at least we will have that. Or part of it since there are so many commercials.

Another thing about re-cross. According to an article on Criminal Law of Arizona Judicial Branch, there is a possibility that Juan Martinez could have the opportunity of re-cross. I have pasted what it says. I bolded the part about re-cross.

may choose not to give an opening statement.

Witnesses

The prosecuting attorney will begin the case by calling witnesses and asking them questions. This is direct examination.

Witnesses in all trials take an oath or affirmation that what they say in court is true. All trial evidence, including testimony and physical evidence such as documents, weapons or articles of clothing, must be acceptable as defined by the Arizona Rules of Evidence before it can be admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. The judge decides what evidence and testimony is admissible under the rules.

In a criminal trial, the prosecuting attorney presents evidence and testimony of witnesses to try to prove the defendant committed the crime. The attorney for the defendant may present evidence and witnesses to show that the defendant did not commit the crime or to create a reasonable doubt as to the defendants guilt. The defendant is considered innocent of the crime charged until proven guilty.

When the prosecutions side has completed its questioning of a witness, the defense is allowed to cross-examine the witness on any relevant matter.

After cross-examination, the attorney who originally called the witness may ask additional questions of the witness to clarify something touched on in the cross-examination. This is redirect examination. The judge may allow an opportunity for the opposing attorney to recross examine.

When the plaintiff or prosecution has called all the witnesses for its side of the case and presented all its evidence, that side rests its case.

At this point, the defendants attorney may ask the court to decide the case in the defendants favor because the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney did not present sufficient evidence to prove the case against the defendant. This is called a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.

If the judge agrees that there is not enough evidence to rule against the defendant, the judge rules in favor of the defendant and the case ends.

If a judgment of acquittal is not requested, or if the request is denied, the defense may present evidence for its side of the case. The attorney for the defense often waits until this point in the trial to make an opening statement.

The defense may choose not to present evidence, as it is not required to do so. Remember, the defendant in a criminal case is not required to prove innocence. The prosecution is required to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the defense does present a case and call witnesses, the same rules and procedures that governed presentation of evidence by the prosecution now apply to evidence presented by the defense.

At the conclusion of the defendants case, the prosecutor may present additional information to respond to evidence offered by the defense. Following this, the defense is given another opportunity to present additional evidence on the defendants behalf.


Hopefully, the judge will allow him to re-cross. Here is a link to the article

http://www.azcourts.gov/PublicServices/CriminalLaw.aspx

I hope Beth Karas is right coz in that case what I said above won't matter and we should have our internet feeds.

And I ran across this on Joey Jackson's Fans Facebook:

"There is no right to recross unless some new issue arises in redirect. State v. Reinhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 587, 951 P.2d 454, 462 (1997). When new issues arise in redirect, the trial court in its discretion may permit the recross. "

As I recall Beth Karas also said this.

 

[PizzieDuster]

On Beth's FB page (her post dated today) - someone posted a petition to keep the trial coverage going on InSession channel. I signed it. I received a thank you email from the gal who put it together. 1570 people signed it.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

This cancellation of In Session via TruTV could be worse than we think it is. Isn't it TruTV that has the, for lack of a better word, contract to broadcast the trial and local affiliates (the ones we watch online) feed off that broadcast. If TruTV decided to pull the plug on broadcasting these trials (In Session), I wonder what the incentive is for them to continue to broadcast the entire trial or future trials via the feeds (local affiliates)?

So are you saying the livestreaming could go too? I can't help thinking that there must be a big enough market for trials to have access to it in some way. No? Think of the biggie trials they've had, and what's to come...George Zimmerman, for one, and no doubt some other crazy assed stuff will be happening with all the nuts out there.

I read on another site where Beth Karas said she thought that HLN would show the live afternoon testimony. So at least we will have that. Or part of it since there are so many commercials.

Another thing about re-cross. According to an article on Criminal Law of Arizona Judicial Branch, there is a possibility that Juan Martinez could have the opportunity of re-cross. I have pasted what it says. I bolded the part about re-cross.

I wonder if HLN will devote more time than it has to this trial, now that it will be the major TV access, at least to get people through to the conclusion. Seems kind of unfair to leave people hanging; not everyone has computer access.

As far as the re-cross, I'm trying to remember how it was done in the Casey Anthony trial, or other trials, altho I'm guessing it varies by state. I thought that in the CA trial at least, when the defense, for example, called a witness, there was direct examination by the defense lawyers, then the prosecutors did the cross, and then the defense could go back and ask questions and then the prosecution could ask questions only to the extent that the defense asked questions second time around. Yes, I do know that that sounded extremely layperson-ish.

 

[PebblesMK]

Has anybody watched or heard of the Wendi Adriano trial? I was reading that JM questioned her and she was very much the same as Jodi.

ETA: Reading comments from http://wildabouttrial.com/photos-from-the-travis-alexander-murder-case-graphic/ , and this comment made me wonder...didn't she say a few times "we" when talking about the drive?

She finds the baddest *** in Yreka, gets him hooked with her on sex. Starts telling him about this TA whos done her wrong. They agree to do it. She fills cans to obscure her travels, forgets? about the odometer. Has the killer, whos driven with her, wait in the park across street, and has sex with TA until sure other room mates have left. Knows TA always takes shower after sex. Gets him in shower, opens door for killer whos been waiting in park across street for her call, he attacks TA. TA runs bleeding to hallway, he finishes stabbing TA there, drags body back to shower & slits throat. They clean up & leave. Bad guy tells her if she ever fingers him hell kill her entire family,as he knows where they live. She is certain he would. She cops a battered woman plea , which isnt working.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Per Beth Karas on FB:
Many viewers have questions and comments about In Session's new programming, effective March 4. Please direct them to insession.viewercomments@turner.com .

Petition:
https://www.change.org/petitions/turner-broadcasting-keep-in-session-live-trials-8-hours-a-day?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

 

[Uncle Remus]

So are you saying the livestreaming could go too? I can't help thinking that there must be a big enough market for trials to have access to it in some way. No? Think of the biggie trials they've had, and what's to come...George Zimmerman, for one, and no doubt some other crazy assed stuff will be happening with all the nuts out there. I wonder if HLN will devote more time than it has to this trial, now that it will be the major TV access, at least to get people through to the conclusion. Seems kind of unfair to leave people hanging; not everyone has computer access.

As far as the re-cross, I'm trying to remember how it was done in the Casey Anthony trial, or other trials, altho I'm guessing it varies by state. I thought that in the CA trial at least, when the defense, for example, called a witness, there was direct examination by the defense lawyers, then the prosecutors did the cross, and then the defense could go back and ask questions and then the prosecution could ask questions only to the extent that the defense asked questions second time around. Yes, I do know that that sounded extremely layperson-ish.

I know, I know, what happened to profiting off of other's woes in this country?

I don't know who has that right (contract) to have those cameras in the court room, I thought it was TruTV/HLN (actually the old CourtTV) so yes, if they aren't making money off of it, why would they continue to be in the court room with cameras? Unless they get some monetary compensation from local stations and internet broadcasts that want to pay for it, it doesn't make sense.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Just watching the CNN special, I just realized that Det Flores said she reported a gun stolen.

 

[PebblesMK]

Fact: the only bad things said about Travis come from the mouth of a pathological liar
Fact: she altered the crime scene and secreted evidence.
Fact: she stalked every boyfriend she ever had
Fact: matt McCarthy was her accomplice in forgery
Fact: her ex Bobby Juarez was murdered five days prior to her arrest. With 9mm
fact: she was arrested attempting to leave town in possession of 9mm

Fact: she is a person of interest in that case

Anybody heard any of this??

 

[usnuzuloose]

Fact: the only bad things said about Travis come from the mouth of a pathological liar
Fact: she altered the crime scene and secreted evidence.
Fact: she stalked every boyfriend she ever had
Fact: matt McCarthy was her accomplice in forgery
Fact: her ex Bobby Juarez was murdered five days prior to her arrest. With 9mm
fact: she was arrested attempting to leave town in possession of 9mm

Fact: she is a person of interest in that case

Anybody heard any of this??

when was he murdered? Where did you read this? I knew about being arrested with a gun. But this other murder, when did this occur?

 

[PebblesMK]

when was he murdered? Where did you read this? I knew about being arrested with a gun. But this other murder, when did this occur?

If that information is true, it would have been July 2008- 5 days before her arrest.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Fact: the only bad things said about Travis come from the mouth of a pathological liar
Fact: she altered the crime scene and secreted evidence.
Fact: she stalked every boyfriend she ever had
Fact: matt McCarthy was her accomplice in forgery
Fact: her ex Bobby Juarez was murdered five days prior to her arrest. With 9mm
fact: she was arrested attempting to leave town in possession of 9mm

Fact: she is a person of interest in that case

Anybody heard any of this??

when was he murdered? Where did you read this? I knew about being arrested with a gun. But this other murder, when did this occur?

It's from wildabouttrials.com, but another Pro Travis site posted it's not the same Bobby Juarez, compared pictures of both men.

If that information is true, it would have been July 2008- 5 days before her arrest.

I hope the above helps you sleep and not have any nightmares tonight, Pebbles.

 

[usnuzuloose]

It's from wildabouttrials.com, but another Pro Travis site posted it's not the same Bobby Juarez, compared pictures of both men.



I hope the above helps you sleep and not have any nightmares tonight, Pebbles.

I see a Bobby Juarez in San Diego that was murdered in 08 and they have pictures of someone in his drive way as a person of interest.