Jodi Arias Trial Part 5, starting with Violet STILLLLL rambling April 4

[BearcatsFan]

Thanks! This trial has taken over my life! I find I'm scheduling everything around the trial! Thank goodness for the weekends.

I was re-reading the recent motion for mistrial. In the motion it states:
This State of affairs has placed counsel for Ms. Arias in a position that they cannot fulfill the duties they owe Ms. Arias, pursuant Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.8.

I was curious to see what Rule 6.8 states and in summary; it states the qualifications the attorneys must have to represent a defendant in a Capital Case. Nurmi and Wilma are basically stating they don't have the experience or expertise to defend JA.

Rule 6.8

So basically, they're saying "inadequate counsel", right?

 

[Uncle Remus]

I was re-reading the recent motion for mistrial. In the motion it states:
This State of affairs has placed counsel for Ms. Arias in a position that they cannot fulfill the duties they owe Ms. Arias, pursuant Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.8.

I was curious to see what Rule 6.8 states and in summary; it states the qualifications the attorneys must have to represent a defendant in a Capital Case. Nurmi and Wilma are basically stating they don't have the experience or expertise to defend JA.

Rule 6.8

Oh, you have got to be kidding me! WTH? Willmott is DP qualified, Nurmi isn't, but Willmott is. The again, if they don't file these things, it sure opens the door to appeals later.

Thanks for that info, T-Man. Hey, have a good weekend!

Thanks! This trial has taken over my life! I find I'm scheduling everything around the trial! Thank goodness for the weekends.

Join the club!!

 

[Thumper_Man]

So basically, they're saying "inadequate counsel", right?

 

[BearcatsFan]

I was wondering how experienced Wilma was. Is she a PD like Nummy was or what? Because didn't Nummy go into private practice right before the trial started or something?

I can't keep it all straight.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I was re-reading the recent motion for mistrial. In the motion it states:
This State of affairs has placed counsel for Ms. Arias in a position that they cannot fulfill the duties they owe Ms. Arias, pursuant Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.8.

I was curious to see what Rule 6.8 states and in summary; it states the qualifications the attorneys must have to represent a defendant in a Capital Case. Nurmi and Wilma are basically stating they don't have the experience or expertise to defend JA.

Rule 6.8

Where did you hear this? But yes I was thinking earlier if Willie had done a death penalty. You need 5 years under you to try a case.

 

[Thumper_Man]

Oh, you have got to be kidding me! WTH? Willmott is DP qualified, Nurmi isn't, but Willmott is. The again, if they don't file these things, it sure opens the door to appeals later.

Thanks for that info, T-Man. Hey, have a good weekend!

Are you sure she is? She sure don't act like it.

And because of JM's behavior, we're kinda to blame as well.

Note should also be made of the fact that the conduct described above has ramifications that effect the ability of Ms. Arias to present her defense as the public response to this unprofessional conduct has involved berating witnesses via e-mail, telephone and in various internet forums.

DW is bugging me to let her know where I want to go to dinner on Sunday. Thanks. Have a good weekend as well.

 

[Thumper_Man]

Where did you hear this? But yes I was thinking earlier if Willie had done a death penalty. You need 5 years under you to try a case.

I didn't hear it. I quoted it from the recent motion for mistrial.

Here it is again: Recent Motion

I was reading it because I'm wondering if this is what Ms. Wong is going to testify to on Monday. I think Reelmom mentioned it was.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I was wondering how experienced Wilma was. Is she a PD like Nummy was or what? Because didn't Nummy go into private practice right before the trial started or something?

I can't keep it all straight.

I can't keep it straight at this point coz it's either too late in this long day or from being at this circus trial for so long, but I do know Willmott is DP qualified and she's a private attorney too.

 

[dizzdis]

OMG!!!!

ALV doesn't think Jodi was the perpetrator of the greatest abuse of all?!?!?

Guess the DT got their moneys worth on that one.

I freakin loved that question!

 

[usnuzuloose]

I can't keep it straight at this point coz it's either too late in this long day or from being at this circus trial for so long, but I do know Willmott is DP qualified and she's a private attorney too.

Then they are fully qualified. They are once again looking at any way to get them on a mistrial. It is the defense who has made a circus of this trial. There own client has pulled crap, run a twitter account and anything else. Another attempt.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I didn't hear it. I quoted it from the recent motion for mistrial.

Here it is again: Recent Motion

I was reading it because I'm wondering if this is what Ms. Wong is going to testify to on Monday. I think Reelmom mentioned it was.

Nice way to say we are loosing , so because of the states fault we are ineffective council. UR said Wilmont is DP so Nurmi can serve under her. I doubt it will fly. I am trying to remember in the CA trial when they thought it was coming down to the verdict they wanted Casey to take a deal or admit something. This is the first one I heard of them doing a ineffective council.


Ms. Wong I believe is for the Juan incident. Not sure what it up with AL , she is being subpoenaed and not being paid. That may be due to her approaching Sam.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

All this means is the Lazy lead attorney did not cite the correct statute.

The female defense attorney is there because she IS qualified for cases involving the death penalty.

I was re-reading the recent motion for mistrial. In the motion it states:
This State of affairs has placed counsel for Ms. Arias in a position that they cannot fulfill the duties they owe Ms. Arias, pursuant Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.8.

I was curious to see what Rule 6.8 states and in summary; it states the qualifications the attorneys must have to represent a defendant in a Capital Case. Nurmi and Wilma are basically stating they don't have the experience or expertise to defend JA.

Rule 6.8

 

[usnuzuloose]

I was wondering how experienced Wilma was. Is she a PD like Nummy was or what? Because didn't Nummy go into private practice right before the trial started or something?

I can't keep it all straight.

Wilmott is DP qualified, and that makes it so Nurmi can work under her.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

If you read the motion it alleges the prosecutor leaked inadmissible evidence to the media. Could be the parents' interrogation tapes. Who knows? My guess is the reporter will have to testify in open court without the presence of the jury as to her source or sources with regard to something she reported. Or the source of evidence discussed by her.

I didn't hear it. I quoted it from the recent motion for mistrial.

Here it is again: Recent Motion

I was reading it because I'm wondering if this is what Ms. Wong is going to testify to on Monday. I think Reelmom mentioned it was.

 

[Brit17]

I was re-reading the recent motion for mistrial. In the motion it states:
This State of affairs has placed counsel for Ms. Arias in a position that they cannot fulfill the duties they owe Ms. Arias, pursuant Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.8.

I was curious to see what Rule 6.8 states and in summary; it states the qualifications the attorneys must have to represent a defendant in a Capital Case. Nurmi and Wilma are basically stating they don't have the experience or expertise to defend JA.

Rule 6.8

And Nurmi and Willie just realized this AFTER the State has spent over $1 million on this case and how many months into the trial?! ... That's just crazy ... I think it's more like Nurmi and Willie don't have the experience or expertise to deal with a defendant like JA ...

But basically I think they are just setting up the groundwork for an appeal (if needed) down the road citing inadequate counsel which they admitted to during the trial via this motion (and was denied, hopefully) and also, at the same time, covering their own butts from a possible lawyer malpractice lawsuit brought against them by JA ...

 

[usnuzuloose]

If you read the motion it alleges the prosecutor leaked inadmissible evidence to the media. Could be the parents' interrogation tapes. Who knows? My guess is the reporter will have to testify in open court without the presence of the jury as to her source or sources with regard to something she reported. Or the source of evidence discussed by her.

That is the reason for Wong. Media gets there info from allot of places. And Juan certainly does not seem like the type to ruin his reputation to do that. He has been doing this for so long.

 

[usnuzuloose]

And Nurmi and Willie just realized this AFTER the State has spent over $1 million on this case and how many months into the trial?! ... That's just crazy ... I think it's more like Nurmi and Willie don't have the experience or expertise to deal with a defendant like JA ...

But basically I think they are just setting up the groundwork for an appeal (if needed) down the road citing inadequate counsel which they admitted to during the trial via this motion (and was denied, hopefully) and also, at the same time, covering their own butts from a possible lawyer malpractice lawsuit brought against them by JA ...

Of course to CYA. Willmott is DP qualified. Have to file something as you are loosing, and loosing badly.

 

[Thumper_Man]

If you read the motion it alleges the prosecutor leaked inadmissible evidence to the media. Could be the parents' interrogation tapes. Who knows? My guess is the reporter will have to testify in open court without the presence of the jury as to her source or sources with regard to something she reported. Or the source of evidence discussed by her.

If it was inadmissible, that means it wasn't important enough to use in this case and therefore he can do with it as he pleases. That evidence is not going to influence the decision of the jury.

IMO, all this means is the DT is saying "Juan is kicking our rears and we want out."

 

[usnuzuloose]

If it was inadmissible, that means it wasn't important enough to use in this case and therefore he can do with it as he pleases. That evidence is not going to influence the decision of the jury.

IMO, all this means is the DT is saying "Juan is kicking our rears and we want out."

Certain things you have to have in an appeal process as well. Juan is not stupid to give anyone video's or anything else. Gotta blame someone. I am sure he has a mound of those filed in his file. I am not worried about it. Of course the defense did nothing wrong....just ask AL...

 

[maccagerl]

If you read the motion it alleges the prosecutor leaked inadmissible evidence to the media. Could be the parents' interrogation tapes.

The prosecutor' s office ( not JM personally) released the 600 pages of of JA's journals that were being read on all the evening HLN shows.
The defense brought this up during court one day, and Juan said he wasn't involved but that the office was releasing this stuff in response to media requests- not sure if it was "freedom of information " requests or just regular media requests.