The FINAL (?!) Jodi Arias thread (Penalty Phase retrial verdict)

[cabanafrau]

It seems as though the courts now days seem to cater to the criminals. Jodi should never get a say of when sentencing should be. She's had a fair trial so it's time to pack her bags and take her to where she belongs. Stretching this stuff out is just not right.

Is she getting a say in sentencing date? Generally that is a consideration given to defendants to get their affairs in order. She's certainly had adequate time to do so already in this case, so I would be a little taken aback by that.

I strongly feel criminal defenses in this country have by and large perverted and bloated our system. That said, we have to be very careful what we do to correct course in that regard because the ability to defend oneself in a court of law is a very important right to be guarded.

 

[gwynne]

Is she getting a say in sentencing date? Generally that is a consideration given to defendants to get their affairs in order. She's certainly had adequate time to do so already in this case, so I would be a little taken aback by that.

I strongly feel criminal defenses in this country have by and large perverted and bloated our system. That said, we have to be very careful what we do to correct course in that regard because the ability to defend oneself in a court of law is a very important right to be guarded.

She didn't get a say. The date was set with consideration for the judge and attorney's schedules, both sides.

 

[pigletgirl]

I have been reading over on websleuths in regards to today's verdict and there is an attorney over there saying that it'll take a month to get everyone there on the same day. The Alexanders also can provide the expenses in which they paid for Travis' funeral. JSS can add that into Jodi's sentence.

 

[pigletgirl]

And for anyone interested, this is what awaits Jodi:
http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2015/03/05/jodi-arias-arizona-state-prison-lumley-unit-photos-cell

 

[Uncle Remus]

But don't you think for a case this long sequestration would be a severe hardship?

I think this case is a prime example of why we need to have some tightening of the rules on how things can be conducted and some time constraints be put in place. Something to this extreme would put a major strain on the budget of the court I work in. Due process can and must be delivered more efficiently and economically IMO.

After watching this trial, you couldn't be more right in that how things are conducted should definitely have tighter rules and time constraints. Hell, that's an understatement. It's a good thing she didn't get death if we're concerned about the cost of sequestration since the second penalty phase started with 2 million already spent.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Well, sheriff joe said Jodi will not get interview time or tweets. She had her 15 minutes of fame.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Is she getting a say in sentencing date? Generally that is a consideration given to defendants to get their affairs in order. She's certainly had adequate time to do so already in this case, so I would be a little taken aback by that.

I strongly feel criminal defenses in this country have by and large perverted and bloated our system. That said, we have to be very careful what we do to correct course in that regard because the ability to defend oneself in a court of law is a very important right to be guarded.

Yes , she can ask the judge for a less harsher sentence, all we can hope for is that the judge does not do that/

 

[cabanafrau]

After watching this trial, you couldn't be more right in that how things are conducted should definitely have tighter rules and time constraints. Hell, that's an understatement. It's a good thing she didn't get death if we're concerned about the cost of sequestration since the second penalty phase started with 2 million already spent.

That kind of money expended would require layoffs at the court I'm in.

I do understand why it takes an effort to sync up the schedules of courts, attys, etc. to arrange dates. I see so many members of the public so aggravated when they see or hear scheduling being worked out, but it's genuinely quite complex when you get into the nuts and bolts.

 

[cabanafrau]

Yes , she can ask the judge for a less harsher sentence, all we can hope for is that the judge does not do that/

No, I wasn't asking about her getting a say in the penalty, merely the date set. I haven't followed this case very closely, particularly in this phase since the verdict convicted her, but I'm going to guess no judge who wants to continue to sit on the bench will do any less than lwop.

ETA: I have no idea if this part of it is being discussed or not, but once she is sentenced the wheels are set in motion for her appellate rights. Given the scope of this trial, and the penalty phase, the potential for appellate issues is mindblowing.

 

[usnuzuloose]

No, I wasn't asking about her getting a say in the penalty, merely the date set. I haven't followed this case very closely, particularly in this phase since the verdict convicted her, but I'm going to guess no judge who wants to continue to sit on the bench will do any less than lwop.

ETA: I have no idea if this part of it is being discussed or not, but once she is sentenced the wheels are set in motion for her appellate rights. Given the scope of this trial, and the penalty phase, the potential for appellate issues is mindblowing.

Lets just say anything is possible with JSS, she has imo biased toward Jodi during this phase. Anything is possible with this judge. She has let so much intimidation rule her from the defense side, and her remark was so stated when she questioned Jodi about not allocution. So when JSS admitted to letting them intimidate her, she just kept going with it. You think she would fly right after getting in trouble with the supreme court for allowing Jodi to start testifying in secret.

 

[cabanafrau]

Lets just say anything is possible with JSS, she has imo biased toward Jodi during this phase. Anything is possible with this judge. She has let so much intimidation rule her from the defense side, and her remark was so stated when she questioned Jodi about not allocution. So when JSS admitted to letting them intimidate her, she just kept going with it. You think she would fly right after getting in trouble with the supreme court for allowing Jodi to start testifying in secret.

Say what? Testifying in secret? The Defendant got to testify in secret? If that's what you're saying I'm mindblown. I must have missed that discussion at work. I must have been under a rock if I missed something like that happening.

As far as some judge's comments from the bench during different portions of cases -- not portions in front of a jury -- but sometimes judges say things that are completely at odds with how they're going to rule. I work with one judge in particular that is kind of famous for feigning a position and questioning attorneys during arguments in a way that leads you to believe she is leaning one way when her ruling comes down opposed to that stand in the end. It's always kind of funny to watch even experienced attorneys who know her well get taken in and stand there stunned with their client when the ruling comes down.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

But don't you think for a case this long sequestration would be a severe hardship?

I think this case is a prime example of why we need to have some tightening of the rules on how things can be conducted and some time constraints be put in place. Something to this extreme would put a major strain on the budget of the court I work in. Due process can and must be delivered more efficiently and economically IMO.

I can see in cases like this where they might want to sequester during deliberations, but it sounds like it wouldn't matter in this case if that one juror was never going to impose the death sentence.

It seems as though the courts now days seem to cater to the criminals. Jodi should never get a say of when sentencing should be. She's had a fair trial so it's time to pack her bags and take her to where she belongs. Stretching this stuff out is just not right.

Is she getting a say in sentencing date? Generally that is a consideration given to defendants to get their affairs in order. She's certainly had adequate time to do so already in this case, so I would be a little taken aback by that.

I strongly feel criminal defenses in this country have by and large perverted and bloated our system. That said, we have to be very careful what we do to correct course in that regard because the ability to defend oneself in a court of law is a very important right to be guarded.

There's are legal processes which must take place. It may be frustrating, but all the T's must be crossed and I's dotted, so we're not going back to square one.

Well, sheriff joe said Jodi will not get interview time or tweets. She had her 15 minutes of fame.

I don't believe Jodi's 15 minutes of fame are over with yet. She will find a way to continue to be heard and to torture this family. I don't know how, but I think she will. I hope not, but I guess we'll see.

 

[maccagerl]

1. 
   

   Say what? Testifying in secret? The Defendant got to testify in secret? If that's what you're saying I'm mindblown. I must have missed that discussion at work. I must have been under a rock if I missed something like that happening.

   
   Yes, Jodi was allowed to testify in secret. The defense said they had a witness who feared for his/her life if he/she was made to testify in open court like all the other witnesses, and would only testify in closed court.
   Come to find out, after the witness testified, the witness was Jodi Arias herself.
   The media went to the Supreme Court of Arizona to unseal her testimony and prevent any further testimony in closed court.
   Because of this, Jodi refused to take the stand again, thus depriving the prosecution of the ability to cross examine her.
   She tried to pull this stunt again, refusing to allocute in an open court.
   She is a master manipulator.

 

[maccagerl]

I can see in cases like this where they might want to sequester during deliberations, but it sounds like it wouldn't matter in this case if that one juror was never going to impose the death sentence. There's are legal processes which must take place. It may be frustrating, but all the T's must be crossed and I's dotted, so we're not going back to square one.

I think if this jury was sequestered, the judge would have been under pressure to maintain a much stricter timeline, and we wouldn't be going into March for the verdict. If the trial had been much shorter, we likely wouldn't have lost so many jurors, esp this last juror who had to leave because of her mother's death. I think we might have seen a much different outcome if this jury had been sequestered.

 

[usnuzuloose]

The judge threw everyone out including the media. And it took both the Court of Appeals and Supreme court to basically tell Jss she was wrong. I really wished they would have checked on her further they may have found more wrong than could ever imagine. This whole thing could have been avoided. I think if they look now and follow some of her actions for motions and giving in she might have even been released.

 

[maccagerl]

↑
"Is she getting a say in sentencing date? Generally that is a consideration given to defendants to get their affairs in order. She's certainly had adequate time to do so already in this case, so I would be a little taken aback by that."

"
There's are legal processes which must take place. It may be frustrating, but all the T's must be crossed and I's dotted, so we're not going back to square one."

( Sorry, can't figure out the multi quote- it just quotes the answer , not the question)

Jodi did request and obtain the 30 days until sentencing, at the same time waiving her right to a pre sentencing report. I don't know why the judge didn't just refuse her request and sentence her right then and there. So disgusted.
This is how the sentencing date was determined:

Judge SS: This court is declaring a mistrial, are we ready to proceed to sentencing
Nurmi: Your honor, miss arias is requesting 30 days.... ( and then they proceeded to settle on the specific date).

 

[usnuzuloose]

↑
"Is she getting a say in sentencing date? Generally that is a consideration given to defendants to get their affairs in order. She's certainly had adequate time to do so already in this case, so I would be a little taken aback by that."

"
There's are legal processes which must take place. It may be frustrating, but all the T's must be crossed and I's dotted, so we're not going back to square one."

( Sorry, can't figure out the multi quote- it just quotes the answer , not the question)

Jodi did request and obtain the 30 days until sentencing, at the same time waiving her right to a pre sentencing report. I don't know why the judge didn't just refuse her request and sentence her right then and there. So disgusted.
This is how the sentencing date was determined:

Judge SS: This court is declaring a mistrial, are we ready to proceed to sentencing
Nurmi: Your honor, miss arias is requesting 30 days.... ( and then they proceeded to settle on the specific date).

Jodi has been given so much privilege. I hope after sentencing we can be done with her. I continue to pray for the family to heal and move on. They need to let Jodi stop controlling their lives. It has been very painful for them.

 

[maccagerl]

What really bothers me is that in requiring the verdict to be unanimous, in effect, it allowed ONE person to decide the verdict. Even though 11 jurors voted for the DP, it was the ONE juror who disagreed who got to choose life.

I think justice would be much better served if they allowed a 2/3 majority or something like that. Or if the jury is hung , let the judge decide death or life, instead of that one juror.

 

[usnuzuloose]

What really bothers me is that in requiring the verdict to be unanimous, in effect, it allowed ONE person to decide the verdict. Even though 11 jurors voted for the DP, it was the ONE juror who disagreed who got to choose life.

I think justice would be much better served if they allowed a 2/3 majority or something like that. Or if the jury is hung , let the judge decide death or life, instead of that one juror.

It is maddening, but it is the law, and a judge can not make the death decision.

 

[maccagerl]

It is maddening, but it is the law, and a judge can not make the death decision.

I know it's the law, but I still think justice is not being served in doing it this way.