This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
this thread is going to go from 6 pages to 25 in about 24 hours
Obviously I can't link to a NSFW pic. But if you do a Yahoo picture search on "Jodi Arias naked" you can find the unedited court pics, including one that's bottom's up.
She has stated she was extremely tired at this point, I believe. Is there a timestamp on the video at all?'CurlyNight said:
Folks there thought it rude and weird for such a story he was telling. Even if I had heard that story before from my bf, I wouldn't lie there looking bored and apathetic even if I was tired. People interviewed who saw both together said she always looked apathetic unless the attention was on her.Also, Jodi had said that he never showed any type of affection. He was embarrassed to show he cared about her in public. It was all sexual for him and that's it. Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.............in this vid he's got his arm around you while you lay in his lap like a cat and YOU push the arm away to get up. Another lie to add to the bazillion she has fed everyone.
lol
Yeah, it's unique to AZ. I like it a lot for the reason you pointed out - although sometimes it gets into an area I wanted to avoid and was lucky enough to have the prosecutor not go into.
I've heard attorneys say that it is sometimes a scary sign when a judge is ruling in your favor for the motions. It may mean that the judge is anticipating a ruling against you, and doesn't want you to have any issue to appeal on.The judge seems to me to be for the defense. I mean first she was saying the defense to come at 10:00 to review the questions and Martinez at 11:00, which doesn't give him the same amount of time as the defense to review the questions. She had to think awhile on it and finally said each side has 45 minutes. It also seems like she overrules more now when Martinez objects than before.Oh and there will be no re-cross per the judge. Niiice.
I'll answer these in turn, in the hopes of relieving your confusion. 1. Jury questions - they are subject to the same rules of evidence as the lawyers' questions are. In a "normal" case we may only get a handful of juror questions and the lawyers would then go to the judge's bench and discuss the admissibility of the jury questions. The witness would then never know which questions are coming. In this case, with such a massive amount of jury questions, that's simply impractical. So, the judge will give each side time to review the questions to see if they object to their being asked. 2. Judge's bias - does not mean what you think it means. If the judge is siding with defense on objections more so than appears appropriate then the judge has a strong belief that the defendant will be convicted. The reason for this then is that the judge wants to limit potential appellate issues for the defendant. In short, when the defendant is convicted the judge doesn't want to give her the chance to later argue that the judge ruled incorrectly against her or was biased. Personally, assuming I'm objecting timely and reasonably during a trial, I can always tell how the judge thinks my case is going based on the way the judge is ruling on my objections (example being if I have a dead-bang loser of a case I'm walking in to court knowing the judge is going to give me every close call or "break" he can on issues of law like objections). 3. Re-cross - Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure strongly discourage re-cross to the extent that re-cross should only be granted if there was some error or sign of bad faith by the opposing attorney. I've done 100+ trials in AZ now and have never seen re-cross granted (I've requested it a handful of times and have always been denied). The judge denying re-cross in this case is a non-issue. Especially since the judge will likely allow the attorneys to ask follow-up questions within the scope of the juror questions.The judge seems to me to be for the defense. I mean first she was saying the defense to come at 10:00 to review the questions and Martinez at 11:00, which doesn't give him the same amount of time as the defense to review the questions. She had to think awhile on it and finally said each side has 45 minutes. It also seems like she overrules more now when Martinez objects than before.
I've heard attorneys say that it is sometimes a scary sign when a judge is ruling in your favor for the motions. It may mean that the judge is anticipating a ruling against you, and doesn't want you to have any issue to appeal on.The judge seems to me to be for the defense. I mean first she was saying the defense to come at 10:00 to review the questions and Martinez at 11:00, which doesn't give him the same amount of time as the defense to review the questions. She had to think awhile on it and finally said each side has 45 minutes. It also seems like she overrules more now when Martinez objects than before.
I don't think we need to really think that the judge was not going to ruling in her favor based on the above. I'm sure there is not such a thing as a slam dunk case, but this has to be very close to that. The only defense she has are conversations she had or did behind close doors. No one else is aware of what she stated, nor do her actions support that took place. Its basically going to come down to any Hampsters_13 on the jury. That one juror that is such a concrete thinker they need to actually hear the defense say I did it, and no it was not self defense.I've heard attorneys say that it is sometimes a scary sign when a judge is ruling in your favor for the motions. It may mean that the judge is anticipating a ruling against you, and doesn't want you to have any issue to appeal on.The judge seems to me to be for the defense. I mean first she was saying the defense to come at 10:00 to review the questions and Martinez at 11:00, which doesn't give him the same amount of time as the defense to review the questions. She had to think awhile on it and finally said each side has 45 minutes. It also seems like she overrules more now when Martinez objects than before.
Tactically I agree, but legally it can only be done that way given that the rules of evidence must be followed and these are lay people posing questions. You need to review them first to see if the questions seek relevant and admissible evidence, and are otherwise well-posed. The parties have the right to give their input on these issues and assert objections, and the court must rule. Woz, do they identify which juror was the source of each question?
The judge stated that the jurors are to turn in their questions without their names on them.
Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
Not if you are telling the truth and have nothing to hide?Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
Welcome to trial examination and witness preparation. The problem with "attorneys only" seeing the jurors' questions beforehand is that there's nothing an attorney does that is supposed to be kept secret from the client. That gives rise to conflicts of interest, the potential to conceal attorney error, etc. The attorney-client relationship has to be transparent, and the attorney (while usually allowed leeway to exercise judgment by the client) theoretically can act only as an agent on the authority of the client who is the principal in the relationship.Also, keep in mind that the jurors undoubtedly know that she's had time to see these questions, and there are likely jury instructions that allow them to, if they so choose, to diminish the weight or credibility of her answers (versus the "live" trial questioning) based upon the fact that she had access both to them and to her attorney's advice prior to answering.Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
Some people just don't come across well even if they're telling the truth. Some liars can come across as being wonderfully credible while lying to your face. This is the very subjective, "human" part of trial work.Not if you are telling the truth and have nothing to hide?Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
People like you are the reason they have these types of rules in place.Not if you are telling the truth and have nothing to hide?Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
Explain.
The more she talks the bigger hole she is digging. Her attorney just tried to help her out of the 'holster' debacle she created by claiming there was one when there wasn't. He's has to keep her up there thru the end of the day to hope the jury forgets all her blabbering during their questions and before the prosecutor rips her apart again. Next trial date is like Tues or Wed.
You willing to bet your life on that Clark?'CurlyNight said:Not if you are telling the truth and have nothing to hide?'SacramentoBob said:Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.'CurlyNight said:Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
All well said here. I'd just had a couple of things:1) The practice in this case isn't the norm in AZ (as I pointed out previously) but is strange because of the sheer number of questions. I imagine that put her lawyer in an awkward spot as to whether it was wise to have her review the questions. 2) Technically, the decision to allow her to see the questions ahead of time is a decision for the lawyer. Redman has done a nice job of pointing out the pros and cons of doing so (although the jury really may NOT be aware that she has had the chance to see the questions) and, in the end, she may have just demanded to see them. Generally, attorneys will do their best to talk their clients out of "bad" decisions, but, as Redman pointed out, at the end of the day they almost always have to/choose to abide by their clients' wishes.'T Bell said:Welcome to trial examination and witness preparation. The problem with "attorneys only" seeing the jurors' questions beforehand is that there's nothing an attorney does that is supposed to be kept secret from the client. That gives rise to conflicts of interest, the potential to conceal attorney error, etc. The attorney-client relationship has to be transparent, and the attorney (while usually allowed leeway to exercise judgment by the client) theoretically can act only as an agent on the authority of the client who is the principal in the relationship.Also, keep in mind that the jurors undoubtedly know that she's had time to see these questions, and there are likely jury instructions that allow them to, if they so choose, to diminish the weight or credibility of her answers (versus the "live" trial questioning) based upon the fact that she had access both to them and to her attorney's advice prior to answering.'SacramentoBob said:Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.'CurlyNight said:Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
This is correct. The way it works (as I've literally had trial in that very courtroom) is that jurors are given notepads to write their questions on. Normally (again, this case is abnormal given the sheer number of questions) the lawyers then head to the bench for a private sidebar to discuss whether the questions are admissible. None of the attorneys or judges theoretically know which juror asked which question (that said, I'll usually keep an eye on a juror scribbling something and try to guess which question was his/hers). What is arguably unfortunate (and usually pisses a juror off) is that, since their questions are subject to the same rules of evidence as the lawyers', the juror questions are often not allowed to be asked due to improper form or one smaller part of the question makes it inadmissible. Additionally, their question could be proper, but could be led to elicit evidence which has been excluded by a motion in limine (objections to evidence raised by the lawyers before trial which are then kept out of evidence). In any case, the juror is never given an explanation as to why his question isn't asked and I always fear a juror may take offense to this and/or incorrectly think I'm doing some fancy lawyer trick by keeping it out.
:sigh:'CurlyNight said:Not if you are telling the truth and have nothing to hide?'SacramentoBob said:Being caught offguard with questions you aren't expecting can make you look guilty, even if you aren't.'CurlyNight said:Exactly! Ok, lawyers need to review questions but why the defendant? Right now she's reviewing the rest of their questions while on sidebar. It should be spontaneous not rehearsed! I mean how are you going to really know the truth if the defendant is allowed to review the questions to get a start on thinking of the answer that's inline with her bogus story-- and it seems the defense team is allowed to guide her too! It's almost like what's the point especially when you have someone as smart and articulate as her!
Interesting. My experience with judges out here in CA is that they typically try to offer some explanation as to why they can't answer the question directly. Obviously that's difficult to do with excluded evidence/issues, but a judge might say simply, "That information though interesting is not considered relevant to our case," or something. I think it's good for the jury to at least hear something indicating that their question was considered.
I have followed neither closely, but this sounds far more "ridiculous" from a defense standpoint than Casey Anthony who, to my knowledge, pretty steadfastly denied killing the kid. I also fear Jodi Arias walking the streets far more than Casey Anthony.
Completely agree. I have had some judges give a blanket instruction stating that some questions simply cannot be asked and that the jury should not take offense or infer anything if a question is not asked. In some cases, where I think it's probably clear based on my body language at the bench that I was the one objecting to the question, I've asked the judge to instruct the jury that the exclusion of the question was the judge's call. I do wish judges would individually address the jury with an explanation to why their questions were asked, but I suppose that's in contrast to the rule that jury questions should be anonymous.
These are two entirely different cases. Anthony generally denied, where Arias is asserting self-defense (which, in AZ, means she must admit to all elements of the crime. This, unlike the general constitutional rule that the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense must prove that it is more likely than not that self defense was legally justified. Accordingly, in cases like this, that means all the "proof" is going to come from the defendant - an actor in the course who committed an abnormal action in a heightened state of emotion, with bias, and who simply cannot, even if justified, provide a completely "sense able" account.
Toast is bread that has been browned by exposure to radiant heat. This browning is the result of a Maillard reaction. Toasting warms the bread and makes it firmer, so it holds toppings more securely. Toasting is a common method of making stale bread more palatable.
So the question is, what toppings now go best with Jodi?
Pop Rocks and Tootsie Rolls
Anything from BLOOD oranges?
I was thinking more along the lines of
