Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Jodi Arias case (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter zed2283
- Start date
Zow
Footballguy
There are many reasons why an inmate could wind up in solitary. Who is the "they" you are referring to and how did you hear this info?
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Generally high-profile defendants are kept in solitary for their own protection (especially those who have committed a crime looked disfavorably upon by the jail hierarchy) or to promote order because the mere present of these defendants in a "normal" pod cause too much of a commotion. This does not mean that defendant has disrupted or manipulated anyone. If an inmate is manipulating other inmates in some fashion that's certainly a valid reason for the defendant being disciplined in solitary and Jodi fits the personality type who may do this, but that's just a guess by CNN.
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Verdict reached! What a shock!
PROVEN!!
10:30 am next phase.....
PROVEN!!
10:30 am next phase.....
Last edited by a moderator:
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Tomorrow, Travis fam gives victim impact statements, Jodi could get on stand, her mom and others for Jodi can get on the stand... big day. It will be interesting to see of the jury really can come back with death...
DougGlatt
Footballguy
I still am hoping for life no parole. I think she'll be miserable when nobody is paying attention to her anymore.
Johnny Bing
Footballguy
Great let the AZ tax payers pay for her. She deserves the death penalty. If she doesn't get it then why bother to have it.
CurlyNight
Footballguy
I'm pretty fine either way except life with no parole could turn into clemency. Here's a lady that after 49 years of life with no parole got out last Aug. She went in at 20 and is now 70.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/woman-who-spent-49-years-in-prison-tells-3TV-what-Jodi-Arias-can-expect-206855211.html
whoknew
Footballguy
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
You are going to pay more on death row because it's actually called 'hang around for a long time and appeal row'. Unless she waives the appeal process, she will be there for decades.
CurlyNight
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Norman Paperman
Footballguy
I'll never understand why people wish bad things to happen to other people.
Why are you giving Arias this much thought at all?
Why are you giving Arias this much thought at all?
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
CurlyNight
Footballguy
So Tuesday's mysterious closed door meeting at court was the defense wanting to quit the case. Can we hear the "I want a new trial, my lawyers wanted to quit me!"
DougGlatt
Footballguy
The reason I am hoping for a life with no parole is simply because I imagine it's the worst punishment in this case. It isn't because I am against the death penalty. Or concerned about money. It's because I imagine Jodi Arias thrives on all the attention. She wants to be in the spot light. She has to have it and anything other than that is unbearable. She thinks she is important and deserves all the attention. If she were to receive the death penalty, she would be in the spot light more with appeal after appeal. My thought is if she gets life with no parole, she'll fade into nothingness which will drive her mad. She'll be yesterdays news and she won't be able to deal with it. And my hope is that one day, she'll have this epiphany that what she is and has done will all come crashing down into a true remorseful clarity. Something I think she has no clue of now.
I guess I think death is too good for her. In many cases, I am pro death penalty. I just have this feeling she will do far worse having to deal with life.
I guess I think death is too good for her. In many cases, I am pro death penalty. I just have this feeling she will do far worse having to deal with life.
Johnny Bing
Footballguy
So even if she drags out the appeals process for 20 years, she will far live another 40 years if you give her life.lod01 said:
There is no way death row will cost more than life in prison for someone that is in their early 30's.
Zow
Footballguy
These lawyers were appointed. Ethically, they cannot just request to "quit the case" and I'm willing to bet whatever goofy news source you are getting your information from has it wrong again.
It is very possible that either the lawyers motioned to withdraw because there has been such a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship that they can no longer effectively represent the client. If that's the case, the judge must way the status of the lawyer-client relationship against the likely that appointing new counsel could improve the situation. In this case, I doubt the judge would ever conclude that appointing new counsel would permit more effective representation of Arias because her current attorneys have lived this case for months and can likely put forth an adequate mitigation defense for the sentencing phase without much communication from Arias. Nonetheless, while her lawyers then didn't expect to be permitted to withdraw, ethically they needed to bring the motion if they believed they have had a serious breakdown in communication with Arias.
Additionally, it could have been Arias who wanted to request new attorneys. Generally, even when this is the case the current attorneys will note the defendant's request on her behalf to the judge. This could be where whoever reported to you that her lawyers "wanted off the case" misinterpreted what was going on.
drfeelgood
Footballguy
I don't see it that way. If she meant what she said about wanting the death penalty so she could die soon, she won't have appeal after appeal. I don't think she really meant that though, and I think she really wants life, but if she did get death she wouldn't get that much attention for the appeals. I think she would do well with life in prison. She is manipulative, and it wouldn't take long for her to have people doing things for her, and she will end up marrying some obsessed schmuck just like so many infamous lifers do.
DougGlatt
Footballguy
She's young. And on death row, she could still have some schmuck marry her. She will be on death row till she's old. She isn't going stop any appeals. She will use them all. Anything to manipulate, anything to get a spot light. She's been using the media since the beginning.
Edit: I'd be fine with death too. I just happen to think life is more punishment in this case.
Last edited by a moderator:
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
The lawyers will never say that they "want" to quit as an appointed lawyer cannot just get off a case because he simply doesn't like the case or the client anymore. So, while either or both of Arias's attorneys may strongly dislike her and/or wish to be just done with the case, that's not an ethically permissible reason for them to request to withdraw They may feel that requesting new counsel for Arias was ethically prudent for them to do - especially if Arias is refusing to communicate with them and/or she will not listen to their advice out of spite or something. However, in these types of cases, defendants will oftentimes not cooperate with their attorneys as a stall tactic or something. If that's the case, the judge will likely conclude that a new attorney does no good since similar behavior would continue. Nonetheless, the attorney did the correct thing by making the request to make a record of the breakdown of the client communication - even though the lawyer never expected the request to be granted. Same can be said if Arias requested new counsel. Since the 6th Amendment only requires adequate representation, a defendant simply cannot request a new attorney because she doesn't like her current counsel or thinks a particular other attorney is better. Instead, the judge would have to find that the current attorney(s) is not effectively representing the defendant. In this case, despite the trial loss, there is nothing that I know of to suggest Arias's attorneys have been ineffective. But again, if Arias expressed to her attorneys or the judge that she wanted new counsel, that request must at least be addressed on the record even though its odds of being granted are slim to none.
Last edited by a moderator:
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
drfeelgood
Footballguy
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Because it is a long winded circumlocution around the simple fact that, in essence, regardless of how much legalspeak you vomit, the veracity of the statement, is not in question. Whether, it's ethical, allowed, etc, one of the three of them might have wanted a change in counsel, for whatever bs reason.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
And don't get your panties in a bunch Woz. Don't take it personally
DougGlatt
Footballguy
I thought that too. Don't give her what she wants. Thing is, she's an idiot and what she wants may still be the worst thing. Very few want death. But there are things that are worse than death. I imagine 50-60 years locked away for 23 hours a day and 2 showers a week would be pretty nasty.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
culdeus
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I don't take it personally. Although you're wrong about your characterization of my response. I understand that it's not cut and dried, because it's not. But you, like most, don't seem to understand that. So, like I must understand your misunderstanding, you gotta understand that discussions like this are why less patient lawyers like Christo throw up their hands and respond with a mere:
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
I do understand that it's not cut and dry. What you're missing is that your bombastic response is annoying. I've appreciated your insight in this thread, but sometimes a simple answer is the best one.I don't take it personally. Although you're wrong about your characterization of my response. I understand that it's not cut and dried, because it's not. But you, like most, don't seem to understand that. So, like I must understand your misunderstanding, you gotta understand that discussions like this are why less patient lawyers like Christo throw up their hands and respond with a mere:
Zow
Footballguy
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. And since none of us were in the courtroom and the press's interpretation of what occurred cannot be trusted, the answer I provided was the most succinct and "simple" answer possible. I get that it may be annoying to you, but if you really do understand that it is not cut and dried then you probably should not be annoyed by a not cut and dried response.I do understand that it's not cut and dry. What you're missing is that your bombastic response is annoying. I've appreciated your insight in this thread, but sometimes a simple answer is the best one.I don't take it personally. Although you're wrong about your characterization of my response. I understand that it's not cut and dried, because it's not. But you, like most, don't seem to understand that. So, like I must understand your misunderstanding, you gotta understand that discussions like this are why less patient lawyers like Christo throw up their hands and respond with a mere:
That's the problem. People will be paying attention to her if she gets LWOP. On Death Row she'll be in solitary 23 hours a day, not in the general population and with serious restrictions on visitation. And.... AZ DOC does not allow the media to interview prisoners regarding their crimes.DougGlatt said:
I'm quite certain that 50 years from now Travis Alexander's family will still have the image of their brother slumped in a shower with 29 stab wounds, a shot in the head, and a slit throat will still be burned into their brains. You think they'll just forget and say oh whatevs. It's been a while. She should have the right to be out of jail now.
Wow.
It's not a goofy news source. There was an official motion filed with the Maricopa County court that was denied.Zow said:
They've clearly lost control of her (if you saw her Fox interview that was obvious) and now it appears she is directing her mitigation phase into weird places and no longer taking their advice (i.e. she will not allow her mother to testify on her behalf and she is using her "artwork" as a mitigating factor because clearly she is the next Michelangelo).
ETA: Here are the court minutes.
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052013/m5770706.pdf
I'm sure they didn't "ask to quit" or whatever the original verbiage was that got you all worked up. But they filed a motion to withdraw which was denied by the judge. As you posted earlier, they were probably claiming their relationship had broken down and they could no longer effectively represent her. But they did file the motion. It wasn't tabloid gossip.
Last edited by a moderator:
