Jodi Arias case (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

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!"

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.

It's not a goofy news source. There was an official motion filed with the Maricopa County court that was denied.

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

Discussion is held on Counsel for the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

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.

Curly has posted her interpretations of some media speculations previously in this thread. I didn't doubt that a mtw was filed, but took issue with the simplified claim that the lawyers wanted to quit.

 

[Zow]

Question for you lawyers. Wilmott shows no emotion. Is this normal for something so emotional?

I know her on a professional level on her demeanor is pretty consistently serious. However, this type of demeanor is pretty common for criminal attorneys because constant exposure to horrible things and emotionally charged situations can be numbing. Over time one can't get pretty immune to things such as a victim's tears, length of sentence your client faces if you lose at trial, and even horrifying photos of murder or sexual assault victims. Also, trials are generally pretty tedious and lengthy and can be mentally draining. Oftentimes they require constant focus for 8 hrs/day. Emotion and personality have sometimes been left by the wayside.

 

[CurlyNight]

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!"

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.

It's not a goofy news source. There was an official motion filed with the Maricopa County court that was denied.

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

Discussion is held on Counsel for the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

ockquote>

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.

Curly has posted her interpretations of some media speculations previously in this thread. I didn't doubt that a mtw was filed, but took issue with the simplified claim that the lawyers wanted to quit.Ok so english is not my first language so clarify, what is the difference between quit and withdraw? In the end it means the same that they wanted out at this late stage and it was denied by the judge.

 

[Nikki2200]

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...

I still am hoping for life no parole. I think she'll be miserable when nobody is paying attention to her anymore.

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

The later did almost fifty years. What's the point imprisoning her any longer?

I'm sure his family would agree that life without parole in her case should be natural life, not out of jail unless in a casket.

You don't know that. Its not like she did 5 years. She did 50! Lots of things change in 50 years.

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.

Yea you don't know that at all. Some people are actually capable of forgiveness.

I know the family wants her to get the DP. They've made that quite clear. I'm going to make the logical leap that some day if she were to be freed to walk the streets, they may be a little bit upset. Did you watch their VISs yesterday? Have you seen them give up everything in their lives to be in Arizona every single day for four months to sit in a courtroom 1000 miles away to support their dead brother? I'm sure they don't even know, but I can't imagine their would be a point in their lives they would be OK with Jodi Arias walking the streets a free woman.

I actually read a VIS by someone who is a court watcher in the Jodi case, and whose own sister was brutally murdered 20 years ago. One of the men who murdered her sister was being re-sentenced after 20 years and was somehow deemed mentally ######ed so was ineligible for the death penalty and in the re-sentencing there was a possibility that he could be up for parole. Her words really hit me and made it clear that as long as the murderer is in jail, has appeals, has parole hearings, it's never really over for the family of the VICTIM. And one thing she talked about, which really struck me because I fall into the same pattern a lot, that after a while the convicted murderer actually becomes perceived as the victim, not the person(s) they killed. We become sympathetic to people on death row or those who have served a long time in jail. And we shouldn't forget the reason they are there. If you want to read it, http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/07/######ed_german_killer_rudi_ap.php

Parole is not about "forgiveness" anyway. It's about whether or not the convict is a danger to society any longer and whether or not they have been rehabilitated. From watching her and from psych testimony, it is pretty clear to me that Jodi has a spectrum of personality disorders and a touch of psychopathy (I think she is what we used to call a sociopath that has now been split up into different categories). That made her capable of committing such a brutal murder without any remorse and believing she was going to get away with it. That is not going to magically go away. She will always be capable of murdering again. The purpose of keeping people in jail has nothing to do with a lack of forgiveness, it has to do with keeping the citizens of our country safe.

 

[lod01]

Arizona Death Row Accomodations:

Death Row Information

Arizona's Death Row for men is located in the Browning Unit at Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman which is located just outside the city of Florence Arizona. Female inmates on Death Row are housed at the Lumley Unit at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville, near Goodyear Arizona. All executions are performed in Central Unit at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence in Florence Arizona.

The Browning Unit at ASPC-Eyman has 720 single-man cells. In addition to confining Condemned Row male inmates, Browning Unit also houses 230 validated gang members of eight certified Security Threat Groups. In addition Browning Unit has a Violence Control unit where inmates requiring exceptional management are housed.

All male and female inmates on Death Row are classified as maximum custody. All inmates are single cells which are equipped with a toilet, sink, bed and mattress. Each Death Row inmate has no contact with any other inmate. Out-of-cell time is limited to outdoor exercise in a secured area, two hours a day, three times a week, and a shower, three times a week. All meals are delivered by correction officers at the cell front. Limited non-contact visitation is available. Death Row inmates may place two ten minute telephone calls per week. Personal property is limited to hygiene items, two appliances, two books and writing materials, which can be purchased from the inmate commissary. Health care is provided at the Health Unit; medication is passed out at the cell front. Clergy contacts are provided at the cell.

That is awful. And cruel.

No contact with anyone, period. Ever. Not even sure the death row inmates can talk amongst themselves. I don't think they can't see each other thru their little slots in the front of their cells. I would be saying hook me up and get me outta here. It's the closets thing the justice system has to paying for the crime of murder 1. No physical torture but there is mental torture.

 

[whoknew]

I know the family wants her to get the DP. They've made that quite clear. I'm going to make the logical leap that some day if she were to be freed to walk the streets, they may be a little bit upset. Did you watch their VISs yesterday? Have you seen them give up everything in their lives to be in Arizona every single day for four months to sit in a courtroom 1000 miles away to support their dead brother? I'm sure they don't even know, but I can't imagine their would be a point in their lives they would be OK with Jodi Arias walking the streets a free woman.

I did not watch the victim statements. To be honest, I don't think they are relevant.

Having said that, my whole point is the victims may change their mind 50 years from now. Just because they support life in prison now, doesn't mean they will in 50 years. 50 years is a long damn time. People change.

I actually read a VIS by someone who is a court watcher in the Jodi case, and whose own sister was brutally murdered 20 years ago. One of the men who murdered her sister was being re-sentenced after 20 years and was somehow deemed mentally ######ed so was ineligible for the death penalty and in the re-sentencing there was a possibility that he could be up for parole. Her words really hit me and made it clear that as long as the murderer is in jail, has appeals, has parole hearings, it's never really over for the family of the VICTIM. And one thing she talked about, which really struck me because I fall into the same pattern a lot, that after a while the convicted murderer actually becomes perceived as the victim, not the person(s) they killed. We become sympathetic to people on death row or those who have served a long time in jail. And we shouldn't forget the reason they are there. If you want to read it, http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/07/######ed_german_killer_rudi_ap.php

I appreciate the post - and will read it. But I'm not convinced that victim statements are relevant (or, rather, should be relevant) to sentencing/how we treat criminals.

And the reason murderers become sympathetic is because a) the death penalty is wrong; and b) a life sentence may be a really long damn time. And we recognize - even on a subconscious level - that people can change. And maybe after spending 50 years in prison, enough is enough.

And sympathy isn't mutually exclusive. I can have sympathy for the prisoner and the victims of the crime.

Parole is not about "forgiveness" anyway. It's about whether or not the convict is a danger to society any longer and whether or not they have been rehabilitated. From watching her and from psych testimony, it is pretty clear to me that Jodi has a spectrum of personality disorders and a touch of psychopathy (I think she is what we used to call a sociopath that has now been split up into different categories). That made her capable of committing such a brutal murder without any remorse and believing she was going to get away with it. That is not going to magically go away. She will always be capable of murdering again. The purpose of keeping people in jail has nothing to do with a lack of forgiveness, it has to do with keeping the citizens of our country safe.

The "forgiveness" I was referring to was whether the victims will forgive the criminal. Obviously I don't think its relevant - I've already said as much above. I didn't, though, realize that you agree that how the victims feel is irrelevant.

And I'm not sure where you get your proclamations on parole. Why do you think that is what parole is about? How are you so certain?

 

[Johnnymac]

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

 

[whoknew]

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

This is the issue. Victim statements are emotionally charged statements from interested parties. Of course they are upset. Of course they want revenge/vengeance/satisfaction/punishment. But as a society, we have to remove emotion when making such a huge decision. Emotion should not be a factor.

 

[Sinn Fein]

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

This is the issue. Victim statements are emotionally charged statements from interested parties. Of course they are upset. Of course they want revenge/vengeance/satisfaction/punishment. But as a society, we have to remove emotion when making such a huge decision. Emotion should not be a factor.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

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!"

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.

It's not a goofy news source. There was an official motion filed with the Maricopa County court that was denied.

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

Discussion is held on Counsel for the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.ockquote>

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.

Curly has posted her interpretations of some media speculations previously in this thread. I didn't doubt that a mtw was filed, but took issue with the simplified claim that the lawyers wanted to quit.

guess what? they do want to quit. if they could just walk away, they would. there is no altruistic BS that they are there for her as public defendants. they've made their money and will get to do the lecture circuit and tv. arias has pushed them as far as she can and they're over it. they did the best job they could and they want out. simple as that.

 

[mad sweeney]

Arizona Death Row Accomodations:

Death Row InformationArizona's Death Row for men is located in the Browning Unit at Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman which is located just outside the city of Florence Arizona. Female inmates on Death Row are housed at the Lumley Unit at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville, near Goodyear Arizona. All executions are performed in Central Unit at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence in Florence Arizona. The Browning Unit at ASPC-Eyman has 720 single-man cells. In addition to confining Condemned Row male inmates, Browning Unit also houses 230 validated gang members of eight certified Security Threat Groups. In addition Browning Unit has a Violence Control unit where inmates requiring exceptional management are housed. All male and female inmates on Death Row are classified as maximum custody. All inmates are single cells which are equipped with a toilet, sink, bed and mattress. Each Death Row inmate has no contact with any other inmate. Out-of-cell time is limited to outdoor exercise in a secured area, two hours a day, three times a week, and a shower, three times a week. All meals are delivered by correction officers at the cell front. Limited non-contact visitation is available. Death Row inmates may place two ten minute telephone calls per week. Personal property is limited to hygiene items, two appliances, two books and writing materials, which can be purchased from the inmate commissary. Health care is provided at the Health Unit; medication is passed out at the cell front. Clergy contacts are provided at the cell.

That is awful. And cruel.

Arizona Death Row Accomodations:

Death Row InformationArizona's Death Row for men is located in the Browning Unit at Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman which is located just outside the city of Florence Arizona. Female inmates on Death Row are housed at the Lumley Unit at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville, near Goodyear Arizona. All executions are performed in Central Unit at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence in Florence Arizona. The Browning Unit at ASPC-Eyman has 720 single-man cells. In addition to confining Condemned Row male inmates, Browning Unit also houses 230 validated gang members of eight certified Security Threat Groups. In addition Browning Unit has a Violence Control unit where inmates requiring exceptional management are housed. All male and female inmates on Death Row are classified as maximum custody. All inmates are single cells which are equipped with a toilet, sink, bed and mattress. Each Death Row inmate has no contact with any other inmate. Out-of-cell time is limited to outdoor exercise in a secured area, two hours a day, three times a week, and a shower, three times a week. All meals are delivered by correction officers at the cell front. Limited non-contact visitation is available. Death Row inmates may place two ten minute telephone calls per week. Personal property is limited to hygiene items, two appliances, two books and writing materials, which can be purchased from the inmate commissary. Health care is provided at the Health Unit; medication is passed out at the cell front. Clergy contacts are provided at the cell.

That is awful. And cruel.

But not unusual, so it's ok.

 

[Johnnymac]

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

This is the issue. Victim statements are emotionally charged statements from interested parties. Of course they are upset. Of course they want revenge/vengeance/satisfaction/punishment. But as a society, we have to remove emotion when making such a huge decision. Emotion should not be a factor.

Emotion is and should be a factor. They may try and say that in the jury instructions but that's not real world. If someone murdered one of my kids you better believe I want to give an impact statement and I want my emotions taken into account in deciding the fate of the convicted.

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

This is the issue. Victim statements are emotionally charged statements from interested parties. Of course they are upset. Of course they want revenge/vengeance/satisfaction/punishment. But as a society, we have to remove emotion when making such a huge decision. Emotion should not be a factor.

 

[whoknew]

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

This is the issue. Victim statements are emotionally charged statements from interested parties. Of course they are upset. Of course they want revenge/vengeance/satisfaction/punishment. But as a society, we have to remove emotion when making such a huge decision. Emotion should not be a factor.

Emotion is and should be a factor. They may try and say that in the jury instructions but that's not real world. If someone murdered one of my kids you better believe I want to give an impact statement and I want my emotions taken into account in deciding the fate of the convicted.

Why? Do you think people generally make better or worse decisions when emotional? (vs. unemotional/analytical)

 

[Johnnymac]

VIS not relevant? Why not? I would say they are absolutely relevant. In this case I though the VIS's were far too nice. They both did not say one word to the defendant. If it were me I would have turned that podium around and spoke directly to Jodi Arias, and believe me, it would not have been anything close to nice.

This is the issue. Victim statements are emotionally charged statements from interested parties. Of course they are upset. Of course they want revenge/vengeance/satisfaction/punishment. But as a society, we have to remove emotion when making such a huge decision. Emotion should not be a factor.

Emotion is and should be a factor. They may try and say that in the jury instructions but that's not real world. If someone murdered one of my kids you better believe I want to give an impact statement and I want my emotions taken into account in deciding the fate of the convicted.

Why? Do you think people generally make better or worse decisions when emotional? (vs. unemotional/analytical)

Because emotion is part of it. It's part of life and should not be discounted.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Maybe we should bring back lynch mobs. Raw emotional and all.

 

[Nikki2200]

I know the family wants her to get the DP. They've made that quite clear. I'm going to make the logical leap that some day if she were to be freed to walk the streets, they may be a little bit upset. Did you watch their VISs yesterday? Have you seen them give up everything in their lives to be in Arizona every single day for four months to sit in a courtroom 1000 miles away to support their dead brother? I'm sure they don't even know, but I can't imagine their would be a point in their lives they would be OK with Jodi Arias walking the streets a free woman.

I did not watch the victim statements. To be honest, I don't think they are relevant.

Having said that, my whole point is the victims may change their mind 50 years from now. Just because they support life in prison now, doesn't mean they will in 50 years. 50 years is a long damn time. People change.

>I actually read a VIS by someone who is a court watcher in the Jodi case, and whose own sister was brutally murdered 20 years ago. One of the men who murdered her sister was being re-sentenced after 20 years and was somehow deemed mentally ######ed so was ineligible for the death penalty and in the re-sentencing there was a possibility that he could be up for parole. Her words really hit me and made it clear that as long as the murderer is in jail, has appeals, has parole hearings, it's never really over for the family of the VICTIM. And one thing she talked about, which really struck me because I fall into the same pattern a lot, that after a while the convicted murderer actually becomes perceived as the victim, not the person(s) they killed. We become sympathetic to people on death row or those who have served a long time in jail. And we shouldn't forget the reason they are there. If you want to read it, http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/07/######ed_german_killer_rudi_ap.php

I appreciate the post - and will read it. But I'm not convinced that victim statements are relevant (or, rather, should be relevant) to sentencing/how we treat criminals.

And the reason murderers become sympathetic is because a) the death penalty is wrong; and b) a life sentence may be a really long damn time. And we recognize - even on a subconscious level - that people can change. And maybe after spending 50 years in prison, enough is enough.

And sympathy isn't mutually exclusive. I can have sympathy for the prisoner and the victims of the crime.

Parole is not about "forgiveness" anyway. It's about whether or not the convict is a danger to society any longer and whether or not they have been rehabilitated. From watching her and from psych testimony, it is pretty clear to me that Jodi has a spectrum of personality disorders and a touch of psychopathy (I think she is what we used to call a sociopath that has now been split up into different categories). That made her capable of committing such a brutal murder without any remorse and believing she was going to get away with it. That is not going to magically go away. She will always be capable of murdering again. The purpose of keeping people in jail has nothing to do with a lack of forgiveness, it has to do with keeping the citizens of our country safe.

The "forgiveness" I was referring to was whether the victims will forgive the criminal. Obviously I don't think its relevant - I've already said as much above. I didn't, though, realize that you agree that how the victims feel is irrelevant.

And I'm not sure where you get your proclamations on parole. Why do you think that is what parole is about? How are you so certain?

I have luckily never had a family member murdered, but I find it really hard to believe the families of murder victims would be OK with the murderer being free in a case of this nature no matter how many years have passed. I think this is a very extreme case. Jodi was not some punk kid that didn't know what she was doing and ended up in the wrong crowd and shot someone. This was a cold-blooded, pre-meditated (for weeks), brutal brutal murder. She has never showed an ounce of remorse or apologized for what she did. She continues to blame the victim as if she was justified in brutally ending his life. She continues to trash his reputation after he is dead, including in an interview she gave 20 minutes after she was convicted of first degree murder. She has accused him of pedophilia, assault and rape after she killed him, none of which can be verified by ANYONE or any piece of physical evidence except the words of his murderer. I guess maybe we'll agree to disagree, but I can't wrap my mind around the concept that the family that has not only violently lost their brother to a psychopath, but has had to endure the psychopath trying to destroy his reputation for years after he was taken from them, could ever get to a point where they would be OK if she was set free. I just can't fathom that. I don't think no matter how many years had passed I could ever get over that.

As for the VISs, I think they serve a purpose of making it clear how heinous the crime was and giving a face and a voice to the victim. I think it's extremely important to keep that in mind when making a decision on sentencing. I mean without going off on a tangent, murder is the most despicable and worst thing you could possibly do to another human being. You are taking everything away from them. You are ending their life. And I think it's important to put a face and a voice to the victim who can no longer do that for themselves because they are gone.

The parole stuff... I don't know why you are questioning what I said? A big factor in paroling a convict is (or should be) whether or not there is a comfort level that they are not a danger to society. I looked this up to make sure I was sane.

What is Parole?

When someone is paroled, they serve part of their sentence under the supervision of their community. The law says that the U.S. Parole Commission may grant parole if (a) the inmate has substantially observed the rules of the institution; (b) release would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law; and © release would not jeopardize the public welfare.



Parole has a three-fold purpose: (1) through the assistance of the United States Probation Officer, a parolee may obtain help with problems concerning employment, residence, finances, or other personal problems which often trouble a person trying to adjust to life upon release from prison; (2) parole protects society because it helps former prisoners get established in the community and thus prevents many situations in which they might commit a new offense; and (3) parole prevents needless imprisonment of those who are not likely to commit further crime and who meet the criteria for parole. While in the community, supervision will be oriented toward reintegrating the offender as a productive member of society.

http://www.justice.gov/uspc/faqs.html#q2



If the parole boards are not taking into account the danger to society by letting the convict go free, then that is something that seriously needs to be addressed. We see repeat offenders all the time and a lot of times in the area of sex offenders. If anything I think they need to be more strict on this in certain cases. I was also relating it specifically to this case, because all cases are different and this case is pretty unique (see punk kid comment above). I think Jodi Arias and her rainbow of personality disorders will NEVER not be a danger to society. I've really never seen anything like this before unless we are talking about some of the Ted Bundy/Ed Gein types of cases.

 

[hamster_13]

This is where Nikki and Curly get their news and opinions.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjdf2y4jvY

 

[Nikki2200]

This is where Nikki and Curly get their news and opinions.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjdf2y4jvY

OK. If only I wasn't so brainwashed and could see that the ninjas did it and Jodi was covering for them.

PS I haven't watched HLN in a long time. I watched the actual courtroom footage on youtube posted by croakerqueen which are usually posted within an hour of the actual trial happening because I got so sick of all the screaming and hysterics by the talking heads there. So I have formed my own opinions.

 

[CurlyNight]

Seriously?? Motion filed for a mistrial again?? What on earth for at this point?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Jeebus. We're not gonna call witnesses?

 

[DougGlatt]

I missed this morning. What happened?

 

[Nikki2200]

Oh Em Gee.

The defense is not calling any witnesses in the mitigation phase because they cannot adequately provide the picture they want to because their witnesses are being intimidated by the prosecution.

Oh Em Gee.

This is a huge giant mistake. I can't imagine making a bigger mistake than this. One of the people Jodi wanted to call was her best friend growing up, who has a history of criminal activity and drug use, and when Juan asked her about the drug use in his private interview with her, she freaked out, and pleaded the fifth and now refuses to testify.

What about her mom? Jodi apparently will not allow her mom to testify.

The only person who is going to speak on Jodi's behalf for the mitigation phase is Jodi. This does not end well for her.

 

[CurlyNight]

Prosecutor witness intimidation again- seems Patty will not testify for her friend. Note she has drug use past and seems she wants to play it safe and is using her 5th.

As well as jury not being sequestered.

Judge saying witness could testify without the prosecutor there and chose not to so witness intimidation is non factor..

Defense moves to withdraw from case again! Can't adequately represent her. Judge: Denied!

No witnesses will be called now by the defense.

Come on in jury! Waste of time over so let's go!

 

[Nikki2200]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

 

[CurlyNight]

Court adjourned for day. Jodi to speak tomorrow..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[DougGlatt]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

 

[CurlyNight]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Ex was going to show... defense saying not complete so screw it all it seems. boo hoo

 

[Nikki2200]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

 

[CurlyNight]

The mom is in quite a pickle. Jodi threw her under the bus with this I was abused crap. So she would either have to perjure herself or show Jodi is a lier which we all know.

I think court out until tomorrow because Jodi needs time to figure out what to say. Judge giving her time.

Defense probably getting ready for appeal at this point. Doubt there will be a new trial unless they find error in the guilt phase. Would probably be the penalty phase on appeal.

 

[DougGlatt]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

Sealed and therefore not public, correct? Then how could that be intimidating?

Is the mistrial request because they said in opening that they would have people there and now they won't? That would be kind of damning from a jurors standpoint. They say friends will testify and then nothing.

 

[DougGlatt]

Jodi's mom is straight Law and Order type of drama. She would say Jodi is mental but Jodi (who is mental) is too mental to want anyone to think she is mental. So it can't be a mitigating factor. I'm not saying she's crazy and doesn't know right from wrong. I'm saying she isn't all there and isn't smart enough to see she has damned herself from the beginning thinking she is smarter than everyone else.

 

[CurlyNight]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

Sealed and therefore not public, correct? Then how could that be intimidating?

Is the mistrial request because they said in opening that they would have people there and now they won't? That would be kind of damning from a jurors standpoint. They say friends will testify and then nothing.

Mistrial request because of:

Live trial coverage

Jury not sequestered

Prosecutor intimidation

 

[DougGlatt]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

Sealed and therefore not public, correct? Then how could that be intimidating?

Is the mistrial request because they said in opening that they would have people there and now they won't? That would be kind of damning from a jurors standpoint. They say friends will testify and then nothing.

Mistrial request because of:

Live trial coverage

Jury not sequestered

Prosecutor intimidation

Anyone know if this has ever worked before? On appeal.

 

[CurlyNight]

The funny thing about prosecutor intimidation is Juan was the same way with his own witnesses! Boo hoo defense. Jodi is guilty and is a lifer or a deather.

If I were on the jury, I'd be pissed! So many senseless delays causing them to be away from normal life longer along with the Alexander family. Goose is cooked. Next step is appeal and hopefully these will all be denied!

 

[Nikki2200]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

Sealed and therefore not public, correct? Then how could that be intimidating?

Is the mistrial request because they said in opening that they would have people there and now they won't? That would be kind of damning from a jurors standpoint. They say friends will testify and then nothing.

That was exactly the judge's comment today. She said she was going to allow all testimony of the defense witnesses in this phase to be sealed, and even allow them to make statements without Juan present, so there could be no intimidation and she could only speculate as to why the witnesses did not show up for court today.

The mistrial request was based on them claiming they had no witnesses to present because they had all been intimidated by the prosecution and would not testify and claimed this is an ongoing issue in the trial and has prevented them from being able to present a fair case in Jodi's defense.

 

[Zow]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

Sealed and therefore not public, correct? Then how could that be intimidating?

Is the mistrial request because they said in opening that they would have people there and now they won't? That would be kind of damning from a jurors standpoint. They say friends will testify and then nothing.

1. The testimony may be sealed for public record, but I believe you stated earlier that Patti would be questioned by the state about her past drug use/abuse. If she then admits to past drug use/abuse those statements could technically be used against her by the state in a future criminal charge (I doubt the state would actually do anything with the statements, but it is technically possible). If she pleads the fifth, then Arias is at a huge disadvantage because it's likely the jury will assume the worst and not give the witness credibility - and perhaps hold it against Arias. Whether the testimony is actually sealed it irrelevant to this dilemma. The defense is obviously in a bind because they promised witnesses and their only positive outcome here is for Patti to testify with no mention of her prior drug abuse. Since they're backed into a corner they need to make any potential legal argument they can to get there outcome - even if it seems a bit of a reach like prosecutorial intimidation.

2. Part of trial law is adequately preserving a specific legal issue at trial for appeal. For some issues, this requires raising the issue (i.e. requesting a mistrial) numerous times at different stages of the trial because failure to do so make forfeit the appeal issue. Since these little nuances in the rules are strict and can be so fatal to the defendant on appeal, defense attorneys will constantly be raising issues like a demand for a mistrial to error on the side of caution. This may be the case here, especially since it sounds like there's a new issue to be raised with the intimidation thing.

 

[Johnny Bing]

The funny thing about prosecutor intimidation is Juan was the same way with his own witnesses! Boo hoo defense. Jodi is guilty and is a lifer or a deather.

If I were on the jury, I'd be pissed! So many senseless delays causing them to be away from normal life longer along with the Alexander family. Goose is cooked. Next step is appeal and hopefully these will all be denied!

Clearly it appears Jodi is preparing for the appeals phase and trying to build more of a case. I think it is all BS, but that appears to be her plan currently.

 

[Nikki2200]

1. The testimony may be sealed for public record, but I believe you stated earlier that Patti would be questioned by the state about her past drug use/abuse. If she then admits to past drug use/abuse those statements could technically be used against her by the state in a future criminal charge (I doubt the state would actually do anything with the statements, but it is technically possible). If she pleads the fifth, then Arias is at a huge disadvantage because it's likely the jury will assume the worst and not give the witness credibility - and perhaps hold it against Arias. Whether the testimony is actually sealed it irrelevant to this dilemma. The defense is obviously in a bind because they promised witnesses and their only positive outcome here is for Patti to testify with no mention of her prior drug abuse. Since they're backed into a corner they need to make any potential legal argument they can to get there outcome - even if it seems a bit of a reach like prosecutorial intimidation.

2. Part of trial law is adequately preserving a specific legal issue at trial for appeal. For some issues, this requires raising the issue (i.e. requesting a mistrial) numerous times at different stages of the trial because failure to do so make forfeit the appeal issue. Since these little nuances in the rules are strict and can be so fatal to the defendant on appeal, defense attorneys will constantly be raising issues like a demand for a mistrial to error on the side of caution. This may be the case here, especially since it sounds like there's a new issue to be raised with the intimidation thing.

As to your point one, Patti did plead the fifth when Juan was interviewing her last week and would not talk about her drug issues. I read somewhere on the interwebs that she has a documented history of heroin addiction and I'm pretty sure she has a few convictions already related to substance abuse. I will try to find that later.

I'm going to re-watch what went down earlier because I was in shock and didn't catch everything. I'm pretty sure though that the judge said that the witnesses were going to be allowed to testify in a sealed hearing with Juan Martinez not present. I'm not exactly sure how that would work because I *think* the state has the right to cross-examine the witness. But I swear I heard the judge say that. The testimony was definitely going to be sealed. They requested that last week, so the public would not see it - only the jury.

And the intimidation issue isn't new and has been brought up in motions for mistrials a few times. They've been claiming for a while that JM was intimidating the defense witnesses. It all came to a head with LaViolette. We didn't really get to see any of that drama go down, but there were several sealed hearings regarding her being intimidated by both the public and the prosecutor. And apparently they didn't go well for LaViolette. I still think she somehow was reprimanded by the court.

 

[Nikki2200]

Now things are becoming a little bit clearer.

Patricia Womack, Key Witness In Jodi Arias Trial, Withdraws Amid Death Threats

A former friend of convicted killer Jodi Arias will not testify on her behalf during the penalty phase of her trial Monday.

According to a defense motion for a mistrial filed Sunday and obtained by Azcentral.com, Patricia Womack has been receiving threats and has indicated she will not take the witness stand on Arias' behalf.

"Threats that included threats on her life if she were to testify on Ms. Arias' behalf," Arias' defense attorney, Kirk Nurmi, wrote in the motion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/jodi-arias-death-threats_n_3307163.html

That's why they were bringing up the public broadcasting of the trial and the fact that the jury wasn't sequestered again.

No clue why Darryl Brewer wouldn't testify though. It just seems like these antics are intentional hoping that the appellate court takes their side on this knowing that nothing is probably going to save Jodi from the DP at this point.

 

[Zow]

I missed this morning. What happened?

It just started. Defense filed a motion for mistrial for prosecution intimidation of the witnesses because Patti Wolmac won't testify anymore because Juan is going to ask her about her drug use and convictions. Motion denied. Then they filed another motion to withdraw from the case because they could not provide adequate counsel. Denied. Then Nurmi announces the defense will not be providing any witnesses. Daryl Brewer was the other person supposed to testify - Jodi's ex boyfriend.

Now court is adjourned for the day. This happened after a bench hearing. No idea why they canceled court because the judge asked if we were ready for the jury, then sidebar, then court canceled.

Any reason why the ex isn't going to show?

Nope. They haven't said anything about him at all. But apparently none of the witnesses (there really were only two - Patti and Daryl) showed up today for court and the defense is trying to say it is because of intimidation by the prosecution.

My jaw is on the floor.

They must really think there is no way Jodi is not going to get the DP and are therefore intentionally blowing the mitigation phase for appeals later hoping her sentence gets reduced.

It's either that or Jodi will not allow anyone other than Patti and Daryl testify on her behalf and neither one of them wants to. Patti's testimony was going to be sealed anyway. We knew that last week.

A lawyer would never intentionally blow any sort of phase because of the malpractice potential and damage to one's reputation in a court (we see the same judges all the time, work with same prosecutors, etc.).

What it sounds like to me is that the defense is backed into a corner with no real good solution. How they got there is understandable though. An opening statement is essentially a lawyer's rundown of what he expects the evidence will show. Obviously it would be horribly ineffective of the defense lawyers to not provide a statement and, at least at the point of doing so, the defense had intended on calling witnesses because not doing so would be likely horrible strategy and reference to them in opening merely natural. However, that backfired (perhaps unforeseeably) with their witnesses now reluctant to testify on Arias's behalf (whether due to the state bringing up their past actions or some other outside influence) or perhaps how now more damaging than helpful. So, the defense is in an awful bind and while I'd agree with the sentiment of this board that the intimidation argument is a weak one, the defense has to try to make a big issue out of it (because there's at least something to the argument) to preserve the issue for appeal.

 

[Zow]

Now things are becoming a little bit clearer.

Patricia Womack, Key Witness In Jodi Arias Trial, Withdraws Amid Death Threats

A former friend of convicted killer Jodi Arias will not testify on her behalf during the penalty phase of her trial Monday.

According to a defense motion for a mistrial filed Sunday and obtained by Azcentral.com, Patricia Womack has been receiving threats and has indicated she will not take the witness stand on Arias' behalf.

"Threats that included threats on her life if she were to testify on Ms. Arias' behalf," Arias' defense attorney, Kirk Nurmi, wrote in the motion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/jodi-arias-death-threats_n_3307163.html

That's why they were bringing up the public broadcasting of the trial and the fact that the jury wasn't sequestered again.

No clue why Darryl Brewer wouldn't testify though. It just seems like these antics are intentional hoping that the appellate court takes their side on this knowing that nothing is probably going to save Jodi from the DP at this point.

If their witnesses are not willing to testimony due to outside influences that could have been possibly prevented previously (and that very issue raised by defense counsel way back then), describing the defense's current objections and requests from mistrials as "antics" is a bit unfair.

 

[Zow]

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!"

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.

It's not a goofy news source. There was an official motion filed with the Maricopa County court that was denied.

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

Discussion is held on Counsel for the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.ockquote>

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 go

ssip.

Curly has posted her interpretations of some media speculations previously in this thread. I didn't doubt that a mtw was filed, but took issue with the simplified claim that the lawyers wanted to quit.

guess what? they do want to quit. if they could just walk away, they would. there is no altruistic BS that they are there for her as public defendants. they've made their money and will get to do the lecture circuit and tv. arias has pushed them as far as she can and they're over it. they did the best job they could and they want out. simple as that.While I doubt there's any chance of convincing you, not it's just not that simple. For one, contract DP attorneys get paid hourly so if you are considering financial incentive there is still plenty there. Two, you simply don't know the attorneys' motivations. Many defense attorneys enjoy or are passionate for defendants because they believe in a system of rights, and that passion does not hinge on the likability of a particular client. Finally, wanting to quit for a defense attorney carries the stigma on the defense bar of saying "I'm just not good enough to get through this case" and, frankly, most attorneys are too proud and stubborn to admit that.

As has been discussed the defense is currently in an awful bind and I'm sure Arias has expressed a desire for new counsel. Her attorneys need to keep raising the issue to preserve it for a post-conviction relief claim.

 

[Nikki2200]

Now things are becoming a little bit clearer.

Patricia Womack, Key Witness In Jodi Arias Trial, Withdraws Amid Death Threats

A former friend of convicted killer Jodi Arias will not testify on her behalf during the penalty phase of her trial Monday.

According to a defense motion for a mistrial filed Sunday and obtained by Azcentral.com, Patricia Womack has been receiving threats and has indicated she will not take the witness stand on Arias' behalf.

"Threats that included threats on her life if she were to testify on Ms. Arias' behalf," Arias' defense attorney, Kirk Nurmi, wrote in the motion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/jodi-arias-death-threats_n_3307163.html

That's why they were bringing up the public broadcasting of the trial and the fact that the jury wasn't sequestered again.

No clue why Darryl Brewer wouldn't testify though. It just seems like these antics are intentional hoping that the appellate court takes their side on this knowing that nothing is probably going to save Jodi from the DP at this point.

If their witnesses are not willing to testimony due to outside influences that could have been possibly prevented previously (and that very issue raised by defense counsel way back then), describing the defense's current objections and requests from mistrials as "antics" is a bit unfair.

I guess I'm seeing this as antics because I CANNOT BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT PRESENTING ANY WITNESSES. Obviously I'm not a lawyer. This just seems like the most asinine nonsense they could possibly do. What is the jury going to think? They are going to think that not one person in Jodi's life is willing to get up and speak on her behalf and try to save her from being killed. Why would the mother not testify and say, "Please don't kill my daughter." WHY??? Jodi also has a sister. She has a father who is in poor health but was actually at the court today. I am just completely baffled at how this could be going down like this. Which is why I am suspecting that this is intentional and they are bagging this hoping this would come up in appeals and her sentence could be reduced because no mitigation case was presented for her.

The more likely answer though is that Jodi is dictating who can testify for her and she is not allowing any of her family members to do so. So she is the one that is essentially sabotaging her own case. She probably thinks she is going to get up there and present her "artwork" and the jury is going to look at it and determine there is no way they can deprive the world of this talent by sentencing her to death.

 

[Nikki2200]

If anyone wants to watch what went down today:

I'm going to rewatch now because I know I missed something.

 

[DougGlatt]

If anyone wants to watch what went down today:

I watched them. I imagine the defense attorneys have their hands tied by JA. They probably want to call her mom and dad. But I doubt she'll let them.

 

[mad sweeney]

I love the Jodi is innocent site. If it isn't shtick, it's some of the most obtuse nonsense I've ever read. I can't help but picture LarryBoy's twin, in fishnet fingerless gloves, updating that site. Even more unreal is the site raising money for 'other' survivors of domestic violence.

I can't decide if its funnier or sadder or both if its not shtick.

 

[Nikki2200]

I love the Jodi is innocent site. If it isn't shtick, it's some of the most obtuse nonsense I've ever read. I can't help but picture LarryBoy's twin, in fishnet fingerless gloves, updating that site. Even more unreal is the site raising money for 'other' survivors of domestic violence.I can't decide if its funnier or sadder or both if its not shtick.

It's not schtick. It's actually pretty scary. I just can't understand how those people's brains work. It's so weird. I'll watch the trial and then occasionally go over there to see what they are saying and it is completely opposite of how I interpreted it. Today for instance.... I'm sitting here like WTF is Nurmi doing???? Is he intentionally sabotaging the case???? I went to that site and they were gushing about what a great job he did and that the appeal has pretty much already been granted. What?

I can only spend about 5 minutes there and I start to feel icky. The way they trash Travis's relatives makes my stomach turn. They call his sister dog face. They call them pedo huggers. Really really sick stuff. Like even if you believe the crap Jodi says, what in the world did his siblings do except lose their brother? Sick.

I can't really tell what their "theory" is on what really happened considering Jodi Arias is innocent and all. It has something to do with the "Mormon Mafia" and either they killed Travis and are forcing Jodi to take the blame for it, or Travis really was an abuser and a pedo, but they are threatening the jury and the witnesses to make sure that Jodi is convicted so it doesn't hurt Travis's or the Mormon Church's reputation. It's one of those two. I think those people need some medication.

 

[CurlyNight]

Is there a minimum time she needs to serve once a sentence is handed down before an appellate court can review her case or is it right away and she could be in court again pretty quick here and probably receive a lighter sentence since the defense seems to have prepped for how she didn't receive the best representation with today's antics?

 

[mad sweeney]

Is there a minimum time she needs to serve once a sentence is handed down before an appellate court can review her case or is it right away and she could be in court again pretty quick here and probably receive a lighter sentence since the defense seems to have prepped for how she didn't receive the best representation with today's antics?

You writing for the innocent website now? She's not getting a lighter sentence.

 

[DougGlatt]

While I don't normally frequent the hln shows, I was bored tonight and swung over. A potential strategy was being discussed that made sense to me. JA has told so many lies, that any person that testifies for her can be potentially allow Martinez to rebut the testimony. For instance, it could allow him to introduce the interview she gave after the guilty verdict. But if JA is the only one who speaks, it's an allocution rather than testifying and therefore no rebuttal can be given. And therefore he cannot introduce that video. Martinez can also not question her because, again, it's an allocution.