All testimony has to be redone--unless a witness is no longer available. Then the original testimony could be read in by a court reporter. The prior trial is a legal on the record proceeding so just a grand jury or previous hearing testimony can be used to impeach a witness. But it can't be just read in unless it meets one of those requirements.Originally Posted by Freethinker
Maybe Juror #2, who seems to be a favorite of Jodi's? Or did I imagine that speculation?
I don't understand why they would need Jodi's family back there.
So dropped the like. Just like a previous proceeding the transcript can be used to impeach a witness.
Everything I've heard said Jodi's mom was sitting in the court along with Travis' BIL. (not together of course)
Yes, which means you have one juror leaning Arias' way and #5 who leans with the prosecution possibly being dismissed.
Important point is, pro defense juror.
Almost an hour with judge, lawyers, Jodi and Travis' family in chambers.... something's going down
Kick 'em both off and move on with the trial. We're already up around a million dollars in what the defense is costing.
I'm thinking that has something to do with the blue ribbons. Nurmi said he would ask for a mistrial if they kept wearing them.
Yes this. Do not like.
Ugh, the stress of waiting is really getting to me, especially with Travis' family called back. I was feeling pretty confident there would be no mistrial, but now I am starting to wonder...
Were you crying when you were stabbing him? --SuperJuan Martinez
Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking? -- ABC Interviewer to JA
You can never really know who is for who, that's the whole point, they aren't suppose to be deciding yet.
that said, reporter Chris Williams said he would have took #5 for a jodi juror.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
but then jodis side started wearing the abuse victim ribbons!
I don't know how plea deals work. Is Jodi in there begging for the families forgiveness on the hopes that the state will go ahead and accept a plea deal if the family is ok with it? I don't see the family ever forgiving her.
Or is it a mistrial and they called the family in do they wouldn't be caught off gaurd. But then why would JA be there??
Too much drama going on here
If we get another trial, maybe this time Jodi will decide to stand on her head in court and laugh out loud to herself.
The motion posted many times now tells us they complained about Juror #5
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Maybe they need to be questioned about something. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Arias (or even Travis's family) may have been caught out trying to influence a jury member or members. The case is fraught with emotions, and it's been going on a loooong time. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been an incident long before this.
I agree. The only two reasons for them to be in chambers is the ribbons or a plea deal. Doesn't make sense for them to be there for juror misconduct.
What if......Jodi has worn out, told his family she really remembers the killing. Would this be an admission behind closed doors? If no deal is made, would the trial continue on as if a confession behind closed doors never happened?
also, observers are saying she is asking most of the questins too - maybe the ratted her out because they are sick of her
I know. I said that maybe Juror #2 was the one who ratted her out.
Waiting stinks :( I can just see jodis side right now, passing around 2 liters and bags of chips.
Bingo.
It could be as simple as the ribbons complaint with a comment on them by #5. Buncha nuthin'. We'll see.
I was a foreperson on a jury years ago in CA. We had one juror openly say in the middle of the trial to all of us that the prosecutor is doing a horrible job and that he didn't think the defendants were guilty. This was a clear violation of the rules, mainly that you cannot talk about ur opinion of the case until deliberations. We also had a mentally unstable juror who was breaking down crying everyday. Both jurors were brought to the attention of the court and the defense wanted a mistrial. We were all thoroughly questioned in chambers and the case continued and no jurors were even kicked off. I think they have to determine that the jurors can no longer be fair and unbiased in order to declare a mistrial. So even if a juror messes up, it doesn't necessarily mean it will result in a mistrial. And in this case there are a bunch of jurors so they can afford to kick one out and resume with the trial as long as everyone answers when questioned by the judge that they can still be impartial.
i don't even think they would all be there for a mistrail discussion either - there has already been a few in chambers about mistrial and this never happened
There are currently 33 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 33 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
