Don't you think the jurors are as sick of JA and her lies as we are? I can see the jury returning a verdict quickly on Monday. It will be their way of showing how disgusted they are/were with the whole DT strategy.Originally Posted by dizzyp
Don't you think the jurors are as sick of JA and her lies as we are? I can see the jury returning a verdict quickly on Monday. It will be their way of showing how disgusted they are/were with the whole DT strategy.
Well, by law and the jury instructions read to them, they aren't suppose to "specualate".very true... and if the Jury spends time speculating on "what ifs" like we do here they'll be deilberting for weeks
Here's a challenge for you ... WTF will Stabby Stalker use for mitigating. Not being hateful, I just don't see any that fit her to help her any.
http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/Mit...umstances.aspx
Mitigating Circumstances
A.R.S. ?13-751(G)(1)
MENTAL DRUGS / ALCOHOL
A.R.S. ? 13-751(G)(2)
A.R.S. ? 13-751(G)(3)
A.R.S. ? 13-751(G)(4)
A.R.S. ? 13-751(G)(5)
COOPERATION
LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY
CHILDHOOD / FAMILY
EMPLOYMENT / MILITARY
FAMILY TIES
FELONY MURDER/LACK OF INTENT
FOLLOWER
GOOD CHARACTER
INTELLIGENCE/EDUCATION
LIFE SENTENCE AVAILABLE
MEDICAL PROBLEMS
MODEL PRISONER
LENIENCY
REHABILITATION
REMORSE / GRIEF
RESIDUAL DOUBT/INNOCENCESENTENCING
DISPARITY
STRESS
VICTIM'S ACTIONS
MISCELLANEOUS
IMPAIRMENT
NOT A FUTURE DANGER
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
O/T but it appears the board is functioning normally now? Maybe folks will start wandering back.
it's possible... I guess I'm applying my own ideas of what I would do if I were on a Jury... First thing I would say is "let's discuss the evidence" even if it was only for a few hours so that the verdict would include some agreed upon rationale.
I know it doesn't always happen that way.
here's my list:
Y- MENTAL (they'll adopt the BPD as fact)
Y- LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY
Y- CHILDHOOD / FAMILY (alleged abuse)
Y- FOLLOWER (BPD)
Y- INTELLIGENCE/EDUCATION (some say)
Y- LIFE SENTENCE AVAILABLE
N- REMORSE / GRIEF (NOT EVEN AN OUNCE)
Y- VICTIM'S ACTIONS (they'll try)
Y- MISCELLANEOUS (the "throw everything against the wall" routine
Last edited by dizzyp; 05-05-2013 at 05:38 AM.
The jury deliberating about all of the details is what worries me. I hope that if they start getting into the questionable areas, one or more of them can and will bring deliberations back to the big picture and the Jury Instructions. Perhaps, like us, they will debate certain facts and then just move on. Wishful thinking, but they probably will want to get to a verdict as quickly and thoroughly as possible without getting lost in the weeds. I hope we hear from them in depth, but if they convict of M1 they have to return for more phases and probably can't make statements until after sentencing. I wonder if they will learn of some of the "prejudicial" evidence in the Sentencing phase. Anybody have knowledge of this?very true... and if the Jury spends time speculating on "what ifs" like we do here they'll be deilberting for weeks
On one of the juries I was on, we began with a vote. There were like 2 or 3 that didn't vote guilty right from the get go. We then went around the room and gave the reason(s) for our vote. We didn't go through every single piece of evidence, just those the non-guilty voters questioned. For example, one commented that she didn't believe the story because if the cordless phone was tossed up into the air as the victim stated, it would have broken upon landing. We had the phone in evidence. We threw it up in the air as described in testimony; it landed and nothing happened. She changed her vote. Therefore, I'm hoping they go through just the points of doubt.
With this case, I really have no doubt and I can't think of anything that even gives me a reasonable doubt. Sequence of killing events does not matter to me. Her planning is what matters and the fact that she accomplished it.
But at the link, personality disorders aren't worth anything unless paired with some major DD / retardation. She's SOL on this one.
Remorse isn't just being sorry, it requires she'd have to acknowledge her crime. That will never happen.
Education, if a drop out is helpful against a cruel murder .. NOPE
see what I mean, I tried but can't find anything.
Criminal history goes back to 8th grade growing pot.
Keep in mind whatever they try the state can rebut. :)
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
What about cooperation, good character and leniency?
Yaa - It'll be the "whatever sticks" defense
I heard Beth Karas say that JM had a jury come back with a guilty verdict in 15 minutes once.
Also. for me, the autopsy photos would seal the deal for me on M1. Its soooooo disproportionate and incongruent with self defense.
throw out the expert stuff, throw out what stabby says and what are you left with? gruesome, devastating photos of Travis. Stabby's injuries=a cut. please.
I am sure the jury is an excellent cross-section of normal members of society, with a good spread of personality disorders & nothing at all like a cross-section of MDS members, all of whom tend to have certain interests & (figurative) head-butting behaviours in common. I'm sure they'll deal with it better & faster than us.very true... and if the Jury spends time speculating on "what ifs" like we do here they'll be deilberting for weeks
In the end the minutiae(?) is irrelevant. I lived with a violent aggressive bastard for years, at no stage did it occur to me to do THAT. I might've wished him dead, fleetingly, a hundred times, but those thoughts were just that - fleeting. Even if her entire story is true, she still killed him. She admits it. & the "violence" history she presents is so minor as to barely warrant even THINKING about an AVO (can't remember what you guys call them.) She is not going to walk. Even if they believe ALL of it - & remember I'm one of the JAII spies (cough, I still don't believe that sites real), she still killed the guy for..well for what?
She's never claimed a prior attack on anything but her finger & NO-ONE reacts so extremely the first time a partner gets seriously violent with them. You might walk out & never look back, but you don't slit his throat & the rest. There's usually 2 or 3 serious incidents before you even realise this is a REAL threat & react. Because you cannot believe it's happening. By her own account she had no such history with Travis. She had no reason to think she'd need deadly force.
If she wants to use her previous "incidents" as her reason for resorting to deadly force? Then her own version says she had to kill a man to protect her finger. Her finger, according to her, was pretty much the only living thing Travis had ever seriously assaulted. The only question is whether she gets the death penalty. She's not going anywhere. I'll be stunned if she does. I do NOT believe the story or evidence is as black & white as many of you like to believe, but she's going nowhere.
Question:
If the jury does come back quickly, is that something that can be used for appeal?
IMO the slit throat is premediation whether they believe she planned this or not. Premeditation can be formed in an instant, and TA was down and mortally wounder when she inflicted that particular wound. Sick fuck that she is.
She already has a record of some minor violations in jail, and she cooperated by continually lying. Curious who will testify to her "good character". IMO the character assassination of TA (the real victim) will be held against her if they find her guilty of M1. That will demonstrate that they did not believe her stories about abuse or pedophilia. Those accusations by Stabby were blatant attempts to save herself and tarnish the reputation of the man she already slaughtered, and I hope the jury considers this at sentencing.
She can try
Once you start reading appeals its a whole new hobby. They can try ridiculous things, complain without providing case law argument or no evidence... but
the court slaps them down.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
People are people and juries are made of of mere humans just like the rest of us. Nothing makes them extra special inside, you get 12 varying souls that are always unpredictable. I take it you haven't read up much on juries? If interested, I left a few 'inside' looks at some on the jury thread. http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthrea...=1#post3405035
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Family trying to save her now with love stories isn't going to work. State has the parents on tape talking about what a turd she's been to them and that they have had little contact for 10 yrs and so on. Not that family holds much weight anyway, courts expect family to come in begging and exaggerating. Kicked her mom, by the Dad's own words, would call up screaming etc. Who is going to come in grandma, so the state can find out how she feels about the gun? bad idea
I don't see how character assinsation of TA can come in for penalty phase. That isn't an aggravator allowed at that phase that I can find. ((damn))
The one thing I'm hoping for is that if they didn't buy any part of that garbage, they have the courage to speak for Travis and say so publically after this is done.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
I am really looking forward to one of those Dateline NBC (or other show) where they get 5 or 6 willing jurors to sit down and explain how they came to the verdict.
So if her parents testify to save her life, can Juan bring in the interview tapes of her parents and what they've said about her?
Isn't that a Cardinal sin in deliberations? I forget the term.. but that's like testing or simulating evidence. I'm not sure.
I do see what you mean.
I just listed what I thought the defense will try... not that it was valid or will work.
My opinion is the sentence will be LWOP and that is based on one or two jurors gumming up the works and that will be the compromise. I personally would be happy with that but I'm not big on the DP in general. (I have said before, if the family calls for the DP, and they have, and that's the verdict I would not be bothered by that either... the family's wishes come 1st.)
Bingo, you got that right, and if discovered, can nullify the jury.
From what I've read the State gets to rebut anything she brings in and those tapes certainly can do that. The difference in this phase is the burden of proof switches to the defendant, she has to prove her own 'mitigating' factors. And, the burden of proof standard switches to 'prerponderance'.
I agree! Frustrating when you have to discover what idiots some are ugh. But for the overall insight, I like to learn about how they work and how off our perceptions can be of them!
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Well, if it is, oh well......
I saw her smiling/laughing as her taking his comment as a compliment. She's one strange chick I tell ya. How about her "that's bullshit" comment. She isn't taking this too seriously.
found this kind of funny but still alarming description of a jury deliberation back in 1984 (posted it on the other thread):
http://tinyurl.com/c8pzjxd
I wonder if this lax Judge will let them drag out the penalty phase or if she is finally ready to speed that up too.
After verdict its 30 - 60 days allowed to set a sentencing date. Be nice if she goes for the shorter one since they've had five years for this mess.
Looks like the Def and State must have already shared info for the penalty phase according to the rules of procedure discovery rules.
h. Additional Disclosure in a Capital Case.
(1) Within 180 days after receiving the state's disclosure pursuant to Rule 15.1(i)(3), the defendant shall provide to the prosecutor:
(a) A list of all mitigating circumstances intended to be proved.
(b) The names and addresses of all persons, other than the defendant, whom the defendant intends to call as witnesses during the aggravation and penalty hearings, together with all written or recorded statements of the witnesses.
(c) The names and addresses of any experts whom the defendant intends to call during the aggravation and penalty hearings together with any reports prepared excluding the defendant's statements.
(d) A list of any and all papers, documents, photographs or tangible objects that the defendant intends to use during the aggravation and penalty hearings.
(2) The trial court may enlarge the time or allow the notice required in Rule 15.2(h)(1) to be amended only upon a showing of good cause by the defendant or upon stipulation of counsel and approval of the court.
(3) Within 60 days of receiving the state's supplemental disclosure pursuant to rule 15.1(i)(3), the defense shall disclose the names and addresses of any rebuttal witnesses, together with their written or recorded statements, and the names and addresses of any experts who may be called at the penalty hearing, together with any reports prepared by the experts.
http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/15_2.htm
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
There are currently 20 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 20 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
