Jodi Arias-- Court Documents

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: JUROR MISCONDUCT

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/AriasJuror.pdf

Juror 5:


Post 300:
"Juror No. 5
She is a married, white female in her 30s. She sits on the edge of her seat and is the most visible juror from the gallery because she has a “unique hair style.”

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?26892-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death-%28Part-II%29/page12

Call for mistrial by Arias team,
March 31, 2013

PDF 5 pages

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/AriasJuror.pdf

All kinds of court docs:
PDF
40 pages

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/109828551/Jodi-Arias-Court-Documents

Apparently, the defense is rather concerned and has been wall-papering the court today.

IF anyone has a link, please share!


3/31/2013 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 4/1/2013
NOTE: DEDEFENDANT?S OBJECTION TO ELICITING TESTIMONY OR MAKING ARGUMENT RELATED TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH PROBABLE CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND

Partial transcript of the May 2008 "phone sex" call:

Jodi: Have you seen Iron Man?

Travis: Yeah

Jodi: How is it?

Travis: As far as super hero movies go, it was good.

Jodi: What's that?

Travis: As far as super hero movies go, it was good.

Jodi: Oh

Travis: Like, I'm not a huge fan of super hero movies, obviously.

Jodi: Yeah, I mean? I like? I love Xmen

Travis: Oh. Yeah, wow.

Jodi: Did we say that at the same time?

Travis: Yeah

Jodi: That was trippy. Those are great movies though.

Travis: Yeah, they're the best. I'm actually not a big fan of Spiderman.

Jodi: Yeah, I like the storyline, but I don't like sitting through all the movie. Remember you made fun of me when I was crying when his best friend died? I was sad that you made fun of me because I got into the actual story. I was like, 'he's so insensitive'. (laughs)

Travis: Who likes Spiderman though?

Jodi: I know, but I didn't see it as that. I saw it as a love story. A story between? Like, what really jerks me was the way they had become friends?they were best friends that were enemies, that finally they understood why they hated each other. And so there was no reason for it anymore. But, then he died. So, he didn't get to enjoy the fruit of that discovery, which would have been the mending of their friendship. (laughs) Anyway. (laughs) Ok, go on.

Travis: And then uh.. Yeah, I don't like the Spidermans at all. I don't like the Supermans. I don't like the Fantastic Four because [unintelligible] I'm uh... Well, you like the Xmen. The Xmen are good, right. So, I will give you that. Batman is okay. But, Xmen are my favorite.

Alessandra_Deux wrote:MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: JUROR MISCONDUCT

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/AriasJuror.pdf

Chris Williams ‏@chriswnews 7m
BREAKING NEWS: #JodiArias judge denies mistrial motion, excuses juror No.5. #Arias def filed request Monday


See: Main discussion page, p7+ for details of this.

http://mhit.org/images/Continuum_of_aggression_and_abuse.pdf

Not a document but about court procedure:

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?26892-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death-%28Part-II%29/page382

Post 9530:
FOUND IT: I suggest reading the entire statute.. it is very convoluted... there are 2 situations where a jury could be dismissed and replaced AFTER a guilty verdict if they do not come to a unanimous verdicts on issues that come after Guilt/Innocence (aggravating circumstance, and penaty phase: DP/LWOP)
Arizona Law: http://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/...section13-752/ (it IS confusing)

K. At the penalty phase, if the trier of fact is a jury and the jury is unable to reach a verdict, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall impanel a new jury. The new jury shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt or the issue regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first jury found by unanimous verdict to be proved or not proved. If the new jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the court shall impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant.

L. If the jury that rendered a verdict of guilty is not the jury first impaneled for the aggravation phase, the jury impaneled in the aggravation phase shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt. If the jury impaneled in the aggravation phase is unable to reach a verdict on any of the alleged aggravating circumstances and the jury has not found that at least one of the alleged aggravating circumstances has been proven, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall impanel a new jury. The new jury shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt or the issue regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first jury found not proved by unanimous verdict. If the new jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the court shall impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant.

I. If the trier of fact at any prior phase of the trial is the same trier of fact at the subsequent phase, any evidence that was presented at any prior phase of the trial shall be deemed admitted as evidence at any subsequent phase of the trial. "

Methods of impeachment

In the United States, a party has the option of discrediting a witness through impeachment by cross-examining the witness about facts which reflect poorly on the witness's credibility or, in some cases, by introducing extrinsic evidence that reflects negatively on the witness's truthfulness or knowledge.
[edit]Impeachment categories

A party may impeach a witness in the United States by introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the mnemonic BICCC)
[edit]Bias
Courts permit parties to cross-examine a witness in order to impeach that witness based on demonstration of bias. Witness bias may be catalyzed by any number of circumstances, ranging from the witness' blood relationship to a party to her financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. Most US jurisdictions require a cross-examiner to lay a foundation before using extrinsic evidence to demonstrate bias for impeachment purposes. Although Rule 610 provides that evidence of a witness's "religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness's credibility," an inquiry into the witness' religious beliefs or opinions for the purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the rule's prohibition.[2]
If a witness is accused of bias, and the opportunity to cross-examine exists during the current trial, any statements made at a previous trial/hearing and which are consistent with the testimony at the present trial are admissible and not hearsay.[3]
[edit]Inconsistent statement
A party may impeach a witness by introducing those of her prior statements which are inconsistent with her current testimony at trial. In a minority of jurisdictions that follow FRE 801, the prior inconsistent statement may be used not only to impeach, but also as substantive evidence.
A prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach a witness if
the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;
the witness testifies at the present trial; and
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement [4]
The cross-examining attorney need not disclose or show the contents of a prior inconsistent statement to a witness prior to the moment she is questioned. If the witness' attorney asks to see the prior inconsistent statement, however, the questioning attorney must show or disclose its contents.[5]
[edit]Character
A majority of U.S. jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness. Under the Federal Rules a party may demonstrate a witness' "bad" character through reputation or opinion testimony.[6] That is, a witness' credibility cannot be bolstered, only impeached.
[edit]Prior conviction
Additionally, a party may impeach a witness for "bad" character by introducing evidence of the witness' prior conviction of a crime, subject to a series of rules laid out in F.R.E. 609(a).[7] If the witness' prior conviction was for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of that crime is admissible for impeachment purposes regardless of whether the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony. If the witness' prior conviction was for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of the conviction is only admissible for impeachment if the crime was a felony: misdemeanors are inadmissible.
Furthermore, if the cross-examining party seeks to introduce evidence of a felony not involving dishonesty or false statement, its success in impeaching the witness will depend on whether the witness is the defendant or one other than the defendant. If the witness is defendant, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the probative value of the impeachment (demonstrating the defendant witness' propensity to lie) outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.[8]
The probative value must merely outweigh unfair prejudice. If the witness is a person other than the defendant, the evidence of the prior felony conviction for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible, unless the party objecting to the evidence succeeds in the more difficult task of proving that the probative value of the felony conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
The probative value must substantially outweigh unfair prejudice. Finally, if a conviction is more than 10 years old, the probative value of admitting the conviction must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 609(b)[9]
[edit]No extrinsic evidence
A party may impeach a witness for character by cross-examining the witness, but not by introducing extrinsic evidence, about specific instances of prior misconduct, often called "prior bad acts," as long as the questions relate to the witness' own character for truthfulness (or untruthfulness) or to the character for untruthfulness of a previous witness that the current witness has testified about before.[10]
Under California Evidence Code §787,[11] a party may not use either cross-examination or extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness by showing specific instances of prior misconduct/
In civil cases. Proposition 8, the Victims Bill of Rights passed by CA voters 1982, permits parties to use both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence about specific instances of prior misconduct in criminal cases to impeach a witness.[12]
[edit]Competency
The witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (such as he could not see from where he was) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence, allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) considering competence, but one of many factors that juries are to consider when determining credibility of the witness.
[edit]Contradiction
The witness is induced to contradict the own testimony during the present proceeding. This differs from inconsistent statements above. Inconsistent statements involve statements made out-of-court (hearsay) or in prior proceedings. Contradiction involves the witness saying two different things in the same testimony.


An attorney impeaching a witness during a mock trial competition
Another form of impeachment by contradiction has a subtle effect on the order in which the attorneys present their evidence. When a defense attorney calls a witness who testifies about what happened, this gives the opposing attorney the opportunity to present evidence contradicting that witness. Had impeachment by contradiction not been allowed by the rules of evidence, the second attorney would have been barred from presenting the contradicting evidence because the second attorney already had the one (and only) chance to prove the facts of the case as claimed. Since his opponent put on a witness, this "opens the door" to strengthen the case by going again with more proof of what happened: the only legal excuse for this rehash of the claim is impeaching by contradiction his opponent's witness.
Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively. An attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on a trivial ("collateral") fact like the color of the hat she testified she was wearing on the day she witnessed the accident, but on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of relevance, contradiction may be allowed. Thus, a witness might not normally be permitted to testify being a safe driver, and the opponent cannot normally prove that the driver is unsafe, but if the witness nonetheless happens to testify being a safe driver (no objection was made to the question), the opponent can now contradict by eliciting on cross-examination that the driver was involved in several accidents. Had contradiction impeachment not been permitted, the unsafe character of the witness would have been barred by the rules of evidence.
Another example is more extreme. Suppose the defendant is on trial for possession of heroin. The defendant testifies will naturally deny possessing the particular drug. Suppose the defendent foolishly testifies on direct examination, "In fact, I've never possessed heroin in my life." The prosecutor can then, on cross-examination, impeach him with an exhibit of heroin seized on an unrelated occasion, even if seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.[13] The Walder decision led to a ruling that a defendant can be impeached by his confession even if the confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.[14] Harris, in turn, led to a decision allowing similar impeachment by physical evidence that had been suppressed in that very case as having been seized from defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.[15]
Impeachment by contradiction evidence is admitted solely to impeach: it cannot be used to prove anything about the events being litigated but only to discredit the witness's credibility. The theory is that when a witness can be contradicted, it should be taken into account in determining the reliability of the witness. Hence, the jury is instructed by the judge not to use the impeachment evidence" as proof of any facts, but only to consider whether the witness in question should be believed.
All experienced courtroom observers, however, agree that jurors will have great difficulty understanding this distinction, known as "limited admissibility" or "admissibility for a limited purpose". Even more unlikely is the prospect that a juror who understands the instruction will be psychologically capable of obeying it. The only practical impact of this limited admissibility is that the evidence cannot be used to prop up a weak case that would otherwise be dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence because it was admitted only for the impeachment of a witness.
[edit]Bolstering and Rehabilitating

The general rule is that the proponent of a witness may not attempt to build up the witness's credibility prior to his being impeached. The rationale is that the witness is presumed trustworthy. It also speeds proceedings by not spending time bolstering when the other side may not even impeach the witness.
In order to rehabilitate a witness, the proponent is confined to using the same techniques used by the opponent to impeach the witness. That is, if the opponent impeached via bias, then rehabilitation is limited to negating the claim of bias. If the opponent brought in a rebuttal witness who testified to the character of principal witness as that of a liar, rehabilitation is limited to a character witness who testifies principal witness is a truthful person. Note that this is a different consideration from the ever-present right to cross-examine any witness, including character witnesses.
If the opponent shows that the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and implies that after that statement and prior to trial the witness was "gotten to" or otherwise developed a motive to lie in court, rehabilitation can be attempted by showing that the witness made a prior consistent statement (consistent with the testimony) before the alleged events that gave rise to the alleged motive to lie. The jury is left with two pre-trial statements that are inconsistent with each other, but only one is inconsistent with the testimony, and both were made before the witness was allegedly gotten to, so there might be softening of the accusation that the testimony flows from such as a bribe. Also, there is always a case for allowing a prior consistent statement made at any time before trial to help explain away what is arguably only a seemingly inconsistent statement that is subject to interpretation because, for example, it was lifted out of the context that would explain the statement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

Capital Case Management

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012011/m4565390.pdf

Off topic:

STATE OF ARIZONA JUAN M MARTINEZ
v.
JODI ANN ARIAS (001)

Jodi is party (001). Last week we were trying to figure out that "defense motion to compel" filed by party 001.

So, it is definitely a defense motion trying to reclaim JA's contraband "journals" and such. Wonder who has custody of the loot? JM maybe?... or just the MCSO?

Mylife101 wrote:Off topic:

STATE OF ARIZONA JUAN M MARTINEZ
v.
JODI ANN ARIAS (001)

Jodi is party (001). Last week we were trying to figure out that "defense motion to compel" filed by party 001.

So, it is definitely a defense motion trying to reclaim JA's contraband "journals" and such. Wonder who has custody of the loot? JM maybe?... or just the MCSO?

She carries a couple with her now.

4/22/2013 REQ - Request - Party (001) 4/22/2013
NOTE: REQUEST FOR SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND NOTICE OF SURREBUTTAL WITNESS

4/22/2013 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 4/22/2013
NOTE: OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND NOTICE OF SURREBUTTAL WITNESS

4/21/2013 RJI - Request for Jury Instructions - Party (001) 4/22/2013
NOTE: DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

Not docs but list of court of court counsel for JA.

"

History of Jodi Arias changing attorneys and motions by attorneys.

First public defender at arraignment is James Hann.

On 9/19/08 the public defender is Maria L Schaffer as primary.

On 9/19/08 another public defender Judis R Andrews requested an extension of time to challenge the Grand Jury proceedings as they did not have a copy of the Grand Jury transcript.

On 12/18/08 the primary public defender is Maria L Schaffer and the secondary public defender is Gregory T Parzych. Juan M Martinez is still the State’s Attorney.

On 5/22/09 the defendant submitted a request for a change of counsel.
Additional hearings and status meeting are held without further mention of the change of council.

On 8/10/09 the Court received and reviewed a motion from both public defenders to withdraw from representing the defendant. The Court found sufficient cause to allow them to withdraw and noted that the trial was set for February 2, 2010 so there is adequate time for new counsel to be assigned without putting the trial date in jeopardy.

On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington and Kirk Nurmi appear as counsel along with Maria Schaffer and Gregory Parzych at an evidentiary hearing. Of interest, this hearing was to determine if there is probable cause to add an Aggravating Factor that will make this a death penalty case. This is where the prosecution presents to the Court that the victim was shot first, then repeatedly stabbed, then stabbed in the heart and finally had throat slit. Detective Flores represents to the court that he spoke with the Medical Examiner Dr. Horne and that this is the sequence of events Dr. Horne gave him.

On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington (secondary) and Kirk Nurmi (primary) are assigned as new defense counsel.

On 2/25/11 Kirk Nurmi announced to the Court that he is leaving the Public Defender’s Office.

On 3/8/2011 a hearing is held regarding Kirk Nurmi withdrawing as defense counsel. Very interesting minutes. Defendant strenuously objected to new counsel and possibility of pushing back trial date. The Court noted that “Once a case is set for trial, counsel may not withdraw except upon motion providing the name and address of another attorney, along with a statement from that attorney stating that he or she has been advised of the trial date and will be prepared for trial. Rule 6.3(c). No such motion or statement has been filed in this case. “ Mr. Nurmi was ordered to continue as the lead defense counsel at the standard public defender hourly rate paid to the primary defense counsel.

On 3/9/2011 Mr. Nurmi submitted a formal motion to withdraw and as hearing on the motion was set for 3/21/2011.

On 3/21/2011 Mr. Nurmi’s motion to withdraw as counsel is denied. At this hearing the State’s request to change the trial date due to a scheduling conflict with State Attorney Juan M Martinez was also denied.

On 3/22/2011 another hearing is held with a second motion to withdraw by Mr. Nurmi. After the hearing on the previous day the Public Defender Office notified Mr. Nurmi that they were withdrawing the mitigation specialist, investigator, and paralegal because the Public Defender Office does not want Mr. Nurmi directing staff when he is no longer an employee. The Court ordered that Mr. Nurmi motion was denied and he was required to remain as the primary counsel and that the Public Defender Office must immediately reassign the personnel to the case.

On 4/4/2011 Mr. Nurmi stated his objection to remaining on the case during a status hearing as he has left the Public Defender Office to go into private practice. The Court found that Mr. Nurmi has an ethical obligation to continue representing the defendant but would begin receiving a reasonable hourly rate of $225.00 as compensation to avoid any financial interests that would place Mr. Nurmi in conflict with his client.

On 8/8/2011 defendant has a hearing on an oral motion she submitted to represent herself. At the end of the hearing this motion is granted but Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington are to remain as advisory counsel, with Victoria Washington as primary. The evidentiary hearing on the purported letters from Travis Alexander alleging he is a pedophile is held with Ms. Arias as defense counsel.

On 8/9/2011 during a normal status conference both Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi address the Court as to the roles and responsibility of advisory counsel, and the primary counsel (which is now the defendant). The Court agrees and addresses this with Ms. Arias and asks her if she wishes to remain as her own counsel. She states she will continue as primary counsel.

On 8/15/2011 the evidentiary hearing regarding the “pedophile” letters is completed. The Court orders that the letters are precluded and the defense withdraws them. At the end of this hearing Ms. Arias submits an oral request to withdraw as her own counsel and requests that Mr. Nurmi and Victoria Washington be reinstated as defense counsel. The Court orders Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington to represent the defendant in all further proceedings.

On 9/9/2011 the trial date is reset to 2/21/2012 due to the primary defense witness needing to withdraw because of a health issue. A new witness will need to be retained and allowed time to prepare for the trial.

On 12/22/2011 a hearing was held on a motion from the Public Defender Office to withdraw from this case due to a conflict of interest with Victoria Washington. Motion was allowed but the Public Defender Office will appoint a new second counsel, investigator, mitigation specialist, and paralegal. Victoria Washington is released as counsel.

On 1/3/2012 a hearing was held on a motion to continue trial due to assignment of new counsel. New secondary counsel Jennifer L Willmott was assigned by the Public Defender Office. Defendant agreed and waived the applicable time limit. Trial date was changed to 10/17/2012.

On 3/12/2012 a hearing was held on a defense motion to dismiss the Intent to Seek Death Penalty. Per the motion “At the status conference on January 3, 2012, the Court granted an oral motion by the defense to continue the trial due to the recent appointment of Ms. Willmott. Defendant Arias agreed to the continuance and the exclusion of time. The trial was reset to October 17, 2012. All time was excluded. See minute entry dated January 3, 2012. Defendant now asserts the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty should be dismissed because, to assure she had effective representation by counsel, Defendant Arias had to agree to the continuance of the trial to October 17, 2012.” The Court denied this motion as the need for competent and prepared counsel trumps her right to a speedy trial. During this hearing the defense also submitted a motion to preclude the State from referring to Travis Alexander as a “victim” during the trial. Specifically, Defendant Arias argues she would be prejudiced by permitting the State and its witnesses to refer to Mr. Alexander as the victim since it is contrary to her claim of self defense. As such, she would be prejudiced. The State responds that the term “victim” is routinely used in criminal cases and does not imply the defendant committed the crime with which she has been charged. Further, the State argues Mr. Alexander was murdered and thus he was a “victim” of a criminal offense as defined by Arizona law. The Court finds the defendant failed to establish she will be prejudiced if Mr. Alexander is referred to as the “victim” in front of the jury during the trial. The State’s evidence will show Mr. Alexander was the victim of a homicide. Apparently, the defendant will argue she acted in self defense and was thus justified in her actions. Regardless, referring to Mr. Alexander as the “victim” during the trial will not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

On 10/30/12 defense submits another request to continue the trial date (there was a previous motion that was granted moving the trial date from 10/17/2012 to 11/19/2012) because they want their own review of a computer hard drive. State objects to the continuation.

On 11/19/2012 motion is granted changing trial date to 12/10/2012.

On 12/4/2012 defense submits another motion for continuation. Motion is denied.

Jury selection begins on 12/10/2012. Final jury is selected and sworn in 12/20/12. Opening statements scheduled to being 1/2/2012."

All court minutes for Jodi Arias
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov…r=CR2008031021

Posted 4/23/13
Observer
http://callsforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/jodi-arias-murder-trial-day-fifty-one-discussion-2/

Freckles wrote:Not docs but list of court of court counsel for JA.

"

History of Jodi Arias changing attorneys and motions by attorneys.

First public defender at arraignment is James Hann.

On 9/19/08 the public defender is Maria L Schaffer as primary.

On 9/19/08 another public defender Judis R Andrews requested an extension of time to challenge the Grand Jury proceedings as they did not have a copy of the Grand Jury transcript.

On 12/18/08 the primary public defender is Maria L Schaffer and the secondary public defender is Gregory T Parzych. Juan M Martinez is still the State’s Attorney.

On 5/22/09 the defendant submitted a request for a change of counsel.
Additional hearings and status meeting are held without further mention of the change of council.

On 8/10/09 the Court received and reviewed a motion from both public defenders to withdraw from representing the defendant. The Court found sufficient cause to allow them to withdraw and noted that the trial was set for February 2, 2010 so there is adequate time for new counsel to be assigned without putting the trial date in jeopardy.

On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington and Kirk Nurmi appear as counsel along with Maria Schaffer and Gregory Parzych at an evidentiary hearing. Of interest, this hearing was to determine if there is probable cause to add an Aggravating Factor that will make this a death penalty case. This is where the prosecution presents to the Court that the victim was shot first, then repeatedly stabbed, then stabbed in the heart and finally had throat slit. Detective Flores represents to the court that he spoke with the Medical Examiner Dr. Horne and that this is the sequence of events Dr. Horne gave him.

On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington (secondary) and Kirk Nurmi (primary) are assigned as new defense counsel.

On 2/25/11 Kirk Nurmi announced to the Court that he is leaving the Public Defender’s Office.

On 3/8/2011 a hearing is held regarding Kirk Nurmi withdrawing as defense counsel. Very interesting minutes. Defendant strenuously objected to new counsel and possibility of pushing back trial date. The Court noted that “Once a case is set for trial, counsel may not withdraw except upon motion providing the name and address of another attorney, along with a statement from that attorney stating that he or she has been advised of the trial date and will be prepared for trial. Rule 6.3(c). No such motion or statement has been filed in this case. “ Mr. Nurmi was ordered to continue as the lead defense counsel at the standard public defender hourly rate paid to the primary defense counsel.

On 3/9/2011 Mr. Nurmi submitted a formal motion to withdraw and as hearing on the motion was set for 3/21/2011.

On 3/21/2011 Mr. Nurmi’s motion to withdraw as counsel is denied. At this hearing the State’s request to change the trial date due to a scheduling conflict with State Attorney Juan M Martinez was also denied.

On 3/22/2011 another hearing is held with a second motion to withdraw by Mr. Nurmi. After the hearing on the previous day the Public Defender Office notified Mr. Nurmi that they were withdrawing the mitigation specialist, investigator, and paralegal because the Public Defender Office does not want Mr. Nurmi directing staff when he is no longer an employee. The Court ordered that Mr. Nurmi motion was denied and he was required to remain as the primary counsel and that the Public Defender Office must immediately reassign the personnel to the case.

On 4/4/2011 Mr. Nurmi stated his objection to remaining on the case during a status hearing as he has left the Public Defender Office to go into private practice. The Court found that Mr. Nurmi has an ethical obligation to continue representing the defendant but would begin receiving a reasonable hourly rate of $225.00 as compensation to avoid any financial interests that would place Mr. Nurmi in conflict with his client.

On 8/8/2011 defendant has a hearing on an oral motion she submitted to represent herself. At the end of the hearing this motion is granted but Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington are to remain as advisory counsel, with Victoria Washington as primary. The evidentiary hearing on the purported letters from Travis Alexander alleging he is a pedophile is held with Ms. Arias as defense counsel.

On 8/9/2011 during a normal status conference both Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi address the Court as to the roles and responsibility of advisory counsel, and the primary counsel (which is now the defendant). The Court agrees and addresses this with Ms. Arias and asks her if she wishes to remain as her own counsel. She states she will continue as primary counsel.

On 8/15/2011 the evidentiary hearing regarding the “pedophile” letters is completed. The Court orders that the letters are precluded and the defense withdraws them. At the end of this hearing Ms. Arias submits an oral request to withdraw as her own counsel and requests that Mr. Nurmi and Victoria Washington be reinstated as defense counsel. The Court orders Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington to represent the defendant in all further proceedings.

On 9/9/2011 the trial date is reset to 2/21/2012 due to the primary defense witness needing to withdraw because of a health issue. A new witness will need to be retained and allowed time to prepare for the trial.

On 12/22/2011 a hearing was held on a motion from the Public Defender Office to withdraw from this case due to a conflict of interest with Victoria Washington. Motion was allowed but the Public Defender Office will appoint a new second counsel, investigator, mitigation specialist, and paralegal. Victoria Washington is released as counsel.

On 1/3/2012 a hearing was held on a motion to continue trial due to assignment of new counsel. New secondary counsel Jennifer L Willmott was assigned by the Public Defender Office. Defendant agreed and waived the applicable time limit. Trial date was changed to 10/17/2012.

On 3/12/2012 a hearing was held on a defense motion to dismiss the Intent to Seek Death Penalty. Per the motion “At the status conference on January 3, 2012, the Court granted an oral motion by the defense to continue the trial due to the recent appointment of Ms. Willmott. Defendant Arias agreed to the continuance and the exclusion of time. The trial was reset to October 17, 2012. All time was excluded. See minute entry dated January 3, 2012. Defendant now asserts the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty should be dismissed because, to assure she had effective representation by counsel, Defendant Arias had to agree to the continuance of the trial to October 17, 2012.” The Court denied this motion as the need for competent and prepared counsel trumps her right to a speedy trial. During this hearing the defense also submitted a motion to preclude the State from referring to Travis Alexander as a “victim” during the trial. Specifically, Defendant Arias argues she would be prejudiced by permitting the State and its witnesses to refer to Mr. Alexander as the victim since it is contrary to her claim of self defense. As such, she would be prejudiced. The State responds that the term “victim” is routinely used in criminal cases and does not imply the defendant committed the crime with which she has been charged. Further, the State argues Mr. Alexander was murdered and thus he was a “victim” of a criminal offense as defined by Arizona law. The Court finds the defendant failed to establish she will be prejudiced if Mr. Alexander is referred to as the “victim” in front of the jury during the trial. The State’s evidence will show Mr. Alexander was the victim of a homicide. Apparently, the defendant will argue she acted in self defense and was thus justified in her actions. Regardless, referring to Mr. Alexander as the “victim” during the trial will not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

On 10/30/12 defense submits another request to continue the trial date (there was a previous motion that was granted moving the trial date from 10/17/2012 to 11/19/2012) because they want their own review of a computer hard drive. State objects to the continuation.

On 11/19/2012 motion is granted changing trial date to 12/10/2012.

On 12/4/2012 defense submits another motion for continuation. Motion is denied.

Jury selection begins on 12/10/2012. Final jury is selected and sworn in 12/20/12. Opening statements scheduled to being 1/2/2012."

All court minutes for Jodi Arias
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov…r=CR2008031021

Posted 4/23/13
Observer
http://callsforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/jodi-arias-murder-trial-day-fifty-one-discussion-2/

On 9/9/2011 the trial date is reset to 2/21/2012 due to the primary defense witness needing to withdraw because of a health issue. A new witness will need to be retained and allowed time to prepare for the trial.

Health issue??? I doubt it . This witness probably realized this case would be a train wreck for the "health" of his/her career. Alyce came on board in October or November of 2011. I assume she was brought in to replace this expert that backed out. I wonder who this expert witness is?

I realize Dr/patient confidentiality would preclude the first "expert" from kiss and telling; however, wouldn't you just love to hear the tales this person could tell???!!!

I really want these saved and have NO idea where to dump them!
Some have been introduced into court...

https://s1309.photobucket.com/user/wasthinking/media/gungramps_zps46a2dbed.png.html

AZ legal reference page:

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/arcp_index.htm

Procedure:
Post 18242

"copied from https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Tra...ocation=stream
REPOST:

What we can expect in the following week/s.

FIRST-DEGREE MURDER :

If the jurors unanimously decide Arias is guilty of first-degree murder, the case would then move to the aggravation phase.

That is the prosecution's chance to present additional evidence that the death was caused in a cruel manner. Arizona law defines it as when the victim suffers physical pain or mental anguish and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer.

The jury would then deliberate for a second time to determine if the aggravating factor of cruelty is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the jury does not find her guilty of cruelty, the case ends and the judge sets a sentencing date within 30 to 60 days. At the sentencing, the judge decides whether to sentence Arias to natural life in prison or life with parole eligibility after 25 years.

But if the jury decides cruelty is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the case moves to the sentencing phase.

This is the defense's opportunity to ask the jury for leniency and present evidence to support why Arias should be spared the death penalty. Witnesses may include Arias' friends and family. Arias could also make a statement to the jury.

The jury then deliberates for a third time to determine whether Arias should be sentenced to life or death. Their decision must be unanimous. In the case of a deadlock, a mistrial would be granted and a new jury would be chosen for this phase only.

If the jury votes for the death penalty, Arias would be sentenced immediately and is likely to be sent to death row within hours. If the jury opts for a life sentence, the judge will set a sentencing date within 30 to 60 days and, at that time, will sentence Arias to natural life or life with eligibility for parole after 25 years.

SECOND-DEGREE MURDER :

If the jury rejects first-degree murder but finds her guilty of the lesser charge of second-degree murder, the judge will sentence Arias to no less than 10 years and no more than 22 years in prison.

Arias will get credit for the time she has been incarcerated awaiting trial. "

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?26892-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death-%28Part-II%29/page730

Great post, Freckles. ^^^^ Very informative!

Mylife101 wrote:Great post, Freckles. ^^^^ Very informative!

Shhh... I stole it!

Not a doc but about court:
Clipped==

"Tara: When the jury get the case, how long does it take for them to reach a decision?

Jane: There is no real time limit. According to the court PIO, there is no security on the weekends therefore the jury will not deliberate then. This jury will most likely not deliberate on weekends which could factor in to how long it will take to make a decision. There is a lot of material and evidence for the jury to go through and this has been an attentive jury so far. They have been taking a lot of notes and asking a lot of questions. And any decision will have to be unanimous. If after a long time of deliberations there is still no unanimous decision it could be declared a hung jury and a mistrial. Long story short, we have no way of saying for sure how long it will take the jury to reach a decision. But believe me we will be closely watching. And we will keep everyone posted on my Facebook page and on Twitter @jvelezmitchell when a verdict is reached.

Christine Was wondering who starts first in the closing arguments? Prosecution or Defense?

Jane: Closing arguments go Prosecution, Defense, Prosecution. So we will hear from Juan Martinez first, then Jodi’s attorneys (either Nurmi or Willmott) and then Martinez again."

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/30/jane-answers-more-your-arias-questions

Hand written letter from JA to court disputing Nurmi's withdrawal from her case:

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=94223&sid=20PB&ext=PDF&lcl=JA-Letter-from-Jodi-to-Judge-re-Nurmi-Motion-to-Withdraw.pdf&usr=zou2&doc=139833553&key=key-2gxotllz9sge8erm21fo

gsweater wrote:Hand written letter from JA to court disputing Nurmi's withdrawal from her case:

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=94223&sid=20PB&ext=PDF&lcl=JA-Letter-from-Jodi-to-Judge-re-Nurmi-Motion-to-Withdraw.pdf&usr=zou2&doc=139833553&key=key-2gxotllz9sge8erm21fo

Wow. Thanks for the link gsweater! Interesting!

pdf 10 pages

Request for Victim's Impact Statement to be Videotaped

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/5-9-13-ARIAS-COURT-DOCUMENTS.PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CR2008-031021-001 DT
05/14/2013

10:36 a.m. ex parte hearing concludes. All parties are now present.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT Lisa Allen and Deputy Chief Brian Lee from the
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office are present. Also present are the victim’s next of kin.

Discussion held regarding media interviews with the Defendant.
IT IS ORDERED there shall be no further media interviews with the Defendant pending further order of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office shall not approach the Defendant with any media requests pending further order of the court.

Discussion held regarding Defendant’s Request that Victim Impact Evidence be
Presented via Videotape.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Request for reasons stated on the record.
Discussion held regarding Defendant’s Motion for Discovery of Victim Impact Evidence.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

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

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

10:59 a.m. Status Conference concludes.

11:00 a.m. Ex parte hearing with Counsel for the Defendant and Defendant present.

Discussion is held.

IT IS ORDERED sealing the proceedings this date not to be transcribed without prior order of the Court.

11:01 a.m. Matter concludes.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052013/m5770706.pdf

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

Criminal Court Case Information - Case History

5/16/2013 029 - ME: Status Conference - Party (001) 5/16/2013
5/15/2013 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 5/16/2013
NOTE: Defendants Motion to Preclude States Penalty Phase Witnesses for Failure to Notice

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

They both share the same Birthdate : July 9th

From what I've found, there are 4 people sharing this same Date of Birth:

JODI ARIAS (killed Ex BF Travis Alexander)
AMANDA KNOX (killed Meredith Kercher)
O.J. SIMPSON (killed Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman by slashing them numerous times)
CHRIS PORCO (killed his mother and father by slashing them with an axe)

What these 4 people also have in common is the method & manner used to kill their victims. Coincidence .... ??? I don't know ...

Any other "fine" criminals born on July 9th ????? I would love to know ...

What Do you Think ????

Freckles wrote:JA flipping handstands after Det Flores leaves room:
July 2008, day of her arrest:


http://video.foxnews.com/v/222833082...aught-on-tape/

clipped-
Post 45630
http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?10763-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death/page1826


"PTSD MY ASS!!

Ho-leeee shit at that video!

I don't buy into the whole Jodi vs. Casey Anthony thing, but now I'm starting to think it's more like Jodi vs. Amanda Knox.

1. Knox was doing cartwheels at the police station, Jodi's doing handstands
2. Knox lied and tried to pin it on someone who wasn't even there , Jodi's ninjas
3. Both used throat slashes
4. Both were hit in the head (yeah right)
5. Knox's ex got caught trying to board a train outta Dodge, Jodi was pulled over for upside down license place (she got away, though).
6. Knox said police hit her and called her a stupid liar while in custody, Jodi was called a fucking idiot or 5 year old or something
7. Knox's parents are indicted for libel after shit-talking the police, Jodi's mom or Matt or whoever forged those letters
8. Both had prison buddies that were willing to testify to their character
9. Defense attorneys argue that Guede's letter was based on "a feeling" and that his accusations are not based on facts or events he witnessed, Jodi's vengeful hearsay
10. Both were forced to take a gander at their handiwork and looked away (Jodi was peeking, but still)

Looks like Jodi has a role model/hero worship thing going on

Knox ultimately ended up free, though, and I shall shit my pants if that happens with Jodi. I shall pee, too. Stabby bitches. "

Court docs re the billing by officers of the court:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kpho/Arias%20ruling%20on%20Billing.pdf