Jodi Arias--BIOLOGY OF THE DEFENSE CASE

chris stark (@stark3923)

Posted Friday 8th March 2013 from Twitlonger

#JodiArias MUST READ - BIOLOGY OF THE DEFENSE CASE Defense Counsel Information based on case minutes:

First public defender at arraignment is James Hann. There is a minute entry about the public defender having a possible conflict. The State’s Attorney is Juan Martinez

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 council.
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 11/3/09 new trial date of 8/16/2010 is set. This is per the request of defense counsel who previously stated they need more time to prepare.

On 6/18/10 the trial date was reset to 8/2/2011.

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 consel. 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

Calypso wrote:chris stark (@stark3923)

Posted Friday 8th March 2013 from Twitlonger

#JodiArias MUST READ - BIOLOGY OF THE DEFENSE CASE Defense Counsel Information based on case minutes:

First public defender at arraignment is James Hann. There is a minute entry about the public defender having a possible conflict. The State’s Attorney is Juan Martinez

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 council.
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 11/3/09 new trial date of 8/16/2010 is set. This is per the request of defense counsel who previously stated they need more time to prepare.

On 6/18/10 the trial date was reset to 8/2/2011.

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 consel. 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

Sorry I don't know how to 'snip' something. But, thank you so much for posting this. Isn't interesting how many times Mr. Nurmi wanted to get off this case. I don't think he gives a hoot if she gets the death penalty or not. I think, since his specialty is sex defense, he is making lemonade out of lemons.

Right!!!

(Just cut and paste - highlight and copy, and set it down in your post!!- write SNIPPED above it so we know it's snipped from somewhere else. You can also highlight the page link or cite the source if need be)

This is my retyping the police report from the Allen home where JA had been in residence:

#JodiArias EXCLUSIVE the actual paper POLICE REPORT Grandpa Stolen items May 28, 2008 .25 caliper GUN & other ITEMS sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/5…
— chris stark (@stark3923) March 23, 2013



From the report:
Items 1-4 have a dollar value assigned.
Note: These items do not add up to even a thousand dollars.
IMO, this is suspcious so much trouble to steal so little.

From the report, second page:

"Carlito ? Allen then informed me that a .25 caliber automatice pistol was missing from a dresser in his bedroom. Carlton ? Allen described the pistol as being 3" to 4" long and 3" to 4" tall, black with a black grip. He stated it also had a fully loaded magazine, with seven rounds of jacketed hollow points, that was alos taken with the gun. Carlton Allen did not know the serial number for the gun or the brand of the gun. He did state that the gun was originally owned by his cousin Norman Blowers ?.
When Blowers died, the gun was given to Carlton Allen. The gun was not registered and Carlton Allen stated it was quite old.

Caroline Allen stated that his granddaughter had been at the residence when she and Carlton Allen had left at approximately 1000 hours. She stated she did not know when he granddaughter had left the residence and she had placed a telephone call to her granddaughter. She said her granddaughter was enroute to the residence at that time.

I asked the Allens' to not disturb any objects in the house as I would most likely be attepting to take fingerprints.


I then sealed the residence to examie the side door that had been forcibly broken.
The door was a normal size door without a doorknob that had been broken from the inside using a bar -?- . There was a dirty scuff mark just under where the doorstop should have been that appeared to be a footprint. It was raining outside and mud present just outside the side door . However, it was raining very hard and there were no footprints I could see outside on the ground.

Caroline Allen's granddaughter then arrived at the scene. Her granddaughter's name was Jodi Ann Arias, DOB 7-09-80. At that time, Officer Dircksen also arrived at the residence and searched the property for any investigative evidence. He did not find any evidence or the stolen property.

While Officer Dirksen searched the property, I spoke with Arias. Arias stated she had left the residence at approcimately 1300 hours and that she had made certain all the doors and windows were locked when she left. Arias then examined her bedroom at the residence and found that a $20.00 bill and a $10.00 bill were missing that had been on her dresser.

As I examined the house, I found that numerous dresser drawers and doors had been opened. It appeared thaat the suspect(s) had searched through numerous areas, but had not stolen anything else.

Officer Belmont then arrived and attemped to life the footprints from several different areas in the residence.

I then searched the outside of the residence and did not find any investigative evidence. "

They weren't going to find any evidence because the thief lived in the residence!