(05-04-2013, 07:10 AM)thekid65 Wrote: Can you imagine how bad it would have sucked to have your # pulled as one of the three alternates? Sitting through 4 months of testimony and not help to bring it to conclusion? And, to add insult to injury...you have to sit in the fucking courthouse the entire time the rest of the jurors deliberate? Fuck that.

Yah, that would suck. I'd be highly upset. Bastards!

I am hoping they have a verdict before Wednesay.

The other thing I noted that I thought was weird during the jury instructions was that the judge read something like the jurors get to set their own schedule? Never heard of that. If I was them, I'd be done with this, and work through the weekend. Get'er done!

Working through the weekend wasn't an option unfortunately. Too much over time expenses associated with keeping the courthouse open and secure.

(05-03-2013, 03:36 PM)username Wrote: *snort* Numbing said he doesn't like Jodi 9 out of 10 days.

A legal eagle friend stated his statement might be a basis for Arias to request a new trial, as her representation was less than zealous, due to her attorney's personal feelings.

Subtle defense strategy or an innocent fuck-up . . . you be the judge!

Didn't Martinez object at that statement? I didn't catch what he said and how the judge ruled.

^ I thought it was kinda smart of Nurmi at the time, but not sure now.

He knows that Arias is plain unlikeable. Figured it was his way of reminding the jury that even if they don't like her, that shouldn't be held against her when deliberating. "Why, even I can't stand her and I don't believe that she committed premeditated murder", sorta deal. But, I did hear some legal THs stating that it was really unprofessional and that it surprised them.

Here's another thing that made me suspicious of Nurmi's intent. In his closing, Nurmi made a point of telling the jury that Arias NEVER said that she had returned the third gas can to the same Walmart in Salinas (and Nurmi had also objected as "misrepresenting testimony" when Martinez claimed that she had said exactly that during his closing).

I checked. Yep, on cross-examination Martinez asked Arias specifically if she returned it to the same Walmart in Salinas. She said she had gone to a Starbucks or something in the same shopping center and confirmed that she then returned the can to the same Walmart for a cash refund. It's on trial tape and in the transcripts.

Could Nurmi really be that sloppy as to blatantly mess up regarding one of the state's premeditation points? Or, was he intentionally making a false statement and laying some grounds for incompetent counsel, as Tiki's friend suggested with the other statement? The jury remembers what Arias said, has it in their notes, or can ask for the transcripts.

IDK. It makes me suspicious of Nurmi too.

Here's the transcript regarding the gas can return to Salinas Walmart, which Nurmi either forgot ever happened or lied to the jury about during his closing argument.

March 7^th 2013

MARTINEZ: But you did tell us that you do have a very good memory for detail previously, though, right?

ARIAS: Usually, yes.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, the other thing that you told us was with regard to these gas cans, is that you purchased one in Salinas, California, right?

ARIAS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Five-gallon gas can, right?

ARIAS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And then you purchased this gas can in Salinas, and you said after a short period of time -- well, you didn`t say a period. You said that you returned it back to the store, the Wal-Mart in Salinas, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And it`s the same store that you bought it from, right?

ARIAS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Because it was in -- probably because it was in the same general vicinity, right?

ARIAS: Right.

MARTINEZ: And, ma`am, one of the other things that you said was that the reason that you did this was because you -- it was expensive and -- it didn`t seem to make sense to you to get that gas can, right?

ARIAS: Yes, in hindsight I realized it didn`t make sense.

MARTINEZ: All right. So why is it -- are you -- why is it then, ma`am, that you showed up with three gas cans in Salt Lake City?

(I CUT OUT SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT GAS FILL UPS HERE)

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, exhibit No. 237.008. Wal-Mart receipt. You see this, correct?

ARIAS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: This is the Wal-Mart that you went to in Salinas, and you purchased a five-gallon gas can, right? You told us that before, right?

ARIAS: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: And you were there on June 3^rd of 2008 at 3:22 in the afternoon when you made that purchase, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: Would it surprise you to find out -- and you said that you got a refund in cash, didn`t you?

ARIAS: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: Would it surprise you that Wal-Mart does not have any record of any refund for a gas can on that date of June 3^rd of 2008?

ARIAS: Considering that I returned it, that would surprise me.

MARTINEZ: Pardon?

ARIAS: Considering that I returned it, that would surprise me.

MARTINEZ: It would surprise you?

ARIAS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Because you claim you returned it on that day, right?

ARIAS: Yes, I did, and I received cash for it.
====================================

What was Nurmi thinking? It's bugging me.

Bring on the deliberations already! I'm impatient

(05-06-2013, 11:14 AM)JsMom Wrote: Bring on the deliberations already! I'm impatient

Your wish is my command. They are deliberating. You want they should hurry up with a verdict?

(05-06-2013, 11:19 AM)username Wrote:

(05-06-2013, 11:14 AM)JsMom Wrote: Bring on the deliberations already! I'm impatient

Your wish is my command. They are deliberating. You want they should hurry up with a verdict?

Yah. That would be great.

(05-04-2013, 12:11 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(05-03-2013, 03:36 PM)username Wrote: *snort* Numbing said he doesn't like Jodi 9 out of 10 days.

A legal eagle friend stated his statement might be a basis for Arias to request a new trial, as her representation was less than zealous, due to her attorney's personal feelings.

Subtle defense strategy or an innocent fuck-up . . . you be the judge!

I was wondering this exact thing when he said it. It was stricken from the record though will that matter?

I am posting for the first time from my phone I apologize if it didn't work right.

While we wait, here's a run-down of the possible verdicts and associated sentences, as published by HLN:

Not guilty
If the jury decides the prosecution didn't prove its case, and they return with a not guilty verdict, Arias will be a free woman. She could then resume her dreams of becoming a professional photographer and starting a family.

Hung jury
There’s also a possibility the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous decision, in which case there would be what is called a hung jury. If the judge declares a mistrial because of a hung jury, Arias could face a retrial.

First-degree murder
The jurors have two paths they can take to reach a first-degree murder conviction.

They can unanimously decide Arias is guilty of premeditating Alexander's murder. Arizona defines first-degree murder as when someone plans or premeditates killing another person and carries out their plan.

The jury can also convict Arias of first-degree murder with the legal theory called felony murder. If they find Arias caused Alexander's death during the course of committing a dangerous felony such as burglary, they can also convict her of first-degree murder.

In order to find Arias guilty of first-degree murder, the jury must unanimously agree that the prosecution has proven first-degree murder, but they all don't have to agree on which first-degree murder legal theory was proven -- classic premeditated first-degree murder or felony murder. Therefore, the jurors have two paths to first-degree murder.

If Arias is convicted of first-degree murder, the case then moves to the aggravation phase, which will be like a miniature trial.

The prosecution will have a chance to present additional evidence in an attempt to prove Alexander’s death was caused in a cruel manner. Arizona law defines cruel manner 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 life in prison without parole 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 pleading for her life to be spared.

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 she is likely to be sent to death row within hours.

If the jury chooses a life sentence instead, the judge will set a sentencing date within 30 to 60 days. At that time, the judge will sentence Arias to life in prison without parole 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.

Arizona law defines second-degree murder in two different ways that apply to this case.

Second-degree murder is when a person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person without premeditation.

In the alternative, second-degree murder is also defined as when the defendant shows extreme indifference to human life, and recklessly engages in conduct that creates a grave risk of death, and causes the death of another person.

Manslaughter
If the jury rejects first-degree murder and second-degree murder, but finds Arias guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter, the judge will sentence her to no less than seven years and no more than 21 years in prison.

Arizona law allows the jury to reach a manslaughter verdict in multiple ways. Here's what applies to Arias' case:

In Arizona, if someone intentionally or knowingly kills a person without premeditation, the defendant could be charged with the crime of second-degree murder. However, if the jury believes the victim attacked the defendant, and if it was enough to incite the defendant's actions, then the intentional killing would fall under the lesser crime of manslaughter.

Don't confuse manslaughter with self-defense. If the jury believes Arias' self-defense claim, and her actions were reasonable under the circumstances, then they could acquit her.

If Arias is sentenced to jail time, she will receive credit for the four-and-a-half years she has been incarcerated awaiting trial.

(05-06-2013, 11:22 AM)JsMom Wrote:

(05-06-2013, 11:19 AM)username Wrote:

(05-06-2013, 11:14 AM)JsMom Wrote: Bring on the deliberations already! I'm impatient

Your wish is my command. They are deliberating. You want they should hurry up with a verdict?

Yah. That would be great.

Js, Jodi seems impatient too.

Check out what she's tweeting while the jury deliberates (well, her friend is tweeting what she says over the phone, on her behalf).

https://twitter.com/Jodiannarias

She's such a lying attention-seeking piece of work.

CNN just now reported the Marshalls just walked 2 jurors out of the room but not sure yet as to what or why.

Oh noes

(05-07-2013, 03:50 PM)JsMom Wrote: CNN just now reported the Marshalls just walked 2 jurors out of the room but not sure yet as to what or why.

Thanks. You can go back to watching SpongeBob now.






















Sorry HotD. I know it's the crime forum but I couldn't resist. Carry on.

(05-07-2013, 03:57 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Oh noes

I'm now hearing that they possibly were walked to get drinks/snacks/lunch but only 2-3 at a time. Maybe they are getting close and just want to get it over with. I have no clue. Holding onto hope.

(05-07-2013, 03:59 PM)username Wrote: Sorry HotD. I know it's the crime forum but I couldn't resist. Carry on.

Oh stop it!

It's still Mock. Short of starting a flame war in here or going way off topic, it's cool.

Stuck inside for the last couple of days and going a little stir crazy. Some Sponge Bob sounds pretty good actually, though it'll be hard to turn away from HLN showing the outside of the courthouse and reporting on BREAKING VERDICT WATCH NEWS = jurors getting sodas around lunch time.

(05-06-2013, 11:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-06-2013, 11:22 AM)JsMom Wrote:

(05-06-2013, 11:19 AM)username Wrote:

(05-06-2013, 11:14 AM)JsMom Wrote: Bring on the deliberations already! I'm impatient

Your wish is my command. They are deliberating. You want they should hurry up with a verdict?

Yah. That would be great.

Js, Jodi seems impatient too.

Check out what she's tweeting while the jury deliberates (well, her friend is tweeting what she says over the phone, on her behalf).

https://twitter.com/Jodiannarias

She's such a lying attention-seeking piece of work.

I can't even read her drivel. I really can't but Thanks anyways HotD.

^ Well then, please be advised that you just kissed the original Jodi Arias artwork I was planning on gifting you for your birthday goodbye!

I like reading everything, but I get it JsMom.