Crime & Trial Discussion Forums

Here's what I posted for today's events!
If its inadequate, start it over!

Geffner's bashing Dr. DeMarte and Geffners a psycho psychotherapist in my opinion!

Then the expert's full name, is Dr. L.C. Miccio-Fonseca who discusses Travis / Hughes e-mails!

Travis a 30 year old sexualy active male who both wife hunts and plays the dating field to a degree of about a dozen girls, sorry I had '4 to 6' times more at his age but I came of age in the sexual revolution of early 70's.

Today teenage daters are grossly explicit and the Hughes are from the moralities of post-WW2 baby boomers (I Love Lucy) mentality and frankly meddlers! Although their caring for their friend Travis is very commendable.

T-Dog flirted on stage as a motivational speaker, he was honestly a great flirt and that attracts.

Defense is attempting to 'set the bar' above realistic, but Nurmi must vigorously fight for Jodi since she called him out as lazy and inept when she petitioned the Judge' to protect his career and reputation, even though the damage is insurmountable!

Damn, lost my post again. Starting over.

Lunarscope,
I agree with your statement,
"Defense is attempting to 'set the bar' above realistic, but Nurmi must vigorously fight for Jodi since she called him out as lazy and inept when she petitioned the Judge' to protect his career and reputation, even though the damage is insurmountable!"


Observer and Duluth,
I too do not worry about the today's testimony.
It is just a rehash of all that has been heard before.
I think the jury knows exactly where they stand on the issue of the "experts" differing opinions.


"Legally Speaking: Decision time coming up for Jodi Arias jury
By Monica Lindstrom, Co-host of The Agenda   | February 18, 2015 @ 12:04 pm


Will it be life or death for Jodi Arias and what does that actually mean?

Some sarcastically have said that the day would never come, but it will, although much later than originally anticipated.

The State v. Jodi Arias trial will end soon. Last week Judge Sherry Stephens announced the trial was on track to be completed by the end of February.

Now that the end (of the trial) is in sight, the time is ripe to discuss exactly what punishment Arias could get.

In the summer of 2008 Jodi Arias was charged with first-degree murder for the death of Travis Alexander and she was convicted in May of 2013.

Under Arizona Revised Statute 13-1105(A)(1):

A person commits first degree murder if: (1) intending or knowing that the person's conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person … with premeditation …

Murder 1 carries a sentencing range of life to death, which sounds simple; however, there is confusion about what exactly the term "life" means.

That is because it has changed over the years. Since Arias murdered Travis Alexander in 2008, we have to look at the sentencing statutes that were in effect then. Under the 2008 sentencing statutes, Jodi Arias faces a potential sentence of:

• life (25 years with the possibility of parole)

• natural life (no possibility of parole)

or

• death

Had this premeditated murder happened now, the only two possibilities would be life or death.

The possibility of parole no longer exists. The defendant must be sentenced to life without the possibility of release if convicted of premeditated murder, or the killing of a police officer.

In fact, now in a premeditated killing juries are often given an instruction similar to this: The defendant in this case has been convicted of the crime of first-degree murder. Under Arizona law every person found guilty of first-degree murder shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of release from prison.

In State v. Arias the first jury was given the instruction:

Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the Defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. …

If you unanimously find the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years.

Life without the possibility of release from prison means exactly what it says. The sentence of life without the possibility of release from prison means the defendant will never be eligible to be released from prison for any reasons for the rest of the defendant's life.

At the current time, there is no procedure for granting parole if the defendant is sentenced to life with the possibility of release from prison after 25 years.

This was an instruction given to the first jury and it is highly probable the second jury will be given the same instruction.

Here are the possibilities for Arias:

• If the jury unanimously agrees on death, then Arias will be sentenced to spend the rest of her life on death row before she is executed by lethal injection.

• If the jury instead unanimously agrees to life, then the judge decides between life with possibility of parole or natural life.

• If this jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, death is taken off the table and the judge must then decide between life with possibility of parole or natural life.

The jury does not have a say in whether Arias is given the possibility of parole, its job is limited to the decision of life or death.

The first jury couldn't get the job done, will the second jury be able to?"

http://ktar.com/305/1808705/CHOICES

I think that if the jury does not give the DP, then the judge will give natural life.

Beth Karas was asked if Arias will be sentenced immediately when the jury gives their decision. She answer that if it was the DP, then it would be immediate. If it is life, then she would be sentenced in 1 or 2 months.
anyone know why this is so?

Observer, we need to remember also that Travis had his tires slashed 2 nights in a row! Before Lisa's were also slashed. Who else but Jodi Arias would possibly have a motive to do that not only once, but twice? And then, to attack the girl he was seeing the same way. That is beyond common sense reasoning. No one else had a motive at all. And don't forget, Arias showing up at his house turning the lights on, while he was 'upstairs' with that same girl and saw them come on. He knew that lights just do not come on by themselves. SOMEONE was in his house, and I bet he had an idea, a BIG idea, about who had sneaked in and was turning them on. No one else sneaked into his house. Only Arias did that.

I remember Juan asking in his first closing argument, "Who does that?" (In referring to finding Arias sleeping behind the Christmas tree.)

Juan is going to have a lot of 'reminding' to do in his closing arguments. He has to know what to remind the jurors about and he won't do it like we do, in little tidbits. He is a pro at pointing to what matters. Besides all that, he has the job of showing that these DT 'experts' are all nothing but hired guns who continue to help kill Travis, his family, the prosecution REAL, believable experts, any and all witnesses for the prosecution and all the DT 'experts' are presenting things that have nothing to back them up in the form of real evidence. Nothing. It's all allegations.

Juan has an enormous job ahead. Hopefully, it won't be much longer. This has gone on far too long! There's too much that the jurors have forgotten, I'm sure. They will have to be reminded.

Herein lies my conjecture!

At the current time, there is no procedure for granting parole if the defendant is sentenced to life with the possibility of release from prison after 25 years.

Simply put their is no procedure' because Jodi hasn't asked for parole!

The 'current time' paragraph' needs dissected, this judge is the only judge to make rulings related to the Jodi Arias case as long as she is able and Arizona permits her to wear the robe!
So the 'current time' means only that any motions are both either not filed or tabled or are intended to be filed = not filed yet, their cannot be a appeal prior to judgement so what does this jury instruction say' point in contest' the first jury asked the judge "what does life mean" that resulted in what I call a mini-trial where the judge, Martinez and the defense individually related their educated guesses, and still the question was abandoned!

That later became the first Allen charge of a jury reporting undecided = assumed deadlocked, but every jury person who spoke 'to date' related the same reaction of surprise that the judge prematurely called we are undecided (too early in the first morning) to assuming a stalemated / deadlocked mistrial.
Day 1 of Deliberations was late afternoon and jury was told to pick their foreman, they soon exited the courthouse!
Day 2 morning before lunch' all court were called to courtroom for jury question to be answered, their was no time for undecided at that point, hours later court reconvened = mini-trial then deliberations resumed.

When the jury forman (second time) lead his question to judge with the phrase 'we are undecided' a mistrial decision resulted and in time we will likely hear from all 12 before all is said and done concerning this topic.

I find fault in the jury foreman' but I am not faulting him in this post!

Note' In the exact same week that the jury' we are undecided, not stalemated or deadlocked that resulted in this retrial, a California Murder 1 case was overturned due to inadequate jury instructions so this was a million dollar mistake in my opinion, no matter the final result.

Justice,

Somehow, I do not think that the goal of the defense (Arias) to confuse the jury worked.

I also think that they remember far more than we give them credit for.
There are 12 jurors, all with their own memories of what is important and this will be shared during their deliberations.
It is prudent to remember that the jurors must act individually in their assessment of the mitigating factors vs the evidence AND they must listen to others during their deliberations. In making the final decision for the verdict, they must analyze all that is before them individually and then come together with a unanimous decision.

I believe that they are tired of the same old stuff coming from the defense and delaying this trial. They have heard it all, over and over. They know where they stand and remember what has been put before them.

Juan Martinez is an excellent orator.
He is concise and pulls no punches.
He will use the evidence that he has presented over these last months and with it, will refresh the jury.

He is a brilliant prosecutor and knows what the task is before him regarding speaking in his closing argument to the jury.
As I have said before, he will humanize Travis, the true victim in this trial and DEHUMANIZE ARIAS FOR HER CRUEL SLAUGHTER OF THIS MAN.
He will remind them of the gory death that Travis suffered.
He will remind them of the suffering of the Alexander family.
He will remind them that Arias is a pathological liar.
He will remind them that Arias knew and knows right from wrong.

Lunarscope,

I get that Arias has not asked for parole at any time.

But please help me to understand your posting. I find it confusing.

I call it conjecture because for nearly a year I haven't been able to find anything to reprove my statement posted.

I am saying the jury who talked to the press' all said a mistrial decision was surprising, to me that means premature or unsupported. Every one no matter how they reported to vote and in time all 12 jurors from the last trial will have their 3 minutes of fame, then this premature mistrial question will be affronted for the Arizona court system.

THIS IS very INTERESTING!

"What’s Wrong With Dr. Geffner?


Though Dr. Geffner has some pretty hefty credentials he also has some serious issues having been impeached in some court cases. Check it out:

1. His background is impressive, he is the Founder and President of the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute in San Diego, California. He has been a researcher and consultant for 28 years and has presented over 450 key note speeches.

2. Now the bad news- for him: (This info is from a comment made by ‘Nancy B’ on the ‘My Crime Time’ blog). Regarding the Case of Cyndie O’Rourke v. James O’Rourke the court found Dr. Geffner to be nothing more than a ‘hired gun’ for the Mother in this case. This was a divorce/custody case where the Father prevailed. Apparently the MMPI test found ‘maladaptive personality traits’ in the Mother and Dr. Geffner challenged the use of the MMPI test and even went on to recommend that the Mother file ethics complaints against the other mental health professionals in the case.He felt he was the expert and the others were out of their expertise. (Nancy B. shares a link for info. on the ‘My Crime Time’ blog). This indicates to me he will most likely imply the MMPI test is not valid in this case and Dr. Demarte doesn’t have the credentials that he does and her opinion is therefore inadequate.

3. Dr. Geffner testified that he no longer treats patients but devotes all his time to consulting work related to his specialty. He has been an expert witness in a number of cases in different jurisdictions. Though he has testified in a great number of cases he stated that he did not remember very much about the facts of those cases.

4. In a Texas case; Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Circuit 1992) the court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility, in part because it was based on hearsay information supplied by the defendant’s attorney with no independent verification. (Sound like any defense attorneys we know who believe everything their client says?)

5. The court also excluded the Dr.’s testimony in Hawaii v. French, 129 P.3d 581 (Hawaii 2006) involving allegations of child sexual abuse.

6. In State v. Supulvado, 655 So.2d 623 (La. App. 1995) the court limited most of his testimony as he relied mostly on the information supplied by the defendant and he testified about effects of brain damage on emotional functioning though he is not a medical doctor.

7. So I dug a little more and found this:

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “[C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.

22 The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clark’s conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clark’s childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clark’s attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffner’s affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue.

8. Oh, and did I mention he was an editor for Alyce LaViolette?

Should be a field day for Mr. Martinez!"

http://mixedbagblog.com/2013/04/26/whats-wrong-with-dr-geffner/

---

(02-19-2015, 03:32 AM)Lunarscope Wrote: [ -> ]I call it conjecture because for nearly a year I haven't been able to find anything to reprove my statement posted.

I am saying the jury who talked to the press' all said a mistrial decision was surprising, to me that means premature or unsupported. Every one no matter how they reported to vote and in time all 12 jurors from the last trial will have their 3 minutes of fame, then this premature mistrial question will be affronted for the Arizona court system.

Thanks lunarscope!

I had read that previously, Nern! If you notice also, all the testified against were the men! In his view, its only the men who abuse. He's on the same page as LaViolette in that respect. To both of them, and also to anyone connected to his IVAT group, women are always the 'victim', which simply is not true in the Arias case.

Dr. DeMarte has a clear record. No calling by Judges in anything in her background.

Geffner has a long history of getting in hot water with Judges! Thanks for posting this. Now I know where to find it again.

The fact that Geffner was an editor for LaViolette summed it up for me!!!!

My rant for the day.....

I am having trouble with this case after so long.
Whatever one believes are the reasons for this to have gone on for as long as it has is of no consequence to me.
It has just lasted far too long in my books.

For me, I find that there is a simple decision to make.
(Please note that in saying this, I do not negate the efforts that a defense team must make in defending their client AND the efforts by the state to prove their case.)
A man was murdered.
He was killed in a horrific and painful, cruel manner.
For someone to do this, it took time to plan to get their desired result.
The perpetrator tried over and over again to cover up their crime.
Eventually, this person was tried and convicted of Premeditated First Degree Felony Murder with the aggravating factor of Extreme Cruelty.
In Arizona, this made them eligible for the Death Penalty.

With a mistrial called when no sentencing verdict could be rendered, a new sentencing trial was warranted.
Again, this is the law.

This second trial has all the same main players, the defendant, the defense team, the prosecution and the judge.
The jury empanelled has no idea of the proceedings from the guilt trial.
They must render their verdict with the evidence presented in this second one.

The Defense.....
- they have presented their mitigating factors to the court
- their main case for no DP for their client is because she is mentally ill, has been abused in early childhood and in her relationship with the victim and that the victim was a pedophile and porn lover
- they have used "experts" to help prove their case
- they have used their experts to try and destroy the reputation of the state's expert all in an effort to win their case
- they have even attacked the very faith that sustained the true victim
- they have re-victimized the victim throughout
- they have victimized the family of the true victim
- they have filed motion after motion (delay tactics in my opinion AND to set up for future appeals)
- they have not presented even one person to stand and fight for the life of their client
- their client has testified for a day and a half and refused to testify further
- they presented 2 affidavits from "witnesses" as they were fearful of testifying in open court (In fact, the defendant has admitted that they made their decision to not testify before the penalty phase began)
- to say the least, they have used every under-handed trick in a very obnoxious, "slimy" and unprofessional manner throughout

The State.....
- they have presented the statements from the family of the victim showing the harm and suffering that this murder has caused them over the years
- they have proven through their witnesses that the victim was NOT an abuser
- they have proven that the accusations of the victim being a pedophile and a porn lover are false
- they have proven that the statements on the defense's witnesses' affidavits were lies
- they have proved that, although the defendant has been diagnosed with a personality disorder, she DID and DOES know right from wrong
- they presented their own credible expert witness who refuted the methods of the defense's experts by using current practices and their own expertise
- they have steadfast and with determination, shown that the defendant is not the victim in this case
- they continue to humanize the true victim
- they have presented the horrific photos of the victim, in death, as proof of this crime committed by the defendant
- they will remind the jury that the defendant has already been convicted of the murder and emphasize the aggravating factor of Extreme cruelty.

So, what is the simple decision that is to be made?
Should the defendant get the Death Penalty or not?

In my opinion, the evidence presented by the State in this trial coupled with the conviction of the defendant far outweighs the mitigating factors given by the Defense.
Actually, the Defense has not accomplished their burden of putting on a mitigation case. Rather, they have resorted to incredulous tactics throughout that they feel prove that the defendant was justified in her act and although convicted, should not receive the ultimate punishment.

Simple decision as I see it.
Does the evidence outweigh the mitigating factors?
This is for the jury to decide and I feel they will do it with determination and in an timely manner.