site
stats
Menu

The State’s Answering Brief (PDF Download)

in Latest News by

Here’s The State’s Answering Brief – in reply to the following 6 questions:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW:
.

1. Has Arias meet her “ extremely heavy burden ” to show that trial publicity was so pervasive as to require a presumption of prejudice? If not, did publicity cause actual prejudice despite the jurors’ assurances they did not view media coverage of the trial?

2. Did it violate the Confrontation Clause for an officer to testify to writing in his report that a .25 caliber handgun was stolen from Arias’ s grandparents’ home? Alternatively, was any error made harmless by Arias’ s admission that the gun was taken?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion under Arizona Rule of Evidence 704(b) by allowing the State’s psychologist to describe Arias’s organization and planning in cleaning up after the murder?

4. Did the trial court commit fundamental or structural error by requiring Arias to wear a stun belt that she concedes the jury never saw?

5. Did the trial court clearly err by finding the prosecutor ’s peremptory strikes were not purposefully discriminatory on the bases of race or gender?

6. Did the prosecutor commit misconduct that cumulatively deprived Arias of a fair trial?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Click here (or click the pic below) to open the document (180 page PDF) in a new browser window:

jodi arias appellate opening brief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

UPDATE: The JAA Appellate Fund total currently stands at $105,035.25 — so let’s be sure to keep the momentum rolling so the fund total can push on towards the ultimate target of $250,000. That in turn will help towards covering all the legal fees associated with appealing Jodi’s wrongful conviction.

All donations via Justice4Jodi.com go directly to the fund. It is also the ONLY website authorized to collect donations.

In addition, please DO NOT, under any circumstances, donate through any other website or Facebook page/group claiming to be “official” and/or acting with Jodi’s approval or authorization. The same applies to any “Jodi Membership Clubs”, groups or fake Trust funds that have been set up. These sites are bogus – they continue to steal money from Jodi’s future – and they should be actively avoided. If you are aware of any such sites, please help Jodi by clicking here and reporting them.

And remember… each day that passes takes us one day closer to Jodi’s release date…

we are team jodi - and we will be victorious

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leave your thoughts & comments below.

SJ
Team Jodi #WINNING <<<

Click the banner below to read Jade’s post – “Justice Denied: Why The Jurors Got It Wrong & How The Facts Decimate The State’s Case Against Jodi Arias.”:

Read - Justice Denied - Why The Jurors Got It Wrong & How The Facts Decimate The State's Case Against Jodi Arias

33 Comments

  1. Without typos :-):

    I’ve seldom read so much bull crap in one document. If it wouldn’t be so damn serious for Jodi you could just lol.

    This reply is not even argumentative in any way – it just says “jurors/witnesses/etc. pp weren’t affected because…we say so” – absolutely intellectually empty. It’s lile saying there is no air because I can’t see it.

    What now? The court decides I guess as the end of the reply brief indicates!?
    But which court/judge? Maybe even the same retarded and biased judge decides if SHE herself is a total failure or not? Does anybody know about the next step and any details?

    Just to pull one example out of all the made-up and unlogic nonsense in this reply:

    “Ultimately, Arias refuted her own self-defense theory. She claimed at trial the gun went off accidentally and she did not even realize she had fired it. (R.T. 2/20/13,at 17.) But a person cannot accidentally engage in self-defense; ”

    I mean what? This is self-defense regardless, even if it went off accidentally isn’t it? The threat was there after all. Wow, they lack even traces of decency and honesty.
    I’m disgusted by this “justice” system.

  2. Hey Frank,

    This is a good point as this argument is garbage by the state.

    Jodi, after being chased from the bathroom back towards the bedroom the first time, ran into the large walk-in closet that is between the bathroom and the back bedroom. She ran in and very quickly stepped up on a first level shelf and grabbed the .25 cal handgun that belonged to Travis and ran out the other side with Travis literally right on her heels. Jodi then pivots and points the gun at Travis in the belief that a loaded handgun would give Travis some pause and possibly de-escalate the situation. Jodi describes Travis as being quite angry and not believing that she would fire it. The fact that she may have fired it accidentally and hit him above the right eye is what we all believe led to the crime scene photo of the sink vanity with all of the blood spray and drops. This was Travis examining the wound to his face and playing with the faucet and exhaling all over the mirror. All of this still falls under a self-defense claim because it is the same event as the second chase and then fight led to Travis’s knife wounds after she grabbed the knife, already in the room from Travis’s cutting rope to tie Jodi to the bed for one of his kinky sex games, and began stabbing him in the upper back and then the neck to get him off her.

    • Hey Lance, I’ve read the whole thing yesterday and this whole reply brief is so full of similar unlogic nonsense. The one above was just one example.
      It starts out with how they describe the whole long list of measures, motions, threats, basically all the chaos etc. around this trial regarding the public, social media, media in general and unallowed leaks to said media, jurors, witnesses and whatnot else – nevertheless they come to the absolutely unbacked conclusion all this had no influece whatsoever and that the court/judge made sure it was all fair lol. Wow, this is impudent and ridiculous.
      They even accuse Jodi/her defense team that they didn’t file motions regarding specific things that disturbed the trial and just filed motions reagarding general stuff hence at this point the opportunity is experired by now from their point of view.
      I don’t think this is even true and just another unfounded claim but even if true, this is just dirty and disgusting. This here is about a life of someone but they fucking don’t care about people or justice at all, just about “winning” whatever that means in that context – I mean what it would mean for decent people unlike them is clear – that would be a victory for justice.
      BTW, is it inferior complex little man syndrome Martinez who wrote this reply or the attorney general as the signature at the end suggests? Or is it team work of a whole department? It’s disgusting to me, really. How do they even sleep or look in the mirror every morning – in case Martinez reaches the mirror at all lol.

      I contnines then with absolutely unlogic and made up stuff like the example above.

      One other thing that came to my mind recently is this:

      If there was premeditation starting with the gun from her grandparents, the white car rental in Redding, the gas cans, you know way in advance, as the state suggests, would it not be totally retarded to kill Travis shortly before his roommates arrive at the house? If this was premeditated from then on this could be called the most dumb murder plan ever with 1001 traces not limited to borrowing gas cans from an Ex.

      Before I was aware of Jodi’s confession about killing him I thought anyway that the church might be responsible for the killing or at least somehowe involved and the second version didn’t sound SOOO absurd to me.
      But that’s probably just me since I couldn’t have a lower opinion especially about this Christian sect called LDS and all the pathetic hypocrites in there, people who really disgust me to the core, a church also obviously based on a total fraud in the 19th century to begin with, with a self-declared “prophet” – I mean this is absurd.
      But I have also a very low opinion in general regarding bigot and hypocritical people not limited to this specific closed up society and sect.
      I would almost bet my last dime that 90+ % of them give a shit about their church’s rules…I cab see Hughes and Hall wanking to child porn as well lol.

      I’m really curious how this will end. Fingers crossed for our Jodi.

  3. Frank, regarding the long delay between Jodi’s arrival and their final fight, you are quite right that it is inexplicable on the assumption of premeditation. This point has been made many times before. The state’s whole narrative is a collection of absurdities, with (as far as I know) at least one impossibility (bleeding into the sinuses and mouth from a wound to the vena cava).

    You may hate me or love me in the end for suggesting this — but you can still read all the thousands of comments on this site during the first trial. To see what others said then, just go to “Post Archives” (second tab at the top right under the big Jodi pic) and select a month.

    • 🙂 I did read quite a lot on this site meanwhile, especially a few days ago when I had some time left, but despite the fact I’m a high speed reader I didn’t read all yet due to my schedule.

  4. Hey Alan,

    Is it possible to get somebody to create some legal cliffs notes for this brief? I hope Jodi’s defense team has a solid response to this!

    I have often said that it was very unfortunate that Travis’s calls to Jodi during her trip are not backed up in word form like texts are. The fact that Travis wanted her to come destroys all of the premed. theories of the prosecution. I had also thought that in lieu of this, the photos that Jodi and her sister took of them at the monastery would also have done the same.
    It still appears that Jodi’s lack of physical evidence of not only the actual two-part attack as well as Travis’ penchant for anger and physical abuse which only arose while the two of them were alone. The public and the courts cannot seem to make a connection or a leap from Travis’s public persona to his private behavior with her and her only!!. As we know, Jodi doesn’t have any video or audio evidence of his violent outbursts or his previous assaults and doesn’t have any witnesses. The only exception to Jodi’s claims was the tape played in the courtroom.
    Which of the top six questions appears to be the toughest to overcome?

    • I may write something later, but at the moment I’m too busy with a couple of jobs to have time to read the state’s brief carefully and form an opinion.

  5. I believe that the toughest to over come is probably
    PUBLICITY DID NOT DEPRIVE ARIAS OF A FAIR TRIAL…………..
    It will be argued that Jodi herself fanned the Media before , during and after her trial , Her tweeting through )Dovonan Bering (which I still doubt ) will be argued as well that she was fuelling the fire so to speak. Even though I understood her need to speak out , defending her character. So they will have all these programs listed and would argue that she knew what she was doing . (my opinion)

    Wearing stunt belt, could be argued , that no jury saw this , even though I doubt that as well. So thus no prejudice against the defendant . the jury was ask to leave the courtroom during the demonstration of the “linebacker “ pose.
    The challenge to Dr. Samuels’s credibility was based in evidence.
    Though I love Dr. Samuels his compassion , I strongly believe he was not quite prepared for trial , he should ve administered the test again after Jod changed her story , (even if he believe it would not have made a difference ) afterall it’s a murder case , you cant leave nothing to chance.
    They will argue , his so called gift giving , re-scoring and admitting on the stand he shoudve re administered the test and then changing his mind .

    The strongest case for dismissal for sure on Jodi s side is prosecutorial misconduct , wheter it be inside the courtroom in chambers or outside of the courtroom .

    And sorry to say but incompetent Attorney (mainly Nurmi) …just my opinion –love to hear other points of view

  6. I fear that in a state like Arizona the courts might be in bed with the prosecution – I felt the judge in the trial definitely was – hopefully for her not literally lol. She won’t ever forget and overcome having sex with a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle like Martinez. 🙂
    This system there in Arizona just appears totally corrupt to me not only because of Jodi’s trial but how often for instance Martinez got away with misconduct and all his unacceptable and respectless behaviour in the past. Or disgusting people like Joe “Dumbass” Arpaio or however his name is who was Sherriff there and got away with similar worse attitude. Only the Trumpster could help in the end though, and sadly he did.
    I feel there’s something wrong in the State of Arizona….

  7. Here is a quick synopsis of the news article above:

    Daimen Irizarry and Christopher Redondo were arrested in 2010 after a 50-mile police chase following the death of Officer Eric Shuhandler. According to court documents, Irizarry was driving the truck on the night of the shooting. Shuhandler stopped the vehicle because of an obstructed license plate. The police dispatcher notified the officer that Redondo, the passenger, may have an outstanding warrant. When Shuhandler went to the passenger window, police allege, Redondo shot and killed him. The two then fled.

    Irizarry’s defense during his 2010 trial was that he acted completely under duress when Redondo did his horrendous deeds and believed Redondo would shoot and kill him if he didn’t drive away. Irizarry was found guilty of aggravated assault, drive-by shooting and fleeing from law enforcement. He was sentenced to 107 years in prison.

    Irizarry’s current petition alleges that Martinez, during recent State Bar proceedings, admitted that he knew an audiotape conversation between Shuhandler and the dispatcher was altered before introducing it into evidence. The tape is missing five minutes and, according to Irizarry’s petition “does not accurately reflect the time from when the lieutenant first radioed… until the time he is shot.” For over eight years Irizarry has argued that during his trial prosecutor Juan Martinez intentionally introduced an altered audiotape as proof that Irizarry was lying and then, after being caught, Martinez purposefully introduced false testimony to the State Bar in order to cover it up. As one example, the petition claims that the altered tape did not have a time stamp even though Martinez told the State Bar it did, contradicting the dispatcher’s testimony to the contrary.

    Irizarry’s petition claims that Martinez is guilty of tampering with physical evidence, tampering with a witness and being an accomplice to commit perjury.

    • I have heard of scenarios like this when a second suspect states that the killer has threatened to kill them if they don’t flee a scene or obey their orders to elude police. This usually arises with male and female duos where the male is the dominant member and the female is an acting participant but states that she was frightened for her life when she is in custody and/or at trial. Courts seem to give this defense some credibility when the female is charged with lesser crimes and received a lesser sentence.
      The evidence tampering regarding the audio tape would seem like a very serious allegation considering how much law enforcement and the courts view this with defendants when the scenario is reversed.

  8. Did any of you guys see this?
    Wow, I’m almost speechless. What a bunch of disgusting and horrible people, all while they think so high of themselves. Fucking hypocrites. You can tell they were not obejctive at all. And they loved Martinez, that alone says enough about a person, doesn’t it?

    https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Anvp_y811hE

    • I find it scandalous what these horrible and biased people say in this video.
      Starting from like it is a crime when one of them does not obey to their bias and has some decency left up to praising the “lord” Martinez and calling Jodi a horrible person while Dipshit Alexander (sorry Jodi, I just think it’s that what he was despite you putting him still somewhat on a pedestal he was never able to reach, even remotely) was a saint to them despite the evidence even out of his own mouth, and all in between:

      http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Anvp_y811hE

  9. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Anvp_y811hE

    I personally couldn’t get past the part where the woman reading the first statement said they felt that the Travis Alexander portrayed in court was not an accurate portrayal of his life and character. How in holy hell would they know anything about Travis Alexander EXCEPT what they heard in court? And to say they tried to get justice for Travis, that was not their friggin’ job; their job was to seek justice – period.

    Disgusting!

    • When I watched this video I had merely two thoughts among others:

      First, how despicable these people are on a character/human being level – I remember one of them actually looked like an old bony witch, but well, looks don’t matter, but I also saw her in an interview for some TV station together with 2 other jurors with face in the camera, and the amount of unfounded and irrational hate from her mouth towards Jodis disguisted me to the core. The other 2 were not mcuh better but at least somewhat.
      The second thing I wondered, well you can’t really test character deficits and a rotten personality, BUT xou can test IQ.
      So do these jurors have to meet any minimum standards of IQ, let’s say a minimum of 120 at least in capital cases where life or death is at stake?
      Because it was very clear to me when I watched this video that many of them do not even remotely have the intellect to thoroughly listen to testimony and draw educated and rational conclusions, much less the needed intellect to overview everything and see the whole picure from all sides and angles, you know from an intellectual, objective standpoint.
      I also saw the aforementioned old bony witch from hell in that TV interview with the 2 other jurors actually say that she “prayed to god” that she is right in her decicion to go/wish for the death penalty. What kind of degenerated person says something like that when this should all be about reason and facts? And does she even know anything about the religion she claims to believe in? Bigot and hypocritical people disgust me.
      Most of them in the video I posted were just plain dumb and extremely simple-minded, very obvious.
      So they don’t get tested for IQ and even an idiot intellectually totally incapable to thoroughly follow the testimony, counsel and everything actually, and make an educated decision from that on can be on a jury? Is that true?

  10. On Tuesday, Jodi’s appellate lawyers filed their response to the state’s motion two weeks earlier to strike all but four of the appendices in Jodi’s lawyers’ appeal brief. I haven’t seen either one.

  11. I believe the headline is somewhat misleading. I don’t read that the judge dismissed the claim of Martinez’s misconduct, only that the petition was not sufficiently written as to describe the misconduct or to claim that the misconduct would have changed the outcome of the trial. The judge says “Defendant generally describes the newly discovered evidence supporting his petition by alleging that the trial prosecutor ‘answer(ed) some questions involving Mr. Irizarry’ during State Bar proceedings. There is no description of that testimony, how it would have affected the verdict or sentencing or what efforts have been made to obtain the evidence previously.” Sounds more like a description of sloppy (and perhaps indifferent) PCR petition writing to me.

  12. Thanks for posting the link. How does response to states motion address the issues raised by the state..it will be interesting to read what folks have to say about it. The one thing that strikes me is how much information there has been collected and available but there is a strict limit to what the response may contain….raising the issue of what a limited response means for making a fair case for appeal.

    • Well, I’m not a legal expert although I’ve some legal certificates from my economic studies. But I’m an IT and science professionell so I can only consider this from a logical standpoint – well, under the incorrect and unworldly assumption that legal dudes are remotely anywhere near logical or reasonable people lol. 🙂

      I found the motion from the state to literally strike EVERYTHING in the appendices regarding the frog’s obvious misconduct, over and over, impudent and an affront to being with. They sure no why they try this, don’t they? Because they know this ass behaved inproper all the time and that there is an entry point for a successful appeal.
      That’s at least my impression from a non professional point of view.

      The response from Jodi’s lawyers make sense to me.

      The last part of the response is on point imho, but again, from a logical standpoint it is and legal people and rules are not logical and reasonable at all – for the most part. So I have no idea if this argument is going to accepted:

      “If the Court of Appeals granted Appellee’s request to strike the appendix, the practical effect is to immunize the truly egregious cases of misconduct from appellate review. If a prosecutor commits so much misconduct that all of it cannot be described within the word constraints of an appellate brief, then not only are a large portion of incidents never considered by the Court, but the way in which those instances build on each other and form a cohesive style and strategy used by the prosecutor cannot be appreciated by the Court. Why should a prosecutor who commits more misconduct receive less review on appeal than a prosecutor who engages in less persistent bad behavior?
      This appeal is a perfect storm of a very large record and a prosecutor willing to engage in misconduct with impunity and regularity. Because of these rather unique circumstances, Appellant reconciled the need to present a comprehensive and accurate view of the trial misconduct with the word limit requirements. Word limits should not be a shield behind which truly egregiously improper conduct evades appellate consideration.
      Finally, Appellant is not seeking a strategic advantage. Appellant would not object to the Appellee taking the time and space necessary to address the facts listed
      11
      in the appendices, as necessary. But Appellee should not have the unfair advantage of striking the 265 instances of alleged misconduct listed in the appendices while simultaneously arguing that Appellant did not present enough misconduct to show Martinez’s violations were persistent and pervasive.”

  13. My prediction: the COA will leave the appendices intact, since it will wish to appear fair in this ultra-famous trial. And if it strikes them, that creates a new due-process issue for federal appeal. The Engle-Green reply is very well-written and, I believe, should prevail.

  14. Agree with both of you on your points..the state was looking to limit words to hide as much as possible improper conduct from the superior court but due process must be seen to be upheld on this well known case so the state may not get away with its tact to strike these appendices. Hope not anyway.

  15. Rofl (and I rarely use that one instead of just lol), some weird and totally clueless lady on Facebook is annoying me and going crazy about the linked document above accusing me of using it without consent (the document that is -I never did anyzhting with the document itself though but she intellectually is incapable to get it)).
    It’s not even my link or wordpress acount nor did I do anything else with the document (even if I did, just out of curiousity, are these documents not public domain anway? – she claims she paid for it?! ).
    I just found the link as is on a Facebook Group about Jodi and copied the link to here. That’s about it. Clueless people shouldn’t discuss about IT stuff with IT Experts/IT security experts and Cisco certified nerds like me lol.

    Also, she is referring to some mysterious “George” I’d know, I named him him her personal and invisble friend like Harvey the bunny lol, since I have no fucking idea who that is, who was using the document without consent either. In case it is his wordpress account the latter might even be true but how would I care?
    Wow, there are really crazy, clueless and impudent people out there. Funny up to being tragic already lol. She keeps claiming I know that George lol.
    I told her I the only George I know is George Washington and this one not even personally lol. I couldn’t take her serious for a cent I’m afraid. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Latest from Latest News

Go to Top