Jodi Arias resentencing scheduled for St. Patrick’s Day

Tuesday, January 14, 2013

Good morning:

Following a closed-door session, a spokesperson for the Maricopa County Superior Court announced that the resentencing hearing in the Jodi Arias case will commence on March 17, 2014.

A jury previously convicted her of the capital murder of her boyfriend, Travis Alexander, but was unable to unanimously agree on whether to sentence her to death or to life without parole. I believe the jury deadlocked at 8 for death and 4 for LWOP.

The sensible and cost-efficient resolution would have been to sentence her to LWOP. Alexander’s family and friends could have begun the process of moving on with their lives and forgetting about Jodi Arias. Instead, they want more spectacle and blood. So does the prosecutor.

Given the split, there is little likelihood that a new jury will unanimously agree on the death penalty. Nevertheless, here we go again.

Judge Sherry Stephens, who presided over the first trial, will preside over the resentencing. She has already decided to ban livestream and live television coverage, so we will not get to watch any of the proceedings. The resentencing will take place in Phoenix, so you will have to go there to see it.

To refresh your recollection of the case, go here.

During jury selection, the defense will try to eliminate every potential juror who would automatically vote for death, regardless of any mitigating evidence, and the prosecutor will attempt to do the same to every potential juror who might have difficulty imposing the death penalty.

Any potential juror who is opposed to the death penalty will be excused on the ground that they cannot follow the law if they are unwilling to consider imposing the death penalty.

Keep in mind that the issue of guilt has already been decided. The new jury will only be tasked with deciding the penalty.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor will be permitted to introduce evidence about the murder since it’s relevant to consider in determining the sentence.

All defendants in criminal cases have the right of allocution, which means she can ask the jury to spare her life or sentence her to death.

To refresh your recollection on the procedure the court will follow and the jury instructions that the court will give to the jury, please go here to read my article from last May.


This is our 852nd post. We posted 3 articles yesterday and covered the atrocious verdict in the Kelly Thomas case late into the night. I was going to go to bed when I saw a news report about the Arias resentencing. I decided to hell with sleep and wrote this article instead. My article (to which I linked) about the penalty phase procedure and jury instructions is comprehensive and easy to read. I was a death-penalty lawyer so I know how it works.

We had 620 visitors to the site yesterday and only received 3 donations. That is not encouraging and I am not the least bit ashamed to say so.


26 Responses to Jodi Arias resentencing scheduled for St. Patrick’s Day

  1. JJ says:

    In looking through comments to news articles, I don’t notice a war between gun lovers (conservatives) and victim supporters (liberals) as we had during the Zimmerman-Martin case. Now the dialogue is between cop supporters (Reeves) and those supporting the victim (Oulson). Even on a church-based article where they reported that Reeves attorney stated that Reeves was a church-going, God-fearing man who attended Bible study. Almost all the posters stated something like Reeves must have not been listening – it’s not what Jesus would have wanted.
    The white Oulson family with a small child increases the number of people supporting the Oulson victim.

  2. aussie says:

    It transpires Reeves did not get to talk to the movie manager, who was busy with someone else.

    It will be interesting to see if the security videos show him going to his car to retrieve his weapon (as the theatre didn’t allow guns so he may have left it outside). If he did, that is murder 1.

    There were only 25 people in the theatre. There must have been heaps of other seats free that he could have moved to.

  3. MDH says:

    I conflated Reeves with Oulson, above. Sorry.

    And D leads to this.

    Oulson, if he could have fended or grabbed the gun, would have been well within his rights to have clobbered Reeves in that he had a right to meet force {a gun being lethal force} with equal force.

    Note that Trayvon Martin’s right to the above was never given consideration.

    • Malisha says:

      The “ground” to be “stood” in the Trayvon Martin murder case was TRAYVON’S ground that he had a right to stand when he was chased down by a creepy-ass cracka.

      • MDH says:

        That is a point I missed.

        TM had a right to be walking in that community and, as such, a right to use lethal force in face of an aggressor presenting force that would cause him to reasonably fear for his life.

        I think it is logical to deem a larger man with a gun a reasonable cause for fearing for one’s life.

        And unlike the “you got a problem homie” fairy tale that GZ told, TM had 100% incontrovertible evidence to reasonably fear for his life.

        Was there a gun?


        Did GZ have the gun?


        Did GZ fire the gun?


        Did GZ move closer to TM?


        Did GZ identify himself?


        Did TM have a right to fight or struggle to survive?


        Was there a struggle?


        Who suffered lethal injuries?


        Who had minor cuts?


        I find it remarkable that the “bait and kill” lovers blithely ignore that having a gun should be part and parcel of any legal analysis with respect to self defense.

        For example, if a big guy with muscles gets up in the face of a weak person, they would have no problem seeing that the weaker person has cause to fear for their life.

        But when a little guy with a gun comes up to a big guy, the big guy has no cause to fear for his life. That is patently absurd.

        IOW, they want to have the right to use a gun to make others grovel before them without consequences.

        That is what Zimmerman and Reeves were doing.

        • Malisha says:

          But I remember, over a year ago, I said that Trayvon Martin would have had an absolute right to use deadly force on Fogen because he would have logically had (no question asked) a REASONABLE fear of great bodily injury or death, absolutely proven by the fact that he SUSTAINED great bodily injury and death. But I was corrected; it was said that the mere fact that he WAS ultimately killed did NOT automatically mean that we could presume he had a reasonable fear of being killed.

          I still don’t get that one.

          If he had an unreasonable fear, it would have to have been unreasonable by virtue of, at LEAST, the fact that it did not happen. Right? That part I cannot understand. If he was killed, he had a reasonable fear of being killed before it happened. In my mind. I can’t see it any other way.

          • gblock says:

            I agree. I have used the same argument (that the fact that Zimmerman shot Trayvon only a few minutes later proves that Trayvon had reason to fear Zimmerman) to counter claims by Zimmerman supporters that Trayvon did not have good reason to fear Zimmerman.

          • MDH says:

            It is absurd to state that Trayvon had no reasonable fear of great bodily harm based on the absolute facts that:

            George Zimmerman was much larger

            George Zimmerman had a gun

            George Zimmerman followed Trayvon

            At some point, George Zimmerman pulled the gun and shot Trayvon.

            A rule of self defense in face of a hostile armed person is rush a gun and run from a knife.

            During the Trayvon trial, the right wingers were all praising the MMA dude who messed up a guy with a gun that had tried to jack him. The MMA guy had every right to do that under the laws of self defense.

            So how does that NOT apply to Trayvon when George pulled and drew a bead on him?

            IOW, the logic of Zimmerman defenders is:

            Zimmerman had a right to fear for his life but Trayvon had no right to defend his.

            The whole basis of their argument is that George told the 100% truth. And that says a lot about them.

  4. Malisha says:

    Folks, guess what. THIS Curtis Reeves guy might actually go to prison. The guy he killed, Chad Oulson, was WHITE and his wife is a pretty blonde woman and they have an adorable child. Reeves might have shot the wrong victim! I’m predicting a real trial this time. (He still might get off because he’s an ex-cop and they do have bait-and-kill privileges, but some of the other special factors that helped Trayvon Martin’s murderer and Thomas Kelly’s murderers are lacking in this case.

    • MDH says:

      And if Zimmerman had killed Reeves in the same manner that he did TM, the following would have held:

      A) The conservative tree house would have been wanting to string up that creepy ass foreigner – Zimmerman – for unjustifiably shooting an all-American man and leaving a loving wife and cute baby without a father.

      B) Even if Zimmerman’s story was 100% true, the courts and jury would have held that a man like Reeves has every right to defend himself against a creep with a gun.

      C) No one would have thought there is anything unusual about a male walking at 7PM in casual attire such as tan pants, a grey hoodie, and white sneakers, thus concluding that Zimmerman is a delusional nut case.

      D) If Reeves had got the jump on Zimmerman and bashed his head to oblivion on the sidewalk, then he would have been hailed as a hero for standing his ground against a creep with a gun. No charges would have been filed against him.

  5. JJ says:

    OFF TOPIC: Another shooting in FL – by retired 71yo cop in Tampa movie theatre.
    During movie previews, retired cop asked man to stop texting. Man refused. Said he was texting his 3-year old daughter.
    Retired Cop left, came back. Argument ensued. Man allegedly threw popcorn at retired cop. Retired Cop shot man in chest – killing him. Retired cop said afterward he felt threatened. Judge said “No bail.”
    Bet this will be the next political war over guns and right of cop to use deadly force – Stand Your Ground. “cop”

    • MDH says:

      I notice that the “bait and kill” defenders are crawling out of the woodwork to defend the cop on other forums.

      They float the meme that it was a strong young man against a feeble old man.

      The facts are that the feeble cop is 6’1″ @270lbs.

      So expect another an argument along the lines used in the defense of Zimmerman wherein he became a weak old powder puff facing a strong, young black man child.

      They float the meme that the victim deserved it because he was rude to an elderly person.

      Never mind that, in the real world, some old people are rude and lack social skills. Nice people stay nice and assholes stay assholes. So age has no bearing here.

      They also avoid the issue of proper use of a gun.

      In the world I was raised in, the fact that you possess a gun mandates that you do everything possible to deescalate a conflict because the gun can kill people.

      This cop came back to a scene that was already escalating.

      In fact, that is also the first rule taught in a self-defense class. Run away or concede and argument because the skill you learn can hurt people.

      IMO, these “bait and kill” {I refuse to call it stand your ground} fanatics are cowards who have no life of their own and get their kicks interfering with the lives of others.

      They suck.

      There are many men who have justifiably killed during a war who spend the rest of their lives wracked with guilt.

      I notice that Zimmerman and this cop smile and show no remorse whatsoever.


    • Malisha says:

      Yeah but you forget, this shooter was in danger for his life. I mean, think of it. Popcorn is popped from kernels of corn. They have sharp edges. If one of those popcorn missiles had hit him in the eye he could have been blinded and he could have fallen (because there’s some witness from a gym who, I am sure, would testify that he was unsteady on his feet and vulnerable to being knocked over by irresponsible popcorn) and hit his head and been bloodied and felt like his head exploded and the texting man might have said “homie” to him and he might have died.

      Are you trying to say that an American is not allowed to stand his ground and defend himself? What’s this country coming to?

  6. acemayo says:

    Berrendo Middle School in Roswell, N.M.
    Shooting reported at New Mexico middle school
    Score another one for the everyone get a gun club. Pete Sessions ought to be proud, seeing as that the NRA recently endorsed him. Bet we won’t have 80 some odd comments on this one like we see on the board where the cops released the video of the cop shooting the unarmed dude with his hands in the air. I know, guns are cool until black people use them, then they’re the worst thing in the world. Kinda like weed, nothing wrong with weed until they found traces of it in the dead body of Trayvon Martin. Then it became the worst illegal drug on planet Earth. So goes life on the message board. I guess I could just tuck my tail between my legs, be quiet & just accept it. Nah, that’s no fun.

    • Malisha says:

      See, the reason that happened was that the teachers in that school were not armed. If they WERE armed they could have shot that kid dead after he opened fire on the kids he shot, and we would have a much better result!

  7. Malisha says:

    Jodi Arias is obviously a liar and a murderer. That said, however, she sure didn’t get a very competent psychological assessment or testimony that could have helped her in her trial. I am not suggesting that a person’s individual psychology excuses abusive or criminal behavior, but when any person’s very life is at stake, she deserves a good effort. That Dr. Richard Samuels was not ready for prime time! With Arias working against herself to such an extent, she didn’t need an expert witness working against her too!

  8. Boyd says:

    sorry to hear the donations are not rolling in, I’ll try to continue sending something monthly.

    Don’t give up, you never know what may happen in the future.

    • Rachael says:

      I get paid tomorrow – which will cover my overdraft I incurred to pay rent, but that still puts me in a better spot than you. It is my first paycheck with this new job and I’ll only be getting paid once a month (on the 15th) and I’m still playing catch up, plus I want to make sure I don’t have to put my rent into overdraft again, but I will send something. Hopefully it will be more in the coming months.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: