After Jodi Arias’ conviction in 2013, I published a series of posts relating to the Jodi Arias case. She was convicted of first-degree murder, after admitting she killed her boyfriend Travis Alexander in self-defence in 2008.
She is serving a sentence of natural life (life without parole). The appeal set for 2018, and the process took over two years. The court set deadlines for the defence and prosecution to file legal briefs.
There was never any stage in the Jodi Arias saga when it felt comfortable that the truth had emerged, that a fair trial was in process, or that the conviction was safe. There was only the hope that the appeal would unravel the mystery of this bizarre case, and in time the truth would be revealed.
But it has always been hard to feel confident, particularly in view of the following.
The Jodi Arias Case Appeal – a catalogue of errors.
abc NEWS: ‘The Jodi Arias case remains a headache for Arizona’s court system …………..’
Comment: From the way the trial was conducted, this is hardly a surprise. Could it be due to flaws in their system that they have a migraine?
abc NEWS: ‘In the Jodi Arias’ case, the state Court of Appeals had to repeatedly prod some of the trial’s 22 court reporters to finish transcripts, and at one point even ordered that dozens of transcripts be destroyed and redone because of errors and omissions.’
Comment: This indicates the lack of efficiency in court reporting, poor management with no checks and balances during the process leading to a considerable waste of time and money.
abc NEWS: ‘The reporter responsible for most of the transcripts told the court his production was hindered by a computer malfunction, his own cancer treatment and the amount of work involved in Jodi Arias’ case and others. Other reporters cited workload issues.’
Comment: This quote speaks largely for itself. Pathetic excuses from an inefficient organisation should redden the faces of management but I doubt it will.
abc NEWS: ‘Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Samuel Thumma referred questions to Court Clerk Amy Wood. She said the delays in Arias’ appellate case were unusual and a concern.
Comment: This case has been unusual and of great concern to many people throughout. But that means absolutely nothing unless there is an inquiry into the Arizona justice system. Can anyone see that happening in a lifetime?
Court Rules irrelevant
abc NEWS: ‘…. Green and another defence lawyer – both appointed for Jodi Arias’ appeal – said in an Aug. 10 court filing that the transcripts were particularly important in Arias’ convoluted case because they had difficulty sorting out what happened when.
Comment: I am not in the least surprised by this. Prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, incompetent defence, witness tampering and… I could go on for a while. Anyone trying to get to grips with the case is bound to find it convoluted and would have difficulty sorting out what happened when. No doubt that is exactly what the prosecutor would hope for.
abc NEWS: Some possible appeal issues spanned five or six years of wrangling ….the defence lawyers wrote.”The pattern of this case reveals recurring issues……..”
Comment: A chink of light, maybe a ray of hope that could lead to the truth?
abc NEWS: ‘Court rules normally require that a defendant’s opening brief be filed within 40 days of the completion of the record, but Jodi Arias’ lawyers requested and got extra time.’
Comment: Another little piece of encouragement or just possible recognition of the enormity of the task facing the appeal lawyers?
Hi Jim, I like your new layout. I see from the Recent Posts list that I have missed some recent issues, perhaps in the makeover? I hear a little about you from your in-laws. Hope to see you again in Chiang Mai one of these days. Dave