Jodi Arias = Snow White?

I haven’t followed this trial at all, but I have to wonder where the prosecutor thinks he’s going with this seemingly endless Snow White analogy.  Unless he just thinks he’s scoring points by repeatedly bringing the subject up because he thinks it discredits the witness all by itself.

If anyone has any other ideas about what that lawyer is doing I’d be glad to hear them.  To me it doesn’t look like it’s working at all, whatever it is he’s trying to do.



Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Jodi Arias = Snow White?

  1. I don’t think anyone knows what Martinez is doing. Since the trial started, he has achieved precisely nothing, apart from establishing facts that are not in dispute.

    Equating Arias with Snow White seems a disastrous strategy – surely the jury are not going to sentence Snow White to death by lethal injection!

    Actually, the entire case has collapsed. The prosecutor spent ages poring over gas receipts that lead precisely nowhere. He has adopted an unbelievable “gun shot last” theory of the crime scene, contrary to the forensic evidence, and in the process the lead detective has lied on oath at least once, if not twice.

    I have been reviewing the trial in some detail, hoping to learn something about the US justice system.

    I’m finding it hard to believe this is typical. Is it?


  2. Well, first of all no murder trial is typical. Murders, as I have said elsewhere, are very rare. To some extent you are always busting the statistical curve with them.

    I went to your site and appreciate the thought you put into it. It’s encouraging when someone has a sense of how to weigh evidence. One thing that might surprise you is that there is really no “law” in the US about weighing evidence. Juries are generally told in their instructions that they can do what they want and are given almost no guidance other than that. Appellate courts, where most “opinions” come from, rarely review or even comment on evidence.

    Maybe that’s for the best, of course. There are almost no judges that would employ the detailed and dispassionate analysis that you have on your website.

    But prospectively, this state of affairs makes everything kind of scary: you may have much better proof, but that doesn’t mean a jury is going to go along with it. They can do what they want. What they want, often, is to go along with the government.

    When there is a wide disparity in the “narratives” – and I love how you realize that there is story telling involved – the truth has the best chance of being corroborated by evidence that is essentially not debatable. You do a very good job on your site showing that in the Arias case, the blood in the basin, which no one can dispute, so unequivocally corroborates the version that Travis Alexander was shot first that there’s little point dwelling on it. That in turn corroborates the defence version of the events. And more than that, the prosecution changing its tune on the very point implies extreme disingenuous on their part.

    This should take any kind of death penalty murder conviction off the table. Should. That doesn’t mean it will. The jury has to do their job. They may, or may not.

    There is room to find guilt on a lesser crime. As I have said, I haven’t really followed the case, but I did see a report that the decedent’s throat was also cut. This would have been the last event in the horrific defense narrative of the decedent’s death. I don’t think there is any basis in law for Jodi Arias to administer a coup de grace like that, and that might ruin a “self-defense” claim and then manslaughter would definitely be a possibility.

    I mean let’s face it, it’s just a very sad situation for everyone.

    But the situation isn’t helped by prosecutorial over-reach in charging and pursuing the case, which you do a good job of showing has occurred. That should cost them. It usually doesn’t, which is why it happens more than it used to.

    From what I have seen this does remind me of the whole Casey Anthony fiasco, which I did follow fairly closely when it was going on. In fact, one of the things that bothered me about that was the vilification of the jury afterwards. We never blame juries for wrongful convictions, but people are brutal when a jury “wrongfully” acquits. That’s terrible. Sends a message that the safe play for a jury is always to convict.

    Thanks for reading over here.


  3. Why Juan Martinez has got the wrong end of the stick:
    Juggling Apples and Meatballs


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