Barbara Sheehan Acquitted in Shooting Death of Husband - Battered Woman's Syndrome Tested

Over the Labor Day weekend, I was catching up on my reading online and came across a story that caught my interest.  The news wasn’t new, the story was about 52 year old Barbara Sheehan who in June of this year began serving a five year prison sentence for a gun possession charge.  Sheehan was a mother of two, a secretary and was married to retired NYPD Sgt. Raymond Sheehan.  After seeing a photo of this woman, who looks like the average American mother – I was curious about the gun possession charge so I read on.  What I found surprised me.  Sheehan had been acquitted of second degree murder after shooting her husband 11 times and killing him on February 8, 2008.  Acquitted of murder, but convicted on gun possession?  My curiosity drove me to look up this case, the trial and find out what happened with Barbara & Raymond Sheehan.

Turns out that Barbara Sheehan admitted to killing her husband, shooting him more than 11 times with two of his guns while he was shaving in the bathroom of their home – but she successfully argued that she shot him in self defense, and utilized the battered wife’s syndrome to demonstrate her fear that had she not killed him, he would have killed her.  The case was interesting in that her attorneys were able to demonstrate that over the course of their marriage Raymond Sheehan had been increasingly physically abusive towards her – allegations that were confirmed and corroborated by Sheehan’s two adult children who testified at trial for the defense.  It can’t be easy for spouses of law enforcement to report incidents of domestic violence.  Think Drew Peterson….Kathleen Savio’s many calls to police about threats from Drew brought little action from responding officers. 

The prosecution painted Barbara Sheehan as a liar who killed her husband in cold blood.  The original judge in Sheenans trial would not allow expert witness testimony on battered woman’s syndrome, however a new judge was assigned to the trial and he did allow in limited testimony from Jacquelyn Campbell, a professor and researcher from John Hopkins University.  Campbell’s studies about domestic violence homicides led her to create the pre-eminent danger-lethality assessment for women in battering situations.  Campbell was not allowed to assess Sheehan, instead, she was only allowed to present generic testimony on the cycle of violence and the “learned helplessness” that leads women to believe that escaping their situation is not possible.  It was mostly a discussion on why women often times do not report abuse to law enforcement, medical professionals, and hide it from family and friends. 

Campbell was not allowed to tell the jury that of the 20 or so indicators on the danger-lethality assessment, nearly all were present in the Sheehans’ relationship in the year prior to the killing.  The escalating violence and threats to kill, the presence of guns in their home and his talk of suicide combined with his need to completely control every aspect of her life were all signs that her time may be running out.  Other testimony that was excluded from her trial was the effects of Raymond Sheehan’s employment in law enforcement – something that surely would have been a factor on her willingness or ability to feel safe in reporting domestic violence.  This could understandably be an issue for women who depend on their husband’s income for support of the family, fearing the loss of employment would lead to loss in sole support of an entire family.  This wasn’t the case here, but it’s another aspect that effects reporting of domestic violence.

The jury also did not hear the statistics that in many cases when an officer’s spouse makes an allegation of domestic violence, “almost without exception” the officer and not the complainant is protected.  According to statistics provided by the National Center for Women in Policing, police agencies usually handle officer involved complaints of domestic violence internally and informally.  They further stated that when a report is made, criminal investigations are rarely conducted and punishment is “exceedingly light”, with counseling the most frequent recommended course of action.  Even more frightening, reports of domestic violence rarely end up in an officer’s employment file – and they are often times promoted, many only a short time after the allegations are made.  Sounds to me like these reports are buried, not taken seriously or simply vanish. 

After reading about all of the information and testimony the Sheehan jury WAS NOT allowed to hear, they did hear from the couple’s 21 year old son, Raymond.  On the witness stand, Raymond broke down in tears when he read something he wrote when he was 14 years old and found out his father had a girlfriend. The Assistant District Attorney had to finish reading the entry for Raymond, in which he professed his anger towards his father and the mistress he discovered by accident when he intercepted an e-mail between the two.  He wrote “my whole life has changed…I’m never going to trust him again”.  The prosecutor was quick to ask why the young man failed to document the beatings his mother took at the hands of his father in his writings.  Raymond replied “that doesn’t mean it never happened”.  Raymond Sheehan left for college in Connecticut because he could no longer stand to be around his father.  He went on to be the second string quarterback of the Sacred Heart University football team in Fairfield.  He admitted that during his senior year in high school, his family life was so bad he considered taking his own life.

The Sheehan’s daughter, 25 year old Jennifer Sheehan also testified on behalf of her mother.  When the prosecutor asked how many times she witnessed her father abusing her mother, she said “millions of times, it happened every day”.  She recalled her father throwing food on the ceiling and floor when her mother cooked something he didn’t like.  She also told jurors about an incident that occurred during her 21^st birthday party – when her father told her she had to move out of their house.  He then stood outside and threw rocks at their home.  Barbara Sheehan’s hands shook visibly at times during her testimony, as she recounted painful memories of her husband calling her “stupid, fat, a horrible mother” and knocking her down, kicking her, choking her and spitting in her face. 

The trial was held in September of 2011, more than 3 years after the killing.  Assistant DA Deborah Pomodore prosecuted the case and told the jury that Sheehan killed her husband out of pure hatred.  They described her as a “deeply unhappy wife who resented her sexless marriage and was now grossly exaggerating what she calls decades of physical abuse.  The trial called national attention to the issue of self defense in domestic violence cases, as the defense argued Barbara Sheehan killed her husband after years of abuse and after he pointed a loaded pistol at her.  Sheehan chronicled the events which included her husband throwing scalding hot pasta sauce in her face, banging her head against the wall and smashing her in the head with a phone receiver when she tried to call 911 for help.  Pomodore tried to shed an entirely different light on the marriage, calling her accounts of events into question and was highly skeptical of the abuse claims.  The prosecutor called Sheehan a “feisty and assertive woman” who was clumsy and accident prone, and even suggested some of her injuries were self inflicted.   Pomodore tried to point out inconsistencies in Sheehans’ statements, pointing to a December 2007 call to a domestic violence hot line in which Sheehan said there had been no physical abuse.  She also suggested Sheehan played up being the victim during media interviews. In the state of New York, self defense laws justify the use of lethal force in response to an immediate threat to life.  Pomodore claims this simply was not the case.  Many legal experts considered this to be a prime case to test the battered woman syndrome defense.

Sheehan testified about an incident that occurred while the family was on vacation in Jamaica when her husband banged her head against a cinder block wall in August of 2007.  After killing her husband in 2008, Sheehan told Good Morning America that he cracked her head open during the Jamaica trip.  During another interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show, she said the injury required stitches from her forehead to the back of the head.  Pomodore tried to capitalize on what she called inconsistencies and exaggerations of the Jamaica event.  Sheehan’s children backed up her story about the injuries and fighting that occurred during that trip.  Sheehan claimed the pair got into a heated argument before she killed him because she refused to go on a trip to Florida with him.  He was shaving when she shot him, although he had a loaded gun on the counter nearby and within reach. 

The defense brought an arsenal of potentially embarrassing accusations of their own to trial.  The most shocking revelation was that Mr. Sheehan was a sexual deviant who forced his wife to watch as he put on adult diapers, women’s dresses or ladies tights and masturbated in front of her.  Pomodore attempted to diffuse the allegations by stating that Sheehan was a willing participant in the role-playing games and suggested she enjoyed being a “dominatrix” while her husband took on the role of a baby.  Yeah, you heard this correctly – I had to read it several times to make sure I got it all right!  Pomodore cited an advertisement in which the Sheehan’s were seeking another couple to engage in other role-playing games with.  Barbara Sheehan called the ad “disgusting”, and said that she was repulsed by her husbands behavior and claims they hadn’t had sexual relations in 10 years.

The jury certainly had much to consider when they retired to begin deliberations.  Sheehan had many supporters in the community and in the courtroom, and many people felt the case should not have even been prosecuted.  I tend to think that anytime someone is shot 11 times, there has to be a thorough investigation and a trial.  Sheehan may have been the victim of abuse, she may have felt she had no way out of the marriage with the exception of being killed or killing her husband – but it should be for a jury to decide.  11 gunshots seems to be more than one would need to stop any perceived danger.  These cases are tough, and I don’t know what I would have decided if I were a juror on this case.  This particular jury had a hard time reaching a consensus – they deadlocked at first, unable to reach an unanimous decision. They ultimately acquitted her of murder.  Despite not hearing much of the expert witness testimony and a lot of other evidence the judge wouldn’t allow in, they took the testimony of the couple’s two adult children seriously.  They were the witnesses to the horrors their mother endured at the hands of their father – a member of law enforcement, who was supposed to protect and serve the community and protect his family, not terrorize them.

The jury acquitted her of murder, but they found her guilty of a gun violation?  She was sentenced to 5 years in prison for gun possession.  I don’t get it.  The jury decided the shooting was justified, so why the gun conviction?  Yes, she shot him with his own weapons – registered to her husband.  I don’t think she had time to get a gun permit while he was threatening to kill her and her children that February morning in 2008.  Was this a compromise verdict of some kind?  Who knows.  Sometimes verdicts don’t make sense.  The public seems to believe Sheehan was justified in shooting her husband to death.  While I don’t feel killing somebody is the appropriate way out of a marriage, I guess there are those situations that are so dangerous, so volatile – where the person feels it’s the ONLY way out. It’s sad, any way you look at it.

Jodi Arias Sentencing Re-Trial - Common Sense Compromises

As we await the mid-September court date in the never ending Jodi Arias penalty phase retrial, I have a few common sense suggestions to get this train wreck of a trial back on the rails.  There are several outstanding motions put forth by Arias’ defense duo – these motions are not new to the public, and therefore they certainly have been on the table for Judge Sherry Stephens to ponder since the August 5^th deadline she gave both sides to file such motions.  What I don’t understand is why these motions were not being considered between the deadline filing date of August 5^th and the status hearing on August 26^th.  I know judges are busy people, juggling multiple trial dates along with their many other responsibilities but come on…..I started this blog because I was shocked and outraged about this case and what happened to Travis Alexander – the photos, the lies, the stolen gun, the ex boyfriends, the stalking, the sex tape and the Cancun trip made this a story that caught the attention of the media and the public.  My family and friends were not as interested in discussing the trial as I was, and I needed an outlet to seek other like minded people.  I was surprised at how many people felt the same way and returned to this blog and let their thoughts and insights.

After viewing the trial and the revolting trial strategy of Jodi Arias and her defense duo, and the subsequent non-verdict at sentencing, coupled with the newest series of delays has turned this blog into my own personal venting page.  I apologize for that!  Like most people out there, I just want to see resolution to this trial in my lifetime!  I have some simple common sense suggestions to Judge Stephens in regards to these outstanding motions – compromises, if you will.  These solutions would seem to be neutral to both sides and not greatly affect the outcome of the retrial.  Arias has already been convicted of first degree murder, half the battle has been fought and won.  All that’s left to decide is whether a jury believes Arias’ life should be spared or if she deserves the ultimate punishment.  A new jury will write the last chapter of this sad story.

On the motions:  Change of Venue – Nurmi and Willmott have argued that due to the media saturation in the Maricopa County area, finding an impartial jury that hasn’t been exposed to extensive news coverage and/or already formed an opinion is unlikely.  Let’s face it, although the media may have been present at the trial venue, the trial was covered on a national level – people all across the good old U S of A know who Jodi Arias is.  She’s made sure of that, calling her own press conferences immediately following her conviction and after her arrest – her constant “tweets” and online art auctions all have aided Arias in keeping the spotlight directly on her.  She shares the blame for the media coverage, as she seems to be thriving in her new found convict status.  My compromise idea is to hold the retrial in Maricopa County, but choose the new jury from another jurisdiction and bus those jurors in to the Superior Court Building for the trial.  They successfully did this in the Casey Anthony case.  I believe the citizens of Maricopa County deserve to see this trial finished in their county.  So choose the jury from another county, transport them to and from the trial.

Sequester The Jury:  The defense wanted jury #1 to be sequestered, but that motion was denied by Judge Stephens, who felt it was an unnecessary cost and burden to the jurors during what was sure to be a lengthy trial.  Potential jurors may be less inclined to want to serve on a jury if it meant being away from their families for 5 months straight.  You can’t blame them.  I think sequestering jury #2 would be a good idea, erring on the side of caution and in the interest of getting this trial moving along.  Sequestering a jury is a burden to the jurors, but it is a good way to put to rest the defense’s concerns about jurors seeing outside news about the trial.  At this point, cost shouldn’t be an issue for the state.  I say sequester them, provide them with movies and other activities to make their time less mundane since they will not have access to regular television or newspapers and limited access to their family and friends.  It’s a small price to pay to fulfill such a vital civic duty.  Sequestering the jury does not help or hinder the prosecution or the defense. It levels the playing field, just do it!

Defense Wants Jurors To Disclose Twitter Account Information/Social Media – The motion specifically mentions Twitter (alone) to the best of my knowledge.  The judge’s admonishment covers ALL media, however it appears one of the alternate jurors may have been busted for an exchange with media during the trial.  But the judge and the defense needs to acknowledge that Jodi Arias herself attempted to influence the public by her tweets, facilitated by friends on the outside during her own trial.  She’s guilty of discussing the trial more than any juror or alternate.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The defense wants individualized voir dire of jurors – I don’t see a problem with this motion either.  It actually helps the prosecutor as well as the defense.  We want to ensure this jury is REALLY DEATH QUALIFIED and we want to know they would be willing and able to hand down a death sentence regardless of their personal belief system relating to capital punishment.  This is perhaps the most difficult part of the process.  During group voir dire, potential jurors may be afraid or unwilling to be 100% honest on their personal beliefs, wherein if they were questioned in the judges chambers outside of the earshot of other potential jurors they may be more willing to be completely honest in vocalizing their beliefs either way.  We’ve heard so much about how difficult some jurors found it to give Arias the death penalty, as if they would somehow be responsible for her death.  This simply isn’t the case.  If sentenced to death, the blame falls squarely on Jodi Arias herself.  Not her attorneys, not the media, not the “haters”, not the Alexander family, not Travis Alexander – and not even her wooden-spoon yielding mother!!  This jury needs to understand the law and how to apply it by weighing the aggravating factors against any mitigating factors. It can be as simple as that.  The jury needs to not feel responsibility for “killing” anybody. They are applying the law.

Those are my suggestions of the motions I’m aware of, in a nutshell.  These are all common sense compromise-based solutions to the issues Judge Stephens is facing going into the retrial.  My hope is that in that next mid-September status hearing, she will have decided to rule on these motions and is ready to set a date for the jury selection process.  No more extensions, this should be it.  A jury found Jodi Arias guilty on May 8, 2013, nearly 4 months ago!  Initially, she wanted to start jury selection in July, and the defense team had scheduling conflicts and have been seeking to delay it into 2014 ever since.  Please, please, please Judge Stephens – don’t let this happen.  This isn’t a new case, these aren’t new issues and the state has been ready since May 9^th.  Let’s get this train back on the track and go full steam ahead to Justicetown (did I really say that??).  I’m getting a little corny, a sign that I should end this entry.  I hope you have all had a great Labor Day weekend, and I hope to see your comments and thoughts on these suggestions.    Until next time……

Will Drew Peterson Ever Stand Trial For Stacy Peterson's Murder?

In my last blog post, I wrote about the new TNT show “Cold Justice” that debuts next Tuesday night.  The show features former Texas prosecutor Kelly Siegler and Las Vegas CSI Yolanda McClary who travel across America’s small towns taking a second look at some unsolved cold homicide cases.  I’m excited about the show, mostly because I’m a fan of Siegler’s work as a prosecutor but also the premise of the show seems different than many of the present formatted crime shows.  I believe they will be looking for unsolved murders that happened in rural areas where law enforcement resources were sparse.  But wouldn’t it be cool if they could get to the bottom of some of the more well known unsolved homicide/missing person cases?  At the top of my personal wish list:  the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. 

Most people believe Stacy Peterson is not simply missing, she was killed.  The prime suspect in the case has always been her husband Drew Peterson.  Stacy Peterson met and married the much older Drew Peterson after meeting him while he was on duty as a Bolingbrook police officer.  He was married to Kathleen Savio at the time, but the two quickly began a romantic relationship and when she became pregnant with his child Peterson and Savio began bitter divorce proceedings.  Savio was Peterson’s third wife, Stacy would be wife #4.  After the divorce was final, Drew married Stacy – the only thing remaining aside from the custodial arrangements of Peterson and Savio’s children was the division of property and assets.  Savio didn’t live to make it to court for the decision on division of assets, she was found dead in her bathtub.  Originally ruled an accident by the coroner, many of Kathleen’s family and friends were convinced her abusive ex husband killed her.

A little more than 4 years after Stacy married Drew Peterson, she simply disappeared.  On October 29, 2007 she was reported missing but not by her husband, she was reported missing by her sister Cassandra Cales after Stacy failed to show up for plans they had and nobody could reach her.  The last time family or friends heard from Stacy was on October 17, 2007 when she left a voicemail message on her father’s answering machine – in the message, Stacy left a new cellphone number for her family.   Stacy’s family knew there had been trouble in the marriage for some time, with Drew becoming more and more controlling over Stacy – insisting on knowing where she was at all times and who she was with.  Stacy wanted out of the marriage, but she feared Drew – and for good reason.  Stacy had been holding on to a secret that more than likely got her killed.  She knew that her husband had left their home on the night of Kathleen Savio’s death (murder).  She woke up in the middle of the night and he was not in bed.  She later found him in the laundry room, dressed in dark colored clothing and putting women’s clothing as well as his own clothes in the washing machine.  This was of particular interest because Drew never did his own laundry.  Where did the women’s clothing come from, and why did Drew have it? What was he doing out in the middle of the night and why did he coach her on what to tell police about that night during routine questioning after Kathleen’s death?  We know the answer to those questions now.  It took Stacy’s disappearance for law enforcement to take a second look at the suspicious death of Kathleen Savio.

Drew Peterson was eventually arrested for the murder of Kathleen Savio.  After her body was exhumed, a second autopsy proved crucial in showing her death was not an accidental drowning.  Drew Peterson was tried and convicted of killing Kathleen Savio in 2012 after a trial that was as much of a media circus as the Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony trials – although Peterson’s trial did not have cameras in the courtroom, it was still widely covered and discussed nightly on a national level.  Peterson was convicted in part due to a controversial new law enacted for this case.  Dubbed “Drew’s Law”, state prosecutors were able to use statements Stacy Peterson made to her pastor Neil Schori and divorce attorney Harry Smith at trial.  Stacy went to the pastor and told him she believed she helped her husband Drew get away with murdering his ex wife Kathleen Savio. She feared the knowledge put her in danger, and she was right.  Peterson’s defense team made what turned out to be a crucial mistake at trial by calling attorney Harry Smith to the stand as a witness.  The prosecution pounced on the opportunity and elicited some very damaging testimony from Smith regarding conversations he had with Stacy Peterson before her disappearance.  Smith told jurors that Stacy Peterson asked him if she could use her knowledge of Drew’s involvement in Kathleen’s death/murder as leverage against him in divorce proceedings.  Can you say M-O-T-I-V-E???

There are a few things Drew Peterson would not stand for from the women in his life.  He WAS married four times, almost five times.  Drew sought to control his women.  Whether it be what they wore, how much makeup they applied, who they talked to on the phone, who they e-mailed and who they saw.  He had to know everything at all times.  Was the much older Drew not the confident, self assured police officer he portrayed himself to be?  Was he really an insecure, middle aged man who feared the much younger and attractive Stacy would leave him and take half of his assets?  Drew Peterson’s ego could not stand for any woman leaving him – and he made it known to more than one person that he wouldn’t give half of his assets to any woman.  That was HIS money.  He didn’t believe in community property, and there’s no way he was going to share his hard earned pension and other assets with a young attractive woman who could have easily started a new life with someone more age-appropriate and less controlling.  I think that thought just ate at him.  He avoided the division of property with wife #3 by killing her and making it appear to be an accident. He bragged to Kathleen AND Stacy that he had the knowledge to kill them and make it look like an accident, and he nearly got away with it with Kathleen.  His ego unchecked, he has attempted to dispose of Stacy without having to part with his assets and keeping his ego in tact.

Drew Peterson is currently serving his 38 year sentence at the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois.  He will be 93 years old at the earliest possible release date, barring any successful appeals he will more than likely never see the light of day again.  Does that mean this man should go unpunished or untried for the murder of Stacy Peterson?  Will States Attorney James Glasgow pursue new charges against Drew Peterson in connection with his missing and presumed dead 4^th wife Stacy?  I think if there is any chance to nail him, they will.  Peterson isn’t going anywhere anytime in the near future.  The problem is, much of what they know or suspect Peterson did is circumstantial and with Stacy’s body never having been recovered, it’s notoriously difficult to prosecute a no-body homicide.  Thankfully there is no statute of limitations on murder, however as time ticks away, witnesses forget details or move away and in some cases they die.  Time is of essence if they hope to try Peterson for the murder of Stacy.  What do police know, and how much of what they know have they shared with the public?  I don’t know very much in the way of details, but it seems likely that the best evidence against Drew comes in the form of statements made by his stepbrother Thomas Morphey.  Morphey told police he helped Drew carry a large and heavy 55 gallon blue drum/container from his bedroom to Peterson’s SVU right after Stacy’s disappearance.  He allegedly has said the container was warm, and it was large enough to hold Stacy’s body.  Distraught after the revelation that Stacy was missing, Morphey attempted to kill himself when he realized that he may have inadvertently helped dispose of Stacy’s body.  Morphey’s statements were downplayed by Peterson’s defense attorneys, claiming his drug and alcohol problems make him an unreliable witness who should not be believed.  Peterson’s longtime friend Rick Mims corroborated the blue container story in that he told police he was with Drew when he purchased 3 such drums from a cable company the two had worked for part time back in 2003. 

That blue container has never been recovered.  I remember years ago, a news story came on where the police were called to a nearby lake or river after people fishing reported a large blue container floating in the water.  They retrieved the container, but it did not contain Stacy’s body.  The million dollar question is what did Drew do with the container that may have concealed Stacy’s body?  Did he bury it? Did he throw it in some body of water?  Seems to me that he must have buried it or disposed of it in a body of water large enough to where it would never be found.  Drew had a small airplane.  Could he have loaded the barrel in the plane and flown over water and tossed it over?  Can Drew be prosecuted without Stacy’s body being found?  I certainly hope so.  I hate to think that people are rewarded for their skill at concealing a body.  But with a purely circumstantial case such as this, and double jeopardy in play, the police are likely taking their time with this case.  I don’t believe Stacy’s case has been forgotten.  I hope to someday see Stacy’s killer standing trial for her murder.

Drew Peterson is another high profile defendant who courted the media, and then turned around and complained about the pre-trial publicity harming his case.  Drew is probably the only person I can think of who could be compared to Jodi Arias in their hunger for media attention before, during and after their trial.  While Stacy was missing, Drew Peterson appeared on Larry King Live and publicly proclaimed his innocence and told viewers Stacy had up and left him for another man, taking only her bikini with her. How ridiculous of a notion is that?  Stacy would never have left her children behind, and especially not with Drew. Drew often toyed with the numerous reporters who camped out in his front yard.  He even pitched the idea of a contest “Win a Date With Drew” to the media.  While he was being held in jail awaiting trial, he called radio personality Mancow Muller from jail and suggested a new contest – “Win a Conjugal Visit With Drew”.  How disgusting is this man?  Peterson ALMOST snared another wife after Stacy’s disappearance.  In December of 2008, he announced his engagement to 23 year old Christina Raines in a television interview.  Raines at the time believed in Drew’s innocence, but that would change months later when she called off the engagement and moved out of the home he used to share with Stacy in January 2009.  Thankfully, Raines family and friends convinced her that she was making a MONUMENTAL and dangerous mistake in trusting Drew Peterson – a man who was married four times, of which one wife died under suspicious circumstances and the other was “missing”.  Game over Drew.  I have the feeling we have not heard or seen the last of Drew Peterson.  He may have disappeared from the spotlight at the insistence of his new attorney(s), but I don’t think his personality will ever let him completely fade into the background.  I truly hope to see justice for Stacy Peterson during my lifetime. Her family deserves to know where she is and what happened to her. That’s the only card Drew has left to play.

Ready For Some "Cold Justice"? Former Prosecutor Kelly Siegler Teams With CSI Yolanda McCleary on TNT

Are you ready for some Cold Justice?  TNT Network hopes that you are.  I’m pretty excited about this new real-life crime series that premieres Tuesday, September 3^rd on TNT.  The series is produced by Dick Wolf of Law & Order fame, and pairs former Texas prosecutor Kelly Siegler with former Las Vegas crime scene investigator Yolanda McClary.  This could be considered a non-scripted reality show, and for true crime fans this looks like a refreshing change of pace.  Although I haven’t seen the show and only know what’s been previewed in commercials – there are so many things I like about this show and it’s concept.  Let’s start with the cast.  I am a big fan of former Texas prosecutor Kelly Siegler.  She racked up a 68-0 record prosecuting murder cases, pretty impressive!  She may be most famous for her courtroom performance while prosecuting Susan Wright for the murder of her husband, Jeff Wright in 2003.  Jeff Wright was reportedly stabbed 193 times by wife Susan, then buried in the backyard.

When Susan Wright took the stand at her trial, Siegler was in her face asking her “didn’t your arm get tired after the 37^th stab, how about the 38^th”?  In a dramatic move, Siegler had the Wright’s bed reassembled in the courtroom, right in front of the jury box.  She re enacted how she and the state of Texas believed Susan Wright tied her husband up under the pretense of wanting to have kinky sex – before stabbing him with two different knifes.  This was the stuff movies are made of.  Siegler is tough, some believe she was the toughest prosecutor in the state of Texas.  With a 68-0 conviction rate on murder cases, I'd say she’s earned that title.  The story of Jeff Wright’s murder and Susan Wright’s subsequent trial inspired a Lifetime movie called “Blue Eyed Butcher”.  I know, no surprise there. 

Siegler is no nonsense, tough yet fair and a true advocate for justice.  Siegler, who was called in to handle the retrial of Anthony Graves, a man who had been convicted of murdering 6 people in Somerville Texas back in August of 1992.  45 year old Bobbie Joyce Davis was murdered along with her teenaged daughter and four of her grandchildren in her own home before the house was set on fire.  A man named Robert Carter was arrested soon after drawing suspicion to himself after showing up at his 4 year old son’s funeral with bandages on his face and hands.  Carter’s explanation for the burns to his face and hands were quickly discredited, and he eventually confessed to the murders of the 6 people, one of the youngest victims was his own son.  Apparently he didn’t want to pay child support and decided to handle it by murdering his own child. Carter named Anthony Graves as his accomplice, and law enforcement locked onto Graves and never let go.  Graves didn’t know the victims, had no motive to kill any of them and had a solid alibi.  Both men were tried and convicted of murder in separate trials – and both were sentenced to death.  In May of 2000 before his execution, Carter recanted his testimony about Anthony Graves, stating on the record that Graves was not present at the crime scene and he was the only person responsible for the murders.  Carter claims he tried to recant his statements against Graves before Grave’s trial began, but the prosecutor threatened to arrest Carter’s wife if he didn’t cooperate in Grave’s trial.

Anthony Graves spent 12 years on Death Row, and maintained his innocence from day one. His plight caught the attention of the Innocence Project, who began looking into his original trial and found many glaring errors and inconsistencies – they worked on getting Graves convicted overturned for many years. In March of 2006 his conviction was overturned by a 3 judge panel who concluded the original prosecutor Charles Sebesta intentionally withheld crucial evidence that could have helped Graves.  But the state of Texas wasn’t ready to let Graves off the hook. He spent the next 4 years in solitary confinement awaiting retrial.  Kelly Siegler was to be the prosecutor this time.  After reviewing the evidence, Siegler was convinced that Anthony Graves was wrongly convicted.  She was critical of the previous prosecutor’s mishandling of the case, calling his actions unethical.  Finally in October 27, 2011 Graves was released from jail, and all charges against him were dismissed by Burleson County Special Prosecutor Kelly Siegler who concluded early on that she could not prosecute an innocent man.  She dared to call out the egregious and unethical behavior of Charles Sebesta, who still maintains he didn’t withhold anything.  Graves won $1.4 million dollars from the state of Texas for the wrongful conviction. Good for him.  Siegler was instrumental in helping the Innocence Project and Anthony Graves’ attorneys get to the truth once and for all. She wasn’t afraid to expose the former prosecutor who mishandled the original case.  That’s what I love about Siegler.  She’s the real deal.

Back to Cold Justice. Yolanda McClary is a former Las Vegas Crime Scene Investigator who is said to be the model/inspiration for the character Marg Halgenberer played on the hit show “CSI”.  McClary has 26 years of experience and worked on more than 7,000 cases during her career in law enforcement.  Pairing McClary with Siegler is a brilliant move – a “dream team” of sorts.  Together, they are heading across the country in an attempt to help solve open homicide cases in many of the small or rural areas that may lack the resources of big city police forces.  This should be good!  This is advertised as real life crime solving, non-scripted stuff.  In the premiere episode, Siegler and McCleary are headed to Cuero Texas to look at the 2001 death of a woman named Pam Shelley.  Shelley was found with a gunshot to the head and her death was ruled a suicide, although police suspected her boyfriend Ronnie Hendrick of murdering her.

Hendrick says it was suicide, but Shelley was shot point blank in the head in front of her children.  Siegler and McCleary retrieved the evidence and picked up veteran homicide detective Johnny Bonds and headed to Cuero to meet with Shelley’s now 23 year old daughter Kayla.  Kayla was just 11 years old at the time of her mom’s death, but she has always pointed to Hendrick as the killer of her mom.  Hendrick has always said it was a suicide.  Hendrick was never arrested for this crime.  I’m not sure how this episode will end, given they only have a one hour time slot!  I was curious to see what may have come of the renewed investigation, knowing this was likely filmed awhile ago.  According to a story posted on elpasotimes.com on October 4, 2012, Ronnie Hendricks was indicted for the murder of Pam Shelly.  He is being jailed on $500,000 bond and awaiting trial in Texas.  Looks like Siegler and McClary may have jump started the long road to justice for Pam Shelly and her children.

 I’ll be interested to see how they format this show and how many cold cases they are able to actually get results on.  The closest thing I can think of to this show would be something like “The First 48”.  Real crimes, real detectives, real defendants and real victims.  If you tune in to Cold Justice next Tuesday, please let me know what you think.  I for one can’t wait!

Comparing Other High Profile Trials to Jodi Arias Trial

Following the latest status hearing to decide when the retrial of the penalty phase of Jodi Arias’ trial will begin and given the numerous delays in the trial process,  I wanted to compare some of the statistics from this trial to other high profile trials to see if anything stands out as excessive.  There were some interesting data points when I looked at some of the trial data from the Scott Peterson and Wendi Andriano trials – both of which were high profile murder trials that received extensive media coverage.  Scott Peterson’s trial in particular became a national story from the moment his beautiful young and very pregnant wife Laci was reported as missing in Modesto, California.  Peterson’s trial was covered extensively, although it did not have the gavel to gavel media coverage that Jodi Aria’s trial received.

Some interesting points:  The State of CA v Scott Peterson lasted 5 ½ months and had testimony from 184 witnesses.  The defendant never took the stand.  The jury deliberated over guilt for more than 44 hours after 2 jurors were removed from the panel.  One juror was removed for conducting independent research on the case and the jury foreman reportedly asked to be removed from the panel.  Despite the jury issues, no mistrial was declared and after the 2 jurors were replaced with alternates, the panel deliberated for 44 hours over a period of 7 days before finding him guilty.

The prosecution team was greeted by cheers and applause from members of the public following the verdict – there were no arguments of “rock star treatment” or prosecutorial misconduct because of the public’s reaction of gratitude towards the prosecution team.  During the sentencing phase, jurors deliberated for 11 ½ hours before handing down the death sentence.  This was a highly publicized trial and Scott Peterson was public enemy number one during this period of time.

The State of Arizona v Wendi Andriano – Joe Andriano was murdered on 10/8/2000 in the Ahwatukee luxury apartment he shared with his wife Wendi and their two young sons.  Joe Andriano was fighting terminal cancer and the chemotherapy treatments left him very weak.  Andriano argued she killed her husband in self defense after he attacked her following an argument about an affair Wendi had disclosed to her husband.  Wendi Andriano was arrested and charged with first degree murder, the state notified the court they intended to seek the death penalty.

The Andriano trial started on 8/23/04, a little less than 4 years after the killing of Joe Andriano.  Wendi Andriano had no criminal record and was 29 years old at the time of the murder.  Andriano took the stand for 9 days and testified about abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband during their marriage. She told the jury that she and Joe had a suicide pact, and Joe wanted to die because the cancer was causing him to suffer. Evidence that Andriano poisoned her husband with Sodium Azide was also uncovered during the trial, and she tried to have a large insurance policy on her husband reinstated fraudulently shortly before his death.

The jury found Andriano guilty of first degree murder on 11/18/04.  Following the guilt phase of the trial, jurors heard 1 week of testimony on aggravating factors, followed by 6 days of mitigation testimony.  Andriano’s mitigation included the assertion that 1) she was a good mother, and 2) she did some missionary work in Mexicali at age 19, her age at the time of the murder and her lack of criminal history were also presented by the defense – in all, they listed 23 mitigating factors to the jury!The jury found the aggravating factor (cruel and heinous manner) was present in the way Joe was murdered, and the death penalty was on the table.  Deliberations for the penalty phase began on December 16, 2004.  Shortly after the jury began deliberating they took an initial poll, which showed 3 jurors were in favor of the death penalty, 4 were in favor of life and the rest were undecided.  Following a 3 day weekend, they resumed deliberating and weighing the specific mitigating factors against the aggravating factors. The jury discussed this at length, and by the next vote they had swung to 11-1 in favor of the death penalty.  One hold-out juror was said to be a senior citizen who adamantly opposed the death penalty.  How did somebody who “adamantly opposed” the death penalty land on the jury?  On the third day of deliberations, each juror discussed the 23 mitigating factors given by the defense and they ultimately decided they did not outweigh the brutal manner in which Joe Andriano was murdered.  One juror pointed out “does a good mother kill her husband”? 

The jury reportedly also discussed the fact that if they gave Andriano life, they would have no control over what the trial judge gave her – natural life, or life with possibility of parole/release after 25 years and jurors did not want Andriano to receive a 25 year sentence.  On December 22, 2004 the jury unanimously voted for the death penalty for Wendi Andriano.  It wasn’t an easy road for any of the jurors.  Did Jodi Arias’ jury deliberate for long enough?  Did they throw in the towel too soon?  Looking at these other two lengthy media-driven trials, some may say it appears they did.  But this is our judicial process.  Here are some statistics for the Jodi Arias trial:

June 4, 2008 – Travis Alexander was murdered.

June 9, 2008 – Travis Alexander’s body was discovered by concerned friends.

July 15, 2008 – Jodi Arias is arrested in Yreka, CA

September 5, 2008 – Jodi Arias is extradited to Phoenix, AZ

September 11, 2008 – Jodi Arias pleads not guilty to charge of 1^st degree murder

October 31, 2008 – State of AZ files notice of intent to seek death penalty

December 10, 2012 – Jury selection begins

January 2, 2013 – Trial begins with opening statements, prosecutions case in chief begins

January 17, 2013 – The State of Arizona rests after 9 days of testimony

January 29, 2013 – The defense case begins

February 4, 2013 – Defendant Jodi Arias takes the witness stand, remains on stand for 18 days

April 15, 2013 – Defense rests after 38 days of testimony

May 2-3, 2013 – Closing arguments are given

May 3, 2013 – Jury begins deliberations

May 8, 2013 – Jury delivers guilty verdict

May 21 – 22, 2013 – Jury deliberates on sentencing

May 23, 2013 – Jury unable to reach unanimous decision

May 23, 2013 – Mistrial declared by Judge Sherry Stephens.  Retrial date set for July 18, 2013

July 16, 2013 – After 3 minute court session, status hearing rescheduled for August 26, 2013

August 26, 2013 – After 5 minute session, status hearing on retrial rescheduled for September 15, 2013

It just seems to me that other high profile cases have been handled much more swiftly and efficiently than this one has been.  The Peterson trial ousted 2 jurors during deliberations!  Wendi Andriano’s defense team presented 23 mitigating factors (versus zero for Arias), Andriano was around the same age as Jodi Arias AND she was the mother of two small children.  What happened here?Following the latest status hearing to decide when the retrial of the penalty phase of Jodi Arias’ trial will begin and given the numerous delays in the trial process,  I wanted to compare some of the statistics from this trial to other high profile trials to see if anything stands out as excessive.  There were some interesting data points when I looked at some of the trial data from the Scott Peterson and Wendi Andriano trials – both of which were high profile murder trials that received extensive media coverage.  Scott Peterson’s trial in particular became a national story from the moment his beautiful young and very pregnant wife Laci was reported as missing in Modesto, California.  Peterson’s trial was covered extensively, although it did not have the gavel to gavel media coverage that Jodi Aria’s trial received.

Some interesting points:  The State of CA v Scott Peterson lasted 5 ½ months and had testimony from 184 witnesses.  The defendant never took the stand.  The jury deliberated over guilt for more than 44 hours after 2 jurors were removed from the panel.  One juror was removed for conducting independent research on the case and the jury foreman reportedly asked to be removed from the panel.  Despite the jury issues, no mistrial was declared and after the 2 jurors were replaced with alternates, the panel deliberated for 44 hours over a period of 7 days before finding him guilty.

The prosecution team was greeted by cheers and applause from members of the public following the verdict – there were no arguments of “rock star treatment” or prosecutorial misconduct because of the public’s reaction of gratitude towards the prosecution team.  During the sentencing phase, jurors deliberated for 11 ½ hours before handing down the death sentence.  This was a highly publicized trial and Scott Peterson was public enemy number one during this period of time.

The State of Arizona v Wendi Andriano – Joe Andriano was murdered on 10/8/2000 in the Ahwatukee luxury apartment he shared with his wife Wendi and their two young sons.  Joe Andriano was fighting terminal cancer and the chemotherapy treatments left him very weak.  Andriano argued she killed her husband in self defense after he attacked her following an argument about an affair Wendi had disclosed to her husband.  Wendi Andriano was arrested and charged with first degree murder, the state notified the court they intended to seek the death penalty.

The Andriano trial started on 8/23/04, a little less than 4 years after the killing of Joe Andriano.  Wendi Andriano had no criminal record and was 29 years old at the time of the murder.  Andriano took the stand for 9 days and testified about abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband during their marriage. She told the jury that she and Joe had a suicide pact, and Joe wanted to die because the cancer was causing him to suffer. Evidence that Andriano poisoned her husband with Sodium Azide was also uncovered during the trial, and she tried to have a large insurance policy on her husband reinstated fraudulently shortly before his death.

The jury found Andriano guilty of first degree murder on 11/18/04.  Following the guilt phase of the trial, jurors heard 1 week of testimony on aggravating factors, followed by 6 days of mitigation testimony.  Andriano’s mitigation included the assertion that 1) she was a good mother, and 2) she did some missionary work in Mexicali at age 19, her age at the time of the murder and her lack of criminal history were also presented by the defense – in all, they listed 23 mitigating factors to the jury!The jury found the aggravating factor (cruel and heinous manner) was present in the way Joe was murdered, and the death penalty was on the table.  Deliberations for the penalty phase began on December 16, 2004.  Shortly after the jury began deliberating they took an initial poll, which showed 3 jurors were in favor of the death penalty, 4 were in favor of life and the rest were undecided.  Following a 3 day weekend, they resumed deliberating and weighing the specific mitigating factors against the aggravating factors. The jury discussed this at length, and by the next vote they had swung to 11-1 in favor of the death penalty.  One hold-out juror was said to be a senior citizen who adamantly opposed the death penalty.  How did somebody who “adamantly opposed” the death penalty land on the jury?  On the third day of deliberations, each juror discussed the 23 mitigating factors given by the defense and they ultimately decided they did not outweigh the brutal manner in which Joe Andriano was murdered.  One juror pointed out “does a good mother kill her husband”? 

The jury reportedly also discussed the fact that if they gave Andriano life, they would have no control over what the trial judge gave her – natural life, or life with possibility of parole/release after 25 years and jurors did not want Andriano to receive a 25 year sentence.  On December 22, 2004 the jury unanimously voted for the death penalty for Wendi Andriano.  It wasn’t an easy road for any of the jurors.  Did Jodi Arias’ jury deliberate for long enough?  Did they throw in the towel too soon?  Looking at these other two lengthy media-driven trials, some may say it appears they did.  But this is our judicial process.  Here are some statistics for the Jodi Arias trial:

June 4, 2008 – Travis Alexander was murdered.

June 9, 2008 – Travis Alexander’s body was discovered by concerned friends.

July 15, 2008 – Jodi Arias is arrested in Yreka, CA

September 5, 2008 – Jodi Arias is extradited to Phoenix, AZ

September 11, 2008 – Jodi Arias pleads not guilty to charge of 1^st degree murder

October 31, 2008 – State of AZ files notice of intent to seek death penalty

December 10, 2012 – Jury selection begins

January 2, 2013 – Trial begins with opening statements, prosecutions case in chief begins

January 17, 2013 – The State of Arizona rests after 9 days of testimony

January 29, 2013 – The defense case begins

February 4, 2013 – Defendant Jodi Arias takes the witness stand, remains on stand for 18 days

April 15, 2013 – Defense rests after 38 days of testimony

May 2-3, 2013 – Closing arguments are given

May 3, 2013 – Jury begins deliberations

May 8, 2013 – Jury delivers guilty verdict

May 21 – 22, 2013 – Jury deliberates on sentencing

May 23, 2013 – Jury unable to reach unanimous decision

May 23, 2013 – Mistrial declared by Judge Sherry Stephens.  Retrial date set for July 18, 2013

July 16, 2013 – After 3 minute court session, status hearing rescheduled for August 26, 2013

August 26, 2013 – After 5 minute session, status hearing on retrial rescheduled for September 15, 2013

It just seems to me that other high profile cases have been handled much more swiftly and efficiently than this one has been.  The Peterson trial ousted 2 jurors during deliberations!  Wendi Andriano’s defense team presented 23 mitigating factors (versus zero for Arias), Andriano was around the same age as Jodi Arias AND she was the mother of two small children.  What happened here? 

Jodi Arias Status Hearing - Justice Delayed AGAIN! Next Hearing 9/15/13

Another status hearing has come and gone, with no new trial date in sight for convicted murderer Jodi Arias.  Judge Sherry Stephens concluded the brief court hearing by setting the next status hearing for September 16, 2013.  The judge stated she was not ready to set a firm retrial date without first reading through the many motions filed by Arias’ defense team Kirk Numi and Jennifer Willmott.  Will this trial ever happen?  Will a sentence ever be rendered in this case?  Here’s the burning question in my mind.  I understand these things take time, but at the last status hearing Judge Stephens instructed attorneys on both sides that all motions must be filed by August 5^th, 2013.  What’s been happening between August 5^th and August 26^th?  I know the judge likely has a full court schedule, but this is reaching a point where I’m beginning to wonder IF a conclusion will ever be reached.

The defense seems to be using these stall tactics on the penalty phase retrial, arguing over everything from the issue of cameras in the courtroom, change of venue, witness intimidation and jurors use of social media tools.  They are hoping that with the passage of time, the public outrage over this murder will dissipate and perhaps the state will fall back on some sort of plea deal.  I doubt the Alexander family will sign off on any proposed plea deal that allows Arias to escape a potential death penalty after what she did to their brother.  Let a jury decide.  I have to wonder if Jodi Arias was a man who butchered and shot an ex-girlfriend if we would be still discussing this case.  It is my opinion that if Arias were a male, a death penalty would have been easier to reach by Jury #1.  Gender bias does exist in death penalty cases, and this is a prime example.

How much longer will the family have to endure living in this legal limbo?  The Alexander’s have reportedly hired attorneys to handle a wrongful death civil suit against Arias, however that will not likely move forward until the conclusion of the criminal trial – as is standard operating procedure.  Criminal trials take precedence over civil trials.  This has got to be beyond frustrating.  I’d like to know, don’t victims of violent crime have a right to a speedy trial?  Do murder victims deserve swift justice, or is that a right that is reserved for living victims?  Although I’m not completely surprised that today’s status hearing came and went without any major decisions or dates being set, but at some point this has got to come to an end! 

With so many outstanding issues left to deal with before we even get to choosing Jury #2, will the penalty retrial happen before 2014?  Now we are seeing the witness intimidation's issues coming up again, with domestic violence “expert” Alyce LaViolette and Arias’ childhood friend (her name escapes me now, but she is the one who reportedly had substance abuse issues and had potentially failed to report income received from selling childhood photos of herself and Jodi Arias) talking about the threats they have received from members of the public.  Ad to that, cameras in the courtroom, potential change of venue, sequestering the jury, requests from Jodi Arias’ defense for individual voir dire of potential jurors and all I see in the foreseeable future are delays and more delays.  Aren’t there any guidelines to sentencing following the verdict in a murder trial?  Is it standard operating procedure to let these things linger on without any real end in sight?  There should be.  A person convicted of 1^st degree murder should be sentenced in a reasonable amount of time.  I feel Judge Stephens, had she stuck to her firm deadline on when all motions had to be filed (August 5^th), she should have already reviewed the motions filed and had some rulings during this mornings status hearing.  Instead, Arias reportedly made a 5 minute appearance before a new status hearing date was set for mid September and she was led out of the courtroom and presumably taken back to her digs at the Estrella jail – where she has 16 hours to meander outside of her cell, use of the telephone and cable TV, a library and has time to create more “artwork” to sell.  I guess I have a different idea of how a defendant who claims to be indigent should behave, especially given the state of Arizona has spent over $1.6 million bucks on her defense.  Judge Stephens, please set some firm deadlines and force each side to stick with them.  We already know the jury selection process is going to be time consuming.  Can we get through the motions filed by Nurmi and Willmott and get the show on the road already?  Enough is enough.

Arias Retrial - Status Hearing Monday, Aug. 26th

The next status hearing for Jodi Arias’ sentencing retrial is on the Superior Court of Maricopa County’s court calendar at 8:30AM on Monday, August 26 2013.  It’s been nearly 4 months since the jury found Arias guilty of first degree murder and eligible for the death penalty, but a mistrial was declared after the same jurors were unable to agree on the appropriate sentence for this crime.  We know the wheels of justice move slowly, but in this case the wheel seems to be flat.  Although nobody is quite sure what to expect going in to this new “mini-trial” one thing seems certain – this is going to take a long time.

With so many unresolved issues at hand such as the venue for the retrial, finding potential jurors who can be impartial following the media saturation and how the information from the 5 month long trial will be presented to these jurors are just a few of the questions that we don’t know the answers to.  Jerry Cobb, the public information officer for the Maricopa County District Attorney’s office told HLN News that the new jury will be informed that Jodi Arias was found guilty of first degree murder and that she committed the murder in a cruel manner.  Cobb said the judge and attorneys will need to figure out how the testimony and exhibits from the first trial will be presented to the new jury.  It sounds like negotiations will be necessary, and if we learned anything from trial #1, the prosecutor and defense attorneys are likely to fight tooth and nail over the smallest detail!  I can’t even imagine how long this process is going to take.

HLN News also reports there’s a chance Arias could testify again during this phase of the new trial, and she will have another opportunity to give a statement to this jury without being subject to fierce cross examination from prosecutor Juan Martinez.  I’d say if past behavior is any prediction of future behavior, there is no way Jodi Arias passes up a chance to speak to the new jury.  Remember how she made it a point during trial #1 to turn her head and upper body towards the jury and carefully answer each question from her defense attorneys, doing her best to make eye contact and connect with the people who held her fate in their hands?  Arias has had time to look back on her previous court performances, I’d bet money that she has read much of what has been written about her in the media and will present a refined version of herself to the new jury. 

The jurors that spoke to media after the first trial seemed to confirm what we speculated on from hearing the jury questions to Arias – many of them didn’t believe her testimony, many of them believed she lied under oath.  Those jurors opinions and notions don’t matter in the retrial.  Did the state miss their best chance at capital punishment when the mistrial was declared?  We’ll have to see how this pans out.  The first thing that they probably need to address is where the trial will be held, and if Judge Stephens feels the potential jury pool in Maricopa County is tainted, she could grant a change of venue.  But let’s be realistic – this trial was covered nationally and nightly.  It’s hard to blame the media for the over saturation of coverage when Jodi Arias was holding her own press junkets, even talking to Fox’s Troy Hayden in the hours after her conviction.  “Do as I say, not as I do” seems to be the defense mantra, especially as hypocritical as the defense’s recent motion to have all members of the new jury disclose any Twitter accounts and the names they use. It’s not that it’s an unreasonable request, but given that their client took to the Twitter airwaves before, during and after her trial – using her own name, it seems a little laughable that she is concerned what people are saying about her on Twitter.  Arias used social media to smack down Nancy Grace, Juan Martinez and even her own defense attorneys.  What Arias has done could be construed as attempting to taint the jury pool, the tainting of the pool can go both ways!!  It’s anyone’s guess if there will be a change of venue in the retrial, but if I were a betting gal, I’d say Judge Stephens keeps the trial in Maricopa County. 

Another issue that remains unresolved from trial #1:  Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott’s repeated requests to withdraw the attorneys of record.  I honestly don’t know if their requests were because they couldn’t seem to control the actions of their client and they wanted off out of sheer frustration, or if this was just another ploy to buy Jodi Arias more time – to perhaps give the public a cooling off period?  They made several motions to withdraw, but Judge Stephens wisely did not allow them to retreat at such a late stage in the trial.  Will they renew their motion to withdraw when they appear in court, or will they do the right thing and see this case through?  Having new attorneys probably wouldn’t be in the best interest to Jodi Arias.  These two attorneys have fought for her, and they know the case inside and out.  They may not have gotten her the acquittal she was looking for – but hey, they couldn’t change the facts and evidence of this case.  Hopefully Nurmi and Willmott stay on as defense counsel of record.  I still don’t know what happened to Maria DeLaRosa, the mitigation expert.  A new name appears on court minute entries for mitigation expert on this case.  Many people out there are wondering why Arias chose to NOT put on any mitigation witnesses in trial #1.  They had to realize there was a very good chance she would be convicted, and they should have been ready for that likely scenario – yet when it was time to call their witnesses, their case seemed to fall apart.  They fell back on blaming the prosecutor, for what they referred to as “prosecutorial misconduct” or bullying Arias’ childhood friend into not testifying on her behalf.  Mitigation witnesses are something I’ve rehashed too many times so I won’t go there!

As of April 25, 2013 – the tab for Arizona v. Arias was estimated to be $1,687,238.21, according to information posted on HLN News’ website.  DA Bill Montgomery has repeatedly said the cost of the retrial would not be taken into consideration when discussing any potential plea deal with Arias.  Instead, Montgomery has said he would only consider a plea with considerable input from Travis Alexander’s family and prosecutor Juan Martinez.  I’m sure he wouldn’t mind saving the taxpayers some money, but I strongly hope any decisions are not made on cost-considerations.  The victim deserves a full trial, with the same budget afforded to the woman who killed him.  The Maricopa County public information officer also revealed what a day in the life of Arias is like.  I was surprised to see how many hours of time she has outside of her cell, given that she’s now housed in a high security cell after her conviction.  According to the information posted on HLNTV.com, Arias is locked in her cell from 10:00PM to 6:00AM daily.  Inmates have up to 16 hours in the day-room area, where they have access to telephones and (limited channels) cable TV, an hour of outdoor recreation up to 4 times per week. Inmates have access to a library, although have to request books through an inmate request form and the number of books they can have at one time is limited – there are also many programs inmates can sign up for including religious services, GED and other educational programs.  Arias sleeps in a bed with pink sheets, and her cell contains a writing desk, toilet and sink.  Breakfast is served after 7:00AM and dinner is served after 6:00PM.

It seems she has a lot more freedom than you’d expect, only being locked in her cell for 8 hours a day and having access to other areas and services for 16 hours per day.  It’s no wonder she has had the time to start online book clubs and communicate so freely with the outside world.  Will Travis Alexander ever have his day in court?  That’s all people really want here.  Justice.  This trial was supposed to be about the life of a promising young man being cut short, but it turned into something much different.  It’s time to remember who the real murder victim is and sentence the person convicted of killing him.  Jodi Arias had her day in court, and she lost.