Jodi Arias Trial turns Snow White …


The Jodi Arias trial is turning more and more into a circus everyday and less about justice for Travis Alexander. It’s one thing to have a righteous indignation in wanting to see someone punished for what they did. However the behavior of the prosecutor on this case, Juan Martinez makes you wonder if this is about justice or ego.It’s one thing to engage the defendant on the stand but his attacks against the defense witnesses are personal in nature.Thursday’s session was a case in point. After the defense questioned their witness it was Martinez turn for cross examination.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez came out swinging when it was his turn to begin cross-examination. Minutes into his questioning, as he tried to force LaViolette to answer questions with yes or no answers, a frequent tactic, his voice rose to a high-pitched rant.

“Mr. Martinez, are you angry with me?” LaViolette asked calmly.

The gallery burst into laughter, causing Stephens (Judge) to ask for silence.

But the question indeed made Martinez angry, causing LaViolette to again ask that he address her in a civil manner. And then, as he tried to force another yes or no answer, she said, “Do you want the truth, Mr. Martinez? Or do you want yes or no?”

LaViolette gives a presentation at conferences she calls “Was Snow White a Battered Woman?” She described it as a catchy title. But Martinez attempted to ridicule her by forcing the Alexander murder into the story line of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

Several times, LaViolette said, “Mr. Martinez, you’re mischaracterizing my presentation. … You’re reading the title correctly … not the content.”
He then questioned her loudly about how she came to the conclusion that Snow White was abused, to which the defense witness replied that he was mischaracterizing her presentation.

Martinez explained how Snow White was banished to the forest to live in horrible conditions.

“She lived with the seven dwarves and according to the Disney version, she was pretty happy,” LaViolette said.

“She lived in a shack, right?” Martinez snapped loudly.

“I thought it was a cute little cabin, Mr. Martinez,” LaViolette replied.

“Objection, relevance, going this far into the Snow White story?” defense attorney Jennifer Willmott interjected.

“Mr. Martinez, are you angry at me?” LaViolette asked softly at one point. Portions of the gallery erupted in laughter, and the judge admonished spectators to keep quiet.

“Do you want to spar with me?” Martinez yelled.

He continued to question her about whether Snow White was a domestic abuse victim.

“I have no information about the relationship between Prince Charming and Snow White,” LaViolette said as the judge called it day.
The trial saw also the appearence of juror 5 in the court room and came as a civilian. The judge made it clear that she was there as a member of the public.
“Ladies and gentlemen juror number 5 is in the courtroom to observe as a member of the public. I want to remind you of the admonition that continues to apply and you should have no contact with juror number 5 until the trial is over,” said Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens at the start of the afternoon session.

From start to finish so much of what has happened in this trial has become more and more a smoke screen of getting to the real heart of this trial. Justice for Travis Alexander.


26 responses

  1. I could not agree more, I fear the way he is attacking witnesses instead of staying on coarse is gonna lose the jury. When the court room laughed I don”t think they were laughing at the witness that ask if he was angry with her but more at him. There is no point in what he is doing to the witnesses. Its like he is more concerned with a show. And the snow white stuff- are you kidding me??? OMG Its turning into a circus and he is the clown.

  2. Martinez’s questioning of LaViolette exemplifies his methodology of using ad hominem and eristic argumentation. Neither argumentative form is designed to uncover truth but to overwhelm the opponent to win a verbal victory.
    Hatred for Arias, by this time, was so great the public at large accepted this deplorable argumentation against defense witnesses as acceptable. In the end, I wonder what that says about this generation. Political correctness preaches not to prejudge, but the vast majority of people, especially online, decided Arias’ guilt and then ignored the outrageous behavior of the prosecutor as long as it resulted in her conviction of murder.
    I’ve heard lawyers on HLN call his actions, “style”. This isn’t style; it’s methodology. I believe he learned he could win case with this method years ago and consciously followed that pathway. Since the legal system in Arizona hasn’t called him on this yet shows they too are not that interested in justice but convictions. A good example of this prejudice attitude is seen in the High Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
    I believe in punishing criminals for their crimes. However, the Founding Fathers established a fair system, meant to protect freedom from tyranny. Martinez’s actions seem a one-man solution to Nancy Grace’s recent statements that the Founding Fathers had made it too difficult to convict defendants. It’s easy to convict defendants if you verbally gut all their witnesses.

    1. If you heard the lawyers on HLN talk about style consider that HLN is the instigator for a lynch mob if there ever was one. I find myself turning off the channel on to something else mostly because of their abrasive “style”. Martinez while you may not care for his method did have an admitted liar on the stand and a manipulative one at that . She is still trying to manipualte the system to her advantage now.

      1. My point is, Martinez’s actions were not style but methodology. I don’t care for a man undermining the system in his certainty of guilt. If she is guilty, then let the evidence speak to the jury. But LaViolette, the subject of my argument, a defense witness, was not lying, was she? Does Martinez have the right to castigate a defense witness because the defendant lied in her past?

      2. Clearly LaViolette had her cage rattled by Martinez. She didn’t lie, but she didn’t speak with much conviction in Arais behalf either. No matter how you slice it it didn’t take away from justice being carried out. Jodi Arias murdered travis Alexander and tried to lie about it, Knowingly. The evidence spoke loud and clear to the jury that is why they convicted her of murder in the first degree.

  3. Martinez’s actions goes far beyond this one case. Suppose you were a defendant and the prosecutor used ad hominem and eristic argumentation to win his case against you? Wouldn’t you want a fair trial? When we prejudge a defendant and manipulate the system to fit our prejudice, then we’re in danger of undermining the rights of all Americans.

    1. so you didn’t think this was a fair trial, based on Martinez bulldog actions?

  4. I agree wholehearted with your HLN. This “news” channel has left their role in journalism and taken on the role of advocates. They are the electronic version of the National Enquirer.

    1. Nancy Grace and the rest of them have traded their objectivity away for ratings. I can’t imagine that many of the commentators on that show were very good lawyers

  5. You’ve missed what I said earlier: LaViolette was just one witness. Martinez undermined all Arias’ witnesses with ad hominem and eristic argumentation, along with a heavy dose of verbal aggressiveness. There were times when I wanted to leap through the tv screen and pound that little man into the ground like a tent peg. This is not the path to truth. Of course the jury convicted her. What other verdict could they have reached with a prosecutor verbally ripping into every throat and undermined every witness in their eyes.

    In the name of full disclosure: I’m the author of Innocence: An Argument for Jodi Arias and Innocence: Proof of Perjury.

    Martinez’s misconduct is only part of the problem, but it is a major concern. This is not the way to prosecute defendants. It’s a dangerous precedent for our legal system. It endangers all our constitutional rights. My concern isn’t only for Arias but for us all. We must demand fair justice, not justice based upon prejudice, wherein the prosecutor appeases the mob.

    1. Martinez may have rubbed people the wrong way but it is Jodi Arias who undermined her own witnesses, by lying to them when she was being evaluated by her experts. She undermined them so much it made it easy for martinez to bully them if you will. Her own lawyers were undermined by Jodi Arias so much so that they wanted out of the trial .

  6. by the way: great looking site. nice style.

  7. My anger with Martinez wasn’t because he rubbed me the wrong way. I’m furious with him, because his actions are unfair and unconstitutional. He’s the reason I’ve become involved in this thing. No man is above the law, and the law, as established by the Founding Fathers, is designed to support a system of fairness. His approach is the complete opposite of fairness and constitutionality. Men like Martinez do great harm to our system, upon which we all depend for freedom and security.

    1. Ok say martinez action are as you say, that still doesn’t lessen the fact that Jodi Arias took a life in a brutual and violet way then lied about it and lied about everything else that went along with the murder, Martinez actions maybe what they are but the only reason he was there is because she took a life and let’s not forget that. A family will never get their loved one back. Martinez if he is wrong will get what’s due him but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that Jodi Arias did what she did in the first place.

  8. Two wrongs do not make a right, do they? Everybody claims Arias guilty, but her conviction was due to prosecutorial misconduct. You can’t have it both ways. Either we follow the constitution for all or we don’t follow it for anyone. The reason for a trial is to prove guilt. A trial is not the place to manipulate the system to prove prejudged guilt. It does not matter what we think the defendant did or didn’t do. If a prosecutor perverts the system simply for a victory, we all lose. Fairness demands we treat every defendant fairly, not just the ones we think may not be guilty.

    1. you want fair?? the defendant tweeted all through the trial poked fun at the prosecutor and gave the middle finger to Nancy Grace. What defendant on trial for their life makes time to do that? As fr everybody claims Arias is guilty she says she is guilty, she admitted to killinig the man ! What constiutional right of jodi Arias was violated? The trial proved guilt, the defendant admitted to killing him , then lied about the facts and lied to the experts that were trying to help her. Her conviction was due to the jury who got it right. Her own lawyers couldn’t defend her. She gave them nothing NOTHING to work with. Every which way she sabotaged her own case. What person on trial for their life gives a ready interview minutes after being found guilty of murder in the first degree cool calm and collected? Seriously? Arias was the one who manipulated the system and still is. She was treated more than fair and better than most. There are plenty of prisoners that would vouch for that.

  9. I saw the middle finger thing. She had two fingers out, the index finger hidden behind her chin and the other visible. She wasn’t giving anyone the middle finger. Nonetheless, let me see if I understand what you are saying: Since Arias appears to be guilty of murder (She has and still claims she killed Alexander in self-defense), then it’s okay for Martinez to subvert the system through prosecutorial misconduct. I believe Arias killed Alexander in self-defense. However even if I believed otherwise, I would not support a trial won through the actions of an overzealous prosecutor who manipulates and undermines the system. Two wrongs do not make a right. Do it right or don’t do it at all. It’s dangerous to willingly let go our constitutional rights for prejudice.

    I’ve got to go for now. This has been interesting. I’ll look for your response, if you replay, tomorrow. I’ll be posting our correspondence on my site.

    1. Arias doesn’t appear to be guilty she is guilty. Her claim of self defense was and is without evidence, how is it self defense when she nearly toook his head off his shoulders then shoot him? Answer this question how did he subvert the system? In case you missed it I did say if he did he will get what is due him. But you missed one thing she took a life violetly If he is overzealous then what about the jury because they were the ones that had to decide on whether she was guilty or not and apparently their felt she was. You have the right to support Jodi Arias but let’s be clear that she did brutually murder the man she claimed to love and tried to cover it up and she admitted that she did, in her words. It isn’t it appears that she is guilty …she is guilty by the way she did say she gave Nance Grace the finger in one of her tweets. Look forward to hearing back from you.

      1. I don’t know who’s writing those Tweets. Arias is in Sheriff Joe’s jail, and she has no access to a computer. Anyone can claim to Tweet for Arias all day long, but that doesn’t mean Arias has anything to do with the Tweets or the person writing them. I am leery of words written by one person in the name of another. That’s an old CIA trick, sometimes called misinformation.

        You don’t appear to have read my reports. I support her claim of self-defense and show, step-by-step, how she defended herself on that day.

        Again, it does not matter how guilty someone looks. A trial must be fair, and the Arias trial was anything but fair. A overzealous prosecutor was only part of the problem. It’s clear Dr. Horn’s testimony conflicted horribly with his autopsy report. If the doctor perjured himself, then it’s grounds for a retrial. These are the rules, no matter how guilty someone looks.

      2. Welcome back …first the Tweets are her words she has acknowleded it many times in the press. One court room observer was the one she personally gives the words to say in her tweets. This isn’t misinformation this is Jodi Arias saying that she is authorizing it. If the Doctor perjuried himself then why didn’t her defense team do something about it? By the way her defense tea only when it became apparent that trial wasn’t going the way they hoped did they try to find reasons for a mistrial. Also in case you didn’t know Juan Martinez was cited for misconduct by the Arias camp and as you see it wasn’t enough to stem him from representing the state of Arizona.

      3. Someone may be Tweeting for her, but I still don’t trust words written by one person for another–especially if someone Tweeted a middle finger thing. It just doesn’t fit everything I’ve seen of this woman, Arias. Although I am fighting for her, I’m not in her camp–I’m fighting for all our rights, in this case, the right to fair trials. This is why I put my name on top of what I do. I let the world know it’s me saying these things, by name, not by pseudonym (I see your name at the bottom of this blog). So many hide in the shadows and blast anyone of whom they disagree.

        Arias’ defense team didn’t even notice the statement in Dr. Horn’s autopsy report the noted an intact dura mater until a juror brought it up during jury questions. They didn’t follow up on this news with any definitive questions. Willmott is a paper lawyer, wills, documents, real estate transactions. I didn’t see anything on her website about criminal law. I don’t know much about Nurmi. I’m guessing he’s in the same boat. It seems they didn’t know enough about autopsy reports to impeach the doctor on his obvious contradictions between verbal testimony and his sworn autopsy report.

        With this in mind, here’s the question we must all ask: how can Arias receive a fair trail if her defense team can’t even find a statement that so clearly contradicted the doctor’s testimony in the autopsy report? It goes to material evidence, that is, she claimed self-defense, and the doctor’s testimony undermined that claim. If the bullet had not gone through the brain, as I show in my report, then the doctor’s testimony was not necessarily truthful. That constitutes perjury. The State is not supposed to convict a person for any crime on untruthful testimony–especially a capital case. Either we live by the law for all or we discard the law for all. If you were charged with a crime, would you want the medical examiner to lie under oath to convict you?

        That Juan Martinez was cited for misconduct but faces no real sanctions shows the level of corruption in the Arizona legal system. The public should be outraged by his actions, but they want criminals convicted by any means. I believe in conviction criminals and punishing those who are convicted–but let’s make sure we follow the Constitution in doing so. As soon as people began to realize the corruptness of the Arizona system, they will start taking their vacations elsewhere to avoid prosecutorial misconduct.

        Oops…I wrote this yesterday, and then I forgot to send it.

      4. I appreciate your comments and welcome them.
        As for your claim that Arias wasn’t given a fair trial…she herself didn’t say she didn’t receive a fiar trial and she is very outspoken. As for her lawyers I tend to agree they seemed not very good. But that is Jodi Arias issue. She controlled the behind the scens very much and her lawyers fought with her more than they fought Martinez. Don’t forget there was more testimony that wasn’t released to the public. Still after everything you said it still comes back to two points. One did she kill Travis Alexander? Yes. She admitted she did, her words notanyone else’s. Second was it premediatated? Yes . If it were self defense as claimed by her then why lie and hide evidence that was necessary? A person who was defending themselves might have called the police right away told them what happen and helped and cooperated with the police. Arias did none of the above and her actions belie someone whose claim of self defense was unreliable.
        Also the tweets are her words she said an interview that she has someone tweeting for her, since she can’t do there in jail.

      5. First, most of your questions are answered in my reports, Innocence: An Argument for Jodi Arias and Innocence: Proof of Perjury. As for the Jodi Arias and tweeter. I’m looked and looked and looked, and I have not yet found any video of Jodi Arias claiming that tweeter account. The “friend” got a lot of airtime as she claimed to tweet for Arias, and the prosecutor even brought it up in court- but I’ve heard zero words from Arias about it. I’ve heard the media talk about her tweeter account. All these are not proof she is actively tweeting. The media, social and otherwise, has been hysterical about this case, saying all kinds of things. There’s an old adage: Don’t believe anything hear and only about half of what you see. Until I see a video of Arias saying, “Yet, I my friend is tweeting my words,” I’ll reserve belief.

        Even if she did have a friend tweet a few times, it doesn’t mean she’s responsible for every word tweeted. I don’t trust words and statements made by one person for another The go-between usually gets excited and adds more to the conversation than the original author intended. That’s human nature. Was Arias responsible for giving Grace the middle finger? Who knows, but since it is through a third party, I have to discount it.

        “[Arias] controlled the behind the scenes…” Who said she controlled everything, the media? The media said all kinds of things, with HLN leading the pack. I don’t fall over every time some talking head on television says one thing or another. In fact, if a television talking head says a cloudless sky is blue, I step outside to double check. . .

        Yes she admitted killing Alexander. She has never admitted to murder. Justifiable homicide is still allowed, isn’t it? My report spells out how she killed Alexander and why it was self-defense, step-by-step. Roofing insulation looks like cotton candy, but you wouldn’t eat it? Just because the events on June 4th, 2008 look like murder doesn’t make it murder. I cam along too late to help her defense team, but I do hope my report(s) help in her appeals.

        Again, as for the other questions about her actions after Alexander’s death, all those questions are answered clearly and extensively in my report.

        This has been an interesting experience, being in the minority with this argument. It makes me think of Orson Welles radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. The public panic over the airing of that show was unprecedented, the first overwhelming evidence concerning the power of mass communications. Today, the media says, “Guilty,” and the public mummers in reply, “Guilty.” The social media cries, “Guilty,” and the public as one cries back, “GUILTY!”

        Propaganda has convinced them all, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

      6. you are a true beliver there is no doubt that. I agree that the media does sway many. However that said not everyone is as swayed as you may think. It was Jodi Arias who said she wanted to talk to the jury, her lawyers were against it, but she did anyway and the jury said they felt nothing for her. If this was justifiable homicide as one would claim then how do you stand in front opf a jury and say how you would teach pepole in jail to read and push for a recycling program ?If I am innoncent as some claimn she is then why not say that? She didn’t. Her words not mine not yours hers. I am not sure where you looked to find out about tothe tweets but she did acknowledge the tweets were hers through a friend. It seems you are convinced that she either didn’t do it or that she did i self defense , but in either case she did take a life and the Alexander family will never be with their loved one again. Everything is a smoke screen to hide that fact.

  10. Richard doesn’t get much. Jodi’s words are lost on him. As far as his so-called reports go. They are really lies and he has zero qualifications to dare change the autopsy report to suit his liking of the killer. It’s like talking to a wall. Nothing factual sinks in. Jodi said she has someone tweeting for her. Most of the twitter world knows this, yet you don’t. It’s all a giant conspiracy! Not!

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: