No matter the verdict or what one's opinion may be of the circus trial of Jodi Arias, it is clear that Jodi Arias, both before she was found guilty by a jury, and while she was testifying in the penalty phase of her trial, was treated like...an animal, all within the laws of Maricopa County, Arizona.
Jodi's very appearance on the stand was a lie, made a lie by the fact she was forced by law, to wear a "stun belt" and conceal the wearing of such under clothes. She was not allowed to walk in front of the jury, lest the jury be influenced by any impact the belt had on her gait. Could law enforcement officers, whether from Maricopa County Sheriff's Office or the FBI (who seemed to be in attendance), and other peace officers, simply not be trusted to contain the 120 pound Jodi Arias should she decide to....hmm....flail her arms wildly, attempt to kick a juror some, I'm guessing 20 feet or so from her spot in the witness box?
From a friend of Jodi Arias:
At times I watched Martinez berating Jodi for not recalling a previous line of questioning or previous testimony. If I were wearing a stun belt, which has a history of accidental discharge, I, too, may lose focus or experience episodes of mind wandering, knowing that 50,000-volt probes are nipping at my kidneys.
(My understanding of this belt is that it delivers 50,000-volt shock lasting 8 to 10 seconds. The voltage or duration cannot be adjusted, so whether your a 6’2” man weighing 210 lbs or someone like Jodi, a 5’6-ish” woman weighing (I’d guess) no more than 120 lbs, you wear the same belt. )
Jodi Arias Penalty Retrial : Day 6 : 2 of 3 (SEALED TESTIMONY)https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1975&v=1ldfY-6HUyk
I think this belt was impacting Jodi's right to participate in her own defense given that the the jury was watching at every turn. Arguably, this was impacting her Sixth Amendment due process rights to be (mentally and psychologically) *present* at trial and to participate in her defense.
In People v. Mar (2002), the California Supreme Court ruled that "...requiring an unwilling defendant to wear a stun belt during trial may have significant psychological consequences that may impair a defendant's capacity to concentrate on the events of the trial, interfere with the defendant's ability to assist his or her counsel, and adversely affect his or her demeanor in the presence of the jury." Alas, no similar ruling has been made by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Jodi's very appearance on the stand was a lie, made a lie by the fact she was forced by law, to wear a "stun belt" and conceal the wearing of such under clothes. She was not allowed to walk in front of the jury, lest the jury be influenced by any impact the belt had on her gait. Could law enforcement officers, whether from Maricopa County Sheriff's Office or the FBI (who seemed to be in attendance), and other peace officers, simply not be trusted to contain the 120 pound Jodi Arias should she decide to....hmm....flail her arms wildly, attempt to kick a juror some, I'm guessing 20 feet or so from her spot in the witness box?
From a friend of Jodi Arias:
At times I watched Martinez berating Jodi for not recalling a previous line of questioning or previous testimony. If I were wearing a stun belt, which has a history of accidental discharge, I, too, may lose focus or experience episodes of mind wandering, knowing that 50,000-volt probes are nipping at my kidneys.
(My understanding of this belt is that it delivers 50,000-volt shock lasting 8 to 10 seconds. The voltage or duration cannot be adjusted, so whether your a 6’2” man weighing 210 lbs or someone like Jodi, a 5’6-ish” woman weighing (I’d guess) no more than 120 lbs, you wear the same belt. )
Jodi Arias Penalty Retrial : Day 6 : 2 of 3 (SEALED TESTIMONY)https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1975&v=1ldfY-6HUyk
I think this belt was impacting Jodi's right to participate in her own defense given that the the jury was watching at every turn. Arguably, this was impacting her Sixth Amendment due process rights to be (mentally and psychologically) *present* at trial and to participate in her defense.
In People v. Mar (2002), the California Supreme Court ruled that "...requiring an unwilling defendant to wear a stun belt during trial may have significant psychological consequences that may impair a defendant's capacity to concentrate on the events of the trial, interfere with the defendant's ability to assist his or her counsel, and adversely affect his or her demeanor in the presence of the jury." Alas, no similar ruling has been made by the Arizona Supreme Court.
