Jodi Arias Trial Update: Plea Deal Rejected; Arias Says 'Sorry Taxpayers'

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery made his position clear Tuesday: no plea deals; Jodi Arias deserves the death penalty.

During an uncharacteristically quick hearing earlier this week, which took place mostly in Judge Sherry Stephens' private chambers, prosecution lawyer Montgomery rejected the defense's third attempt for a plea bargain, indicating the state will continue to pursue the death penalty for Arias. As is the norm at this point in the trial, Arias' Twitter account vented her passive aggression after court let out, apologizing to Arizona taxpayers for the burden of funding her lawyer fees.

"The State rejected my 3rd request for a plea to settle quietly and less expensively. Off to retrial we go. Sorry, taxpayers," Arias' Twitter account emoted.

Arias was not able to afford her own defense. Since the trial first began in January, Arias has amounted over $1.7 in court fees, with each of her lawyers making $250 an hour.

Oddly, the person tweeting on behalf of Arias was not her friend Donavan Bering, a women who has been Arias' de facto mouthpiece via Twitter since April. Inmates are not allowed to communicate through the Internet in prison.

Arias' infamy and fame have swelled thanks to her alternately antagonistic and histrionic online musing. She currently has more than 78,000 followers on Twitter, and sells her own artwork through a personal website.

Arias, 33, was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder in May in the killing of her ex-boyfriend, 30-year-old Travis Alexander, in June 2008. Arias claimed it was self-defense, citing a history of domestic abuse and sadistic behavior that forced her to fight for her life one day when Alexander suddenly attacked her at his home. The state argued it was a spurned lover's final act of revenge.

This is far from the first time the defense or Arias has resorted to such tactics. When the trial was thrown into limbo in June following a hung jury, Arias' attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott wrote a press statement to the Arizona Republic claiming Arias deserved to live, because, among other things, continuing the trial was simply a waste of tax dollars.

While no official court date was decided, Judge Stephens instructed the prosecution and defense to prepare for a September trial date to begin Arias' new penalty phase. The defense has until Aug. 5 to submit its final argument for vacating the "especially cruel" ruling from the initial trial, a condition that made Arias eligible for the death penalty.

Attempting to take the death penalty off the table, Arias' defense team has filed a motion claiming that "especially cruel" was too vague of a term for jurors to understand because they didn't possess adequate legal knowledge to judge what specific factor would make one murder more heinous than another. Arizona law defines "cruel manner" as when a victim suffers physical and/or mental pain.

The defense's filing directly challenges a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled defendants have the right for a jury to decide what aggravating factors could qualify them for the death penalty.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery denounced the defense's motion as nothing more than a typical "procedural move."

"Those are defense attorneys doing their job advocating for their client," Montgomery said. "Obviously, we disagree."

Arias' next court date is scheduled for Aug. 26.