Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[sue2013]

AZlawyer
"Just to make sure everyone understands, there would be no problem IMO with him just saying that 25-to-life involves a "possibility" of parole after 25 years, or that the law could change in the future to allow parole again.."
But the way he worded it, it sounded like "there may not be any procedure now, but if she gets 25 to life they will have to come up with a procedure then, because she'll have a legal right to it."


RE: bolded part of your statement, to me, that is exactly what JM said.
The way I read it, he was saying, if Jodi gets 25 to life, just because there is no parole now, that doesn`t mean that parole couldn`t be re-instated within the next 25 years, and if that were to happen and if Jodi got a 25 to life sentence, then she would have a legal right to it.


JM QUOTE
"The decision as to whether or not it’s going to be a natural life sentence, without the possibility of release or an eligibility after 25 years is the judge’s, not yours. And there is a mention there that there is no procedure, however once the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years – just because there’s no procedure now, doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be a procedure when that come up - if a defendant is vested with that right to be considered for release after 25 years. Because at that point, she can have a legal right – a legal right - to be considered for release after (JW:Objection) 25 years."

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer
"Just to make sure everyone understands, there would be no problem IMO with him just saying that 25-to-life involves a "possibility" of parole after 25 years, or that the law could change in the future to allow parole again.."
But the way he worded it, it sounded like "there may not be any procedure now, but if she gets 25 to life they will have to come up with a procedure then, because she'll have a legal right to it."


RE: bolded part of your statement, to me, that is exactly what JM said.
The way I read it, he was saying, if Jodi gets 25 to life, just because there is no parole now, that doesn`t mean that parole couldn`t be re-instated within the next 25 years, and if that were to happen and if Jodi got a 25 to life sentence, then she would have a legal right to it.


JM QUOTE
"The decision as to whether or not it’s going to be a natural life sentence, without the possibility of release or an eligibility after 25 years is the judge’s, not yours. And there is a mention there that there is no procedure, however once the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years – just because there’s no procedure now, doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be a procedure when that come up - if a defendant is vested with that right to be considered for release after 25 years. Because at that point, she can have a legal right – a legal right - to be considered for release after (JW:Objection) 25 years."

Yes, I see that the state could have made that argument on appeal. But I think they would have lost. Because before saying that things could change, he says "once the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years," which sounds like he's saying that the sentence of 25-to-life would grant/vest in her that right. Which it would not. Then he repeats the "legal right to be considered for release after 25 years" at the end, and at that point it's ambiguous whether he means "if things change." But because he said it earlier as well, it sounds like he's saying the sentence would give her a legal right to be eligible for parole after 25 years, and even if there's no procedure now, there would have to be one down the road because at that point she would have a legal right to be considered.

 

[Angelina Frost]

AZ, given all 12 agreed for premeditated murder and cruelty, how certain are you that if not given the DP, JSS would opt for LWOP? Is there any legal precedent for a judge to find one way or the other?

TIA.

 

[dcsmyth1]

If the Judge had simply said, after telling the jury that there is no provision for parole at present, that this is no guarantee--or even an indication-- that there will or will not be such a provision 20 years from now, this thing would not be an issue.

Do the lawyers here agree that JSS could have/should have be clearer in her instructions? Why was she seemingly more vague than she had to be?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, given all 12 agreed for premeditated murder and cruelty, how certain are you that if not given the DP, JSS would opt for LWOP? Is there any legal precedent for a judge to find one way or the other?

TIA.

There are no real guidelines for her to follow. Basically just "consider all the circumstances." But I strongly believe she would give LWOP. She was a prosecutor for 20+ years and has seen JA numerous times in chambers up close and personal. I think she would want to do what she could to give the Alexander family a sense of finality.

If the Judge had simply said, after telling the jury that there is no provision for parole at present, that this is no guarantee--or even an indication-- that there will or will not be such a provision 20 years from now, this thing would not be an issue.

Do the lawyers here agree that JSS could have/should have be clearer in her instructions? Why was she seemingly more vague than she had to be?

Yes, I think she could have said that. I don't think she should have left it up to the lawyers to explain it to the jury.

ETA: Keep in mind, it's not an issue any more. It would have been an issue if the jury had come back with a death verdict, but now it's no longer a problem--unless it happens again at the next penalty phase.

 

[kscornfed]

i have to say, that whole thing is worded so poorly, and it's so confusing, that i HAVE to believe it was intended to be confusing!!

because there HAS to be a better way to say that!!!!!!! no jury would understand what that means. but isn't that the intention? because i'm STILL not sure i get it, and i've been reading about this for 2 or 3 days!

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me:


A.R.S. 13-751(A)(3). "If the defendant is sentenced to life, the defendant shall not be released on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years..." It doesn't say anything about a right to be considered for parole after 25 years, just that you CAN'T be considered for parole during the first 25 years.

I hope this is a silly question - Wouldn't JA's conviction fall under 13-1105 A paragraph 1 (rather than 2)? If so, does it make any difference as far as sentencing?
It looks to me like either way, the only possibility that exists for her to get out, is if the judge sentences her to LWP (which I'd hope would be LWOP), and even then only after 25 years....if it doesn't get reduced by an appeals court or something - is that correct?
Sorry to ask another question about this, but it's really confusing - Thanks so much for the cool head and logical explanations!

From Arizona Revised Statutes:
3. Convicted of first degree murder pursuant to section 13-1105, subsection A, paragraph 2, the defendant shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for life or natural life as determined and in accordance with the procedures provided in section 13-752. A defendant who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis. If the defendant is sentenced to life.............
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00751.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

 

[LinTX]

This is the part that JM said that was incorrect IMO and would have been grounds for appeal if JA had received the death penalty:

"[O]nce the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years...at that point she can have a legal right- a legal right- to be considered for release after 25 years."

The way the statute is written, this is incorrect. She would not have any legal right to be considered for release after 25 years, because parole has been abolished in AZ and the sentencing statute does not grant any such right.

But he was not talking about parole - because as sentenced there is now no parole, but there is possibility of earned credit release. I'm not finding anything that says she can't get out after 25 yrs with a life sentence. As I understand it parole was abolished (depending upon the year of offense), but in it's place anyone sentenced to life has to serve the 25 years, but is eligible to start earning credits for release somewhat prior to that 25 yr.. That's what JM was saying, and it was JW that was bringing parole into this - IMO in an attempt to sell the jury on the idea that she would never get out. After an inmate is earns release, no they don't serve "parole", but they are instead assigned "community supervision".

http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/TRUTH%20IN%20SENTENCING_UPDATED.pdf
http://www.azcorrections.gov/Policies/1000/1002.pdf

 

[cosmos]

No, the defense was not using the severity of a life sentence as a mitigating factor, and JM was not trying to make a life sentence sound less severe. The defense was saying, in essence, you don't need to sentence her to death, because if you give her life she will never ever get out, don't worry. JM was saying, well, actually you do need to worry, because she might get out one day, so you'd better sentence her to death if you want to be safe.

Here is what I interpret as Martinez calling life in prison a mitigating circumstance:

"They made the argument that she's going to spend the rest of her life in prison should you choose that option. But I ask you to think back to the juror questionnaire, one that some of you began filling out back on December 10 of 2012. And in it you were, it explained to you what the parameters or what this life meant. You were told that life in the state of Arizona meant two things. Yes it could mean natural life that the individual who is sentenced does not leave the department of corrections until their death, but that juror questionnaire also told you that an individual who is sentenced to life is eligible for release at the expiration of 25 calendar years. So when they speak to you about life, and when they talk to you about that as a mitigating circumstance, consider that as part of the argument and consider that when you are looking at the rest of the mitigating factors that were proposed to you."

Am I wrong? If so, then what exactly does he mean by a mitigating factor in this context?

 

[AZlawyer]

Here is what I interpret as Martinez calling life in prison a mitigating circumstance:

"They made the argument that she's going to spend the rest of her life in prison should you choose that option. But I ask you to think back to the juror questionnaire, one that some of you began filling out back on December 10 of 2012. And in it you were, it explained to you what the parameters or what this life meant. You were told that life in the state of Arizona meant two things. Yes it could mean natural life that the individual who is sentenced does not leave the department of corrections until their death, but that juror questionnaire also told you that an individual who is sentenced to life is eligible for release at the expiration of 25 calendar years. So when they speak to you about life, and when they talk to you about that as a mitigating circumstance, consider that as part of the argument and consider that when you are looking at the rest of the mitigating factors that were proposed to you."

Am I wrong? If so, then what exactly does he mean by a mitigating factor in this context?

I don't know why he used the phrase "mitigating factor." Mitigating factors are the things that help you choose between a life or death sentence--so a life sentence can't BE a mitigating factor in itself.

But his point to the jury here was that she might not spend her life in prison if they voted "life", because she might get out in 25 years.

But he was not talking about parole - because as sentenced there is now no parole, but there is possibility of earned credit release. I'm not finding anything that says she can't get out after 25 yrs with a life sentence. As I understand it parole was abolished (depending upon the year of offense), but in it's place anyone sentenced to life has to serve the 25 years, but is eligible to start earning credits for release somewhat prior to that 25 yr.. That's what JM was saying, and it was JW that was bringing parole into this - IMO in an attempt to sell the jury on the idea that she would never get out. After an inmate is earns release, no they don't serve "parole", but they are instead assigned "community supervision".

http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/TRUTH%20IN%20SENTENCING_UPDATED.pdf
http://www.azcorrections.gov/Policies/1000/1002.pdf

Yes, he was talking about parole. The sentence of life without possibility of release for 25 years isn't affected by earned release credits, because what are you going to do? Release someone 2 years before the end of their life for good behavior? How would you know when that date arrived? The only "possibility of release" under consideration for a life sentence is parole.

The DOC policies you linked are from 2003, and the law has changed in this area significantly since then, so I didn't look at them closely. But community supervision is something a judge can tack onto a sentence--but not a life sentence for first-degree murder.

I hope this is a silly question - Wouldn't JA's conviction fall under 13-1105 A paragraph 1 (rather than 2)? If so, does it make any difference as far as sentencing?
It looks to me like either way, the only possibility that exists for her to get out, is if the judge sentences her to LWP (which I'd hope would be LWOP), and even then only after 25 years....if it doesn't get reduced by an appeals court or something - is that correct?
Sorry to ask another question about this, but it's really confusing - Thanks so much for the cool head and logical explanations!

From Arizona Revised Statutes:
3. Convicted of first degree murder pursuant to section 13-1105, subsection A, paragraph 2, the defendant shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for life or natural life as determined and in accordance with the procedures provided in section 13-752. A defendant who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis. If the defendant is sentenced to life.............
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00751.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Yes, she would fall under section 13-1105(A)(1), but the old version of section 13-751 that applies to Jodi's case (which I believe was not even numbered 13-751 back then) used that language for all subsections of 13-1105.

Yes, the only possible sentences for Jodi would be death, natural life, or 25-to-life, which would mean natural life unless parole is reinstated in Arizona at some future time. An appeals court could not reduce the sentence lower than the lowest possible sentence of 25-to-life.

 

[AZlawyer]

I would like to thank iSleuth for helping me understand something that many posters are struggling with--how the jurors could agree unanimously on 1st degree premed murder and cruelty and promise in voir dire that they were prepared to impose the DP in an appropriate case and then...not do it.

I think the "missing link" perhaps is that the jurors are not only "death qualified"--they are also "life qualified," although I don't think anyone actually uses that phrase. But they do have to agree that, EVEN IF they have found premed 1st degree murder and an aggravating factor, that they would still be open to the option of a LIFE sentence--i.e., they agree to follow the jury instructions that tell them that death is NOT automatically the appropriate sentence just because they have found premeditation and aggravating factors. Sounds to me like we got some jurors who took their promises very seriously.

 

[cosmos]

I don't know why he used the phrase "mitigating factor." Mitigating factors are the things that help you choose between a life or death sentence--so a life sentence can't BE a mitigating factor in itself.

But his point to the jury here was that she might not spend her life in prison if they voted "life", because she might get out in 25 years.

I found the article below. If I'm reading it correctly it says lack of future dangerousness can be a mitigating factor and future dangerousness can be an aggravating factor, depending on state law.

In Arizona, the state is allowed to use future dangerousness on rebuttal if the offender has left the door open by raising lack of future dangerous in mitigation.

ENDING DEATH BY DANGEROUSNESS

So I figure that's what Willmott and Martinez were sparring over even though I didn't hear them come right out and say it. Does that make sense?

 

[AZlawyer]

I found the article below. If I'm reading it correctly it says lack of future dangerousness can be a mitigating factor and future dangerousness can be an aggravating factor, depending on state law.

In Arizona, the state is allowed to use future dangerousness on rebuttal if the offender has left the door open by raising lack of future dangerous in mitigation.

ENDING DEATH BY DANGEROUSNESS

So I figure that's what Willmott and Martinez were sparring over even though I didn't hear them come right out and say it. Does that make sense?

Yes, that could be it. JW was saying she wouldn't be a danger to anyone locked up for the rest of her life, and JM was saying don't be so sure.

 

[RR0004]

Yes, I see that the state could have made that argument on appeal. But I think they would have lost. Because before saying that things could change, he says "once the defendant is vested, or has been given the right to be eligible to be released at the end of 25 years," which sounds like he's saying that the sentence of 25-to-life would grant/vest in her that right. Which it would not. Then he repeats the "legal right to be considered for release after 25 years" at the end, and at that point it's ambiguous whether he means "if things change." But because he said it earlier as well, it sounds like he's saying the sentence would give her a legal right to be eligible for parole after 25 years, and even if there's no procedure now, there would have to be one down the road because at that point she would have a legal right to be considered.

Heck...I watched a video this morning of JM during a clemency hearing and he argued that very point...that if it doesn't exist at the time of sentencing, it doesn't exist. Can't come and say down the road if the law changes that you are entitled to a change in your sentence. I mean, of course, you can argue for it, but it doesn't mean you'll get it.

 

[bettybaby00]

^^^^K, this topic is confusing as hell :lol: I won't even try and figure it out, bc I don't think I will ever fully understand it, despite all the great questions and expert answers!

My question is this: I know that pre-trial (?) defense filed a motion to preclude the state from arguing lack of remorse during the penalty phase.

1) at the eleventh hour DT threw in the "lessor charge of MS," during closing. At that point wouldn't that "void" (sorry idk correct terminology) that notion since they basically abandoned the self defense claim which the motion was based on? Also

2) Given that the self defense defense was abandoned in favor of embracing the BPD diagnosis *eyeroll* during the penalty phase--and will likely figure heavily in the retrial phase--cant the state now bring up lack of remorse?

To me this would be very effective if possible...not only does it show how cold blooded JA really is, but it also IMO, helps to illustrate how insincere most of her allocation was, i.e., her story of her mom seeing the Alexander family and "understanding their pain," the fact that she never truly apologizes, as well as when asked "if she could do things differently," none of her responses convey a scenario where travis ISN'T DEAD!!!

Thank you

 

[Arabian Girl]

Good Morning and TIA for your help!

I'm trying to understand what evidence is allowed in this new sentencing trial. I'm confused by ALL the evidence presented in the guilt phase as opposed to evidence of the crime itself.

Is there a distinction and are there general rules that apply? I can't imagine any evidence pointing to either DV, the "fog" etc would be allowed since the previous jury rejected this in whole.

Perhaps you have a reference? Again, thanks very much.

:jail:

 

[ChinaBlue]

snipped

Theoretically, there is an infinite list of mitigators. Here, you have "youth" (under 30), mental issues, and supposed abuse as the obvious ones, but as you've seen, silly things like "I can trace Dior ads really well" also count.

snipped

JM can make the argument to the jury. I would start by echoing the foreman's statement that it's almost impossible to believe when you look at her that she could have committed such an act. But she's admitted to committing the act, so apparently appearances are deceiving. Then I would segue into not allowing her appearance to influence the death penalty decision. I would point out to the jury the categories of things they can consider (defendant's character, propensities, etc. etc.)--nothing in there about attractiveness and poise.

bbm

Well then, can JM also bring in the "drawing by tracing" as proof she is NOT a talented artist but is, in fact, breaking copyright law by showing examples of her offending artwork - which, would in itself, show just one one more example of her countless lies? There have been various Internet "reports" that a couple of companies/magazines have issued a cease and desist order against JA due to her blatant copying. And if JM can use this kind of info, is there anyway to contact him to make sure he is aware of this?

 

[molly333]

AZL an appeal question. Forgive me if this has already been asked.

Seven Jurors checked both felony murder and premeditated murder. Is this an appeal issue given that these are two seemingly contradictory findings? Especially since JM argued that for felony murder, she killed him in the act of stealing his gun and argued for premeditated murder she stole the grandfather's gun and brought it to Arizona to kill him?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL--

Thank you so much for taking what had to be a great deal of time to explain and re-explain the context for JM's vested eligibility after 25 statements. I finally understand why you believe reversible error, and am really really relieved at a bullet dodged, especially if the State chooses to retry. Thanks again!

 

[TXProfessional]

Good morning AZLawyer, I have a question. In the penalty phase, do the instructions indicate that weight is the determining factor regarding aggravating vs. mitigating factors? Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and insights.