Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[dcsmyth1]

So, the statute changed in 2012. Is LWOP now the judge's only option?

Personally, I like the concept of parole. In practice, it's very difficult to accurately determined who is truly reformed, and who is just pretending...

 

[AZlawyer]

So, the statute changed in 2012. Is LWOP now the judge's only option?

Personally, I like the concept of parole. In practice, it's very difficult to accurately determined who is truly reformed, and who is just pretending...

For premeditated 1st degree murder LWOP or death are now the only options, yes. Jodi was "grandfathered in" to the old statute.

 

[tss]

AZlawyer, is there even going to be a retrial?

Isn't it in everybody's best interest at this time for the state to withdraw the death penalty and let the judge decide on life or LWOP?

By 'everybody' I mean the citizens of Arizona who will be paying for another six or eight weeks of court and lawyer expenses for what most likely will result in another non-death-penalty result. And the Alexander's who won't have to suffer through more of the same gruesome testimony. And the Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery who doesn't want to delay the next trial Martinez is supposed to be trying or strain his own budget further. Or if there is a death penalty, avoid the costs of the automatic appeal(s).

Any thoughts on the likelihood of the state dropping the death penalty?

I'm not up-to-date, been busy and also some searching.
However there is one thing I want to say now re: hearing about the Cost to the State of Ariz...aside from believing Cost shouldn't be considered when it comes to Justice, the Fact is that Arizona, specifically the County, makes a Profit by having this case being televised and having news people and crews based in the area. You would have to consider how many $millions are coming in because of all this, hotels, restaurants, etc., plus the State gets in front of the line for reimbursement... any fees, and any "donations" to JA should go towards payment to all the legal aid provided by the state.

For those who heard the most recent addition to JA's accomplishment, I heard Poet ...its nothing more than another copy with a twist



JODI ARIAS (HER POEM)

[video=youtube;WwdUN80E8mE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwdUN80E8mE[/video]


http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth/proverbs-5.htm#3

3 The lips of an immoral woman are as sweet as honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil.

4 But the result is as bitter as poison, sharp as a double-edged sword.

 

[LinTX]

Yes, you see the problem. And JM seemed to be saying to the jury that the legislature would have to do something before the 25-to-lifers started coming up for parole. But my point is, if you read the statute, it does NOT grant any right to be considered for release after 25 years, so IMO the legislature does NOT need to do anything, and those people will just never get parole. It just prevents release (if any provision for release happens to exist) for at least 25 years.

Interesting point about the change in the statute. I do think that might be in the back of a judge's mind during sentencing now.

First I want to add my thanks for your patience in helping us try to understand these issues. I find them very interesting and (probably unfortunately for you) thought provoking! I do try to read your comments carefully because I suspect sometimes, being an attorney, you might assume we understand the finer points you're making more than some of us actually do. I appreciate this forum and your willingness to answer questions about issues we're confused over and/or need clarification to understand.

I do see the problem as you interpreted his remarks, but I didn't hear him saying the legislature would have to do anything - only that it was possible that at some point there could be a procedure available where she might become "eligible". And at that time, she would have whatever rights the procedure allowed. The only time he mentioned the statute was to say it was the judge's role to decide but that it was not true that life meant natural life. The right to be eligible/ not the right to be considered, IOW? The definitive and erroneous declarations I saw were JW's "She will never get out. She will never walk out of prison if you choose life in prison" etc., etc. And she objected that *he* was misstating the law?

I think I understand what you're saying about the statute - assume you're talking about 13-752? - but since the statute only specifies the options as "life" and "natural life", would that make a difference in your argument? I haven't been able to find the definition of those two in statutes but assume it's there somewhere. But if it does describe life as possibility of parole after 25 years, wouldn't the legal right be the possibility?

This post brought to you by the words possible and possibility...

 

[AZlawyer]

First I want to add my thanks for your patience in helping us try to understand these issues. I find them very interesting and (probably unfortunately for you) thought provoking! I do try to read your comments carefully because I suspect sometimes, being an attorney, you might assume we understand the finer points you're making more than some of us actually do. I appreciate this forum and your willingness to answer questions about issues we're confused over and/or need clarification to understand.

I do see the problem as you interpreted his remarks, but I didn't hear him saying the legislature would have to do anything - only that it was possible that at some point there could be a procedure available where she might become "eligible". And at that time, she would have whatever rights the procedure allowed. The only time he mentioned the statute was to say it was the judge's role to decide but that it was not true that life meant natural life. The right to be eligible/ not the right to be considered, IOW? The definitive and erroneous declarations I saw were JW's "She will never get out. She will never walk out of prison if you choose life in prison" etc., etc. And she objected that *he* was misstating the law?

I think I understand what you're saying about the statute - assume you're talking about 13-752? - but since the statute only specifies the options as "life" and "natural life", would that make a difference in your argument? I haven't been able to find the definition of those two in statutes but assume it's there somewhere. But if it does describe life as possibility of parole after 25 years, wouldn't the legal right be the possibility?

This post brought to you by the words possible and possibility...

Perhaps if you go back over the last few pages, it will become more clear. It is 13-751 that contains the language about no possibility of release for 25 years. Really it's an old version of 13-751 (not even numbered 13-751) that applies, but the current version of 13-751 does contain that language. It does not say there is a possibility of parole after 25 years--just no possibility of parole before then.

Someone posted the exact transcript of what JM said a while back. He perhaps meant to say that JA would have a legal right to be considered for parole only if the law changed in the future. But the way he said it (with an interruption by JW that probably threw him off), it sounded like the legal right would arise at the time of sentencing, so the fact that there was no procedure for release now didn't mean there wouldn't be one in the future (because JA and others would have a legal right to it).

 

[Jay]

RE: possibility of parole after 25 years, etc..

sorry, a niggling question.. if the possibility is re-established, will Arias get credit for the 5 years time already served? So that she'd be eligible for review in 2033, or thereabouts?

 

[Jinkasaurus]

Question for AZlawyer-

I have read that Joe Arpaio has said that Jodi has been placed in 23 hour isolation since the penalty phase (or shortly thereafter). Is there any legal basis for keeping her there until the next phase of the trial?

thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

RE: possibility of parole after 25 years, etc..

sorry, a niggling question.. if the possibility is re-established, will Arias get credit for the 5 years time already served? So that she'd be eligible for review in 2033, or thereabouts?

Yes, she would have to be given credit for time served.

Question for AZlawyer-

I have read that Joe Arpaio has said that Jodi has been placed in 23 hour isolation since the penalty phase (or shortly thereafter). Is there any legal basis for keeping her there until the next phase of the trial?

thanks!

I don't know what basis he cited for assigning her to that level of custody in the first place. If he keeps all persons awaiting sentencing for serious crimes/murder on 23-hour isolation, for example (which seems like it would be a good idea), then I assume she'll stay there until sentencing is complete and she's transferred to prison.

If he put her there for her own safety due to the notoriety of her case, same answer--he'll probably keep her there until she's transferred to prison.

If he put her there for some other reason, like misbehavior, then she'll probably have the chance to be moved back into a less restrictive environment.

IMO, though, I don't think Sheriff Arpaio would want to take the chance of an inmate awaiting a possible death sentence escaping from his jail, so the first explanation is the most likely one.

 

[lisasalinger]

Do you know the reason why the parents' police interviews were not admitted during trial by the prosecution... was it prosecution's decision, or were they deemed not-admissable in a prior motion?

Since Jodi discussed her parents on the stand, would that open the door for prosecution to bring in their statements in cross or rebuttal?

I'm wondering if we may see them in the next penalty phase.

Thanks

 

[garthmax]

Can JA defense attorney introduce new evidence during the penalty retrial? New psych testimony etc.

 

[cosmos]

Legal news from today: Jodi Arias: Arizona Supreme Court denies review in Valley murder case

(I put a question mark on the end of this sentence to comply with rule that every post by a non-lawyer has to be a question? )

This is a link to the PDF of the petition that the court refused to review: PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

[Arabian Girl]

Hi, TIA for all your time in answering our questions!

I'm curious about the issue of lack of remorse. I understand there was a motion filed previously where JSS ruled it would be decided after(?) the guilt phase, or perhaps during the trial. Given JA never actually said the words she was sorry up until allocution, do you think JM will use the TV interview where she continues to blame the jury, JM, her DT?

Also, given the possible weakness of mitigating factors, will the DT attempt to cloud the jury's opinion of guilt or innocense and if so doesn't this mean basically retrying the entire case? How can this be expected to be completely in the 2 - 3 weeks I've heard suggested?

Lastly, why do you think JM didn't attempt to tie TA last text where he supposedly is shown to be so abusive to the fact JA admitted she had previously threatened TA she was going to expose their relationship to his Church? Although circumstantial, she now had the phone sex tape.

Thanks again

 

[tlckgram]

Once again,TIA for all your legal perspective. My question is would either the DT DTor the prosecution team be able to gather all the jurors to ask questions about how they perceived evidence from the guilt phase in order to develop a strategy for the penalty phase or are both sides only able to watch these post verdict media interviews they are giving? If unable to call them in to talk about their perception of what was presented, are they precluded legally from speaking to them if a former juror contacts them on their own?

 

[iSleuth]

Once again,TIA for all your legal perspective. My question is would either the DT DTor the prosecution team be able to gather all the jurors to ask questions about how they perceived evidence from the guilt phase in order to develop a strategy for the penalty phase or are both sides only able to watch these post verdict media interviews they are giving? If unable to call them in to talk about their perception of what was presented, are they precluded legally from speaking to them if a former juror contacts them on their own?

I wonder about this also. And TY as always to AZlawyer for her kind patience with us.
I was watching the juror feedback and was curious about their concept of the perceived verbal and mental abuse of JA. I was wondering if and how JM can bring the mitigators which led Travis to txt and say things like: "You are a sociopath...and are worse than Hitler!" I wonder which if any evidence there is and how it can be brought in to evidence now. Can there be new evidence? Also do you think the family's impact statements will change a lot during the next trial? Is there anything you think that they should change ?

TY so much.

 

[TartLemon]

LWOP and DP are are self explanatory.

If Jodi gets a life sentence, eventually she will be ELIGIBLE for parole. Is there a max on the sentence where Jodi would be released regardless of any prison record?

 

[AZlawyer]

LWOP and DP are are self explanatory.

If Jodi gets a life sentence, eventually she will be ELIGIBLE for parole. Is there a max on the sentence where Jodi would be released regardless of any prison record?

No, if she gets a life sentence, even if it is not "LWOP," she will never be eligible for parole IMO unless and until Arizona reinstates parole.

So..."LWOP"...no eligibility for parole. In prison until death.
"Death"...no eligibility for parole obviously. In prison until execution or other cause of death.
"Life without the possibility of release for 25 years"...no eligibility for parole even after 25 years, unless parole is reinstated in AZ. Currently, there is no parole system in AZ for crimes committed after 1993. In prison until death or until the law changes re: parole.

 

[Jay]

From Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's press converence today, discussing what's ahead.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...zona-arias-case-prosecutor-death-penalty.html

Although he said "at this point" his office planned to go ahead with the retrial, he also said several factors are being weighed by Montgomery’s office ahead of a court hearing scheduled for June 20:

"including feedback from Alexander’s family. He declined to say whether defense lawyers had come forward with an offer to take the death penalty off the table, but added that he has “an ethical obligation” to consider such a deal."

What offer could the defense make for him to drop the retrial? Only thing I can think of is an appeal waiver of some kind. But would that be legal?

Any thoughts? (drum roll: :drumroll: )

 

[AZlawyer]

Once again,TIA for all your legal perspective. My question is would either the DT DTor the prosecution team be able to gather all the jurors to ask questions about how they perceived evidence from the guilt phase in order to develop a strategy for the penalty phase or are both sides only able to watch these post verdict media interviews they are giving? If unable to call them in to talk about their perception of what was presented, are they precluded legally from speaking to them if a former juror contacts them on their own?

I wonder about this also. And TY as always to AZlawyer for her kind patience with us.
I was watching the juror feedback and was curious about their concept of the perceived verbal and mental abuse of JA. I was wondering if and how JM can bring the mitigators which led Travis to txt and say things like: "You are a sociopath...and are worse than Hitler!" I wonder which if any evidence there is and how it can be brought in to evidence now. Can there be new evidence? Also do you think the family's impact statements will change a lot during the next trial? Is there anything you think that they should change ?

TY so much.

Either team of attorneys may contact the former jurors, or the former jurors may contact them. Often, the judges tell the attorneys not to contact the jurors unless the jurors express a willingness (before leaving the courtroom) to discuss the case with them.

Yes, JM can bring in evidence to show WHY Travis said such horrible things. I suspect, however, that he doesn't know the answer to that question.

Yes, there can be new evidence at this time.

I think the family's impact statements were very good. I doubt they will change the statements. I hope the siblings can convey the same raw emotion as they did the first time around.

 

[AZlawyer]

From Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's press converence today, discussing what's ahead.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...zona-arias-case-prosecutor-death-penalty.html

Although he said "at this point" his office planned to go ahead with the retrial, he also said several factors are being weighed by Montgomery’s office ahead of a court hearing scheduled for June 20:

"including feedback from Alexander’s family. He declined to say whether defense lawyers had come forward with an offer to take the death penalty off the table, but added that he has “an ethical obligation” to consider such a deal."

What offer could the defense make for him to drop the retrial? Only thing I can think of is an appeal waiver of some kind. But would that be legal?

Any thoughts? (drum roll: :drumroll: )

The defense could offer to stipulate to LWOP.

 

[TartLemon]

LWOP and DP are are self explanatory.

If Jodi gets a life sentence, eventually she will be ELIGIBLE for parole. Is there a max on the sentence where Jodi would be released regardless of any prison record?