Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion* #2

Hey attorneys! Question from the sidebar. Are you aware of a motion made to air the verdict live? 2nd: are they allowing the networks to tape, and edit in real time but cannot release until after verdict?
 
Ruling on Motion in Limine was posted today, and I'd like thoughts about JSS ruling re: remorse. That is one of the mitigators, so how can JSS keep the state from presenting testimony to rebut a mitigator?

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6540956.pdf

IT IS ORDERED granting the motions in limine re smuggling contraband, changing counsel and threats against trial participants and lacking remorse.
 
Did Jodi ever answer the jury question on why she sent Travis' s grandmother flowers after she killed Travis?
 
Hello AzLawyer. Will JM (And Nurmi) get to give a sort of closing argument after this phase of the proceedings before they move on to the mitigation factors?

No, this is not really a separate phase.

Aloha AZ, I know that JSS ruled no video till after a verdict is given by the jury.

What about the daily transcripts, does the news media have the right to request them and publish them?

IIRC the daily tapes have been sealed, and the court reporter was instructed not to accept any transcript requests until the tapes are unsealed.

Hey attorneys! Question from the sidebar. Are you aware of a motion made to air the verdict live? 2nd: are they allowing the networks to tape, and edit in real time but cannot release until after verdict?

The media is being allowed to tape in real time but can't release the taped material until after the verdict. IMO they ought to air the verdict live, but I don't think I've seen any motion on the docket asking for that.

Ruling on Motion in Limine was posted today, and I'd like thoughts about JSS ruling re: remorse. That is one of the mitigators, so how can JSS keep the state from presenting testimony to rebut a mitigator?

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6540956.pdf

Without having seen the motion or having heard the argument, my guess is that this was a motion to prevent JM from suggesting that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor, and/or from raising evidence of lack of remorse before Jodi raises any evidence of remorse. Both of which would be good motions.

I have the same question. I know it's Friday night, and you probably have a life, but this is killing me. Can Juan show the jury post-verdict interviews that JA gave?

Probably. He should be able to argue that they are inconsistent with "remorse"--parts of them, anyway.

Did Jodi ever answer the jury question on why she sent Travis' s grandmother flowers after she killed Travis?

I think there's a thread with all the jury questions and answers while Jodi was on the stand--I don't remember this one, but I know she had an excuse for everything. :)
 
<snipped for brevity>


Without having seen the motion or having heard the argument, my guess is that this was a motion to prevent JM from suggesting that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor, and/or from raising evidence of lack of remorse before Jodi raises any evidence of remorse. Both of which would be good motions.



Probably. He should be able to argue that they are inconsistent with "remorse"--parts of them, anyway.

First thank you for your reply. Yes, seeing the motion would hopefully clarify things, but this ruling came after she listed remorse as one of her mitigators. By listing remorse as a mitigator, isn't that by itself sufficient for JM to argue against it? The statute clearly says either side can argue for or against, but this ruling seems to say otherwise. "Seems", of course, because every frickin bit of this trial is being sealed these days so we're left scratching our heads, guessing and worrying. :tantrum:
 
First thank you for your reply. Yes, seeing the motion would hopefully clarify things, but this ruling came after she listed remorse as one of her mitigators. By listing remorse as a mitigator, isn't that by itself sufficient for JM to argue against it? The statute clearly says either side can argue for or against, but this ruling seems to say otherwise. "Seems", of course, because every frickin bit of this trial is being sealed these days so we're left scratching our heads, guessing and worrying. :tantrum:

No, JM would not be permitted to rebut any mitigating factor until evidence is actually presented on that subject by JA. Opening statements are not evidence, so he can't rebut the mitigating factors listed in opening until and unless JA's team actually starts presenting witnesses, documents, etc. attempting to prove those factors.
 
AZ: I know you haven't seen every single second even of the first trial, but: have you seen any appealable issues that you think might actually hold up and get a new trial granted?
 
AZLawyer,

What's the buzz in the local legal community about today's decision to close court? What is your personal reaction?
 
Question: Is there any chance that JS ruled deliberately as she did (re clearing the courtroom of media and public) for the precise purpose of provoking the media to file an appeal with the Appeals Court? The Appeals Court would then make a judgment on this thorny issue. This would forestall an appeal of her sentence (by JA) to a higher court later on the grounds that she wasn't permitted to present mitigation witnesses in safety? If a higher court has already reviewed the situation and made a decision about it, JA is going to be stymied from getting a successful appeal out of it that will void the penalty phase? Maybe this is a stroke of genius on JS's part?

Apologies if I'm not using the right terminology....
 
AZ: I know you haven't seen every single second even of the first trial, but: have you seen any appealable issues that you think might actually hold up and get a new trial granted?

Nope. :)

AZLawyer,

What's the buzz in the local legal community about today's decision to close court? What is your personal reaction?

Confusion and concern. And ditto for me.

Question: Is there any chance that JS ruled deliberately as she did (re clearing the courtroom of media and public) for the precise purpose of provoking the media to file an appeal with the Appeals Court? The Appeals Court would then make a judgment on this thorny issue. This would forestall an appeal of her sentence (by JA) to a higher court later on the grounds that she wasn't permitted to present mitigation witnesses in safety? If a higher court has already reviewed the situation and made a decision about it, JA is going to be stymied from getting a successful appeal out of it that will void the penalty phase? Maybe this is a stroke of genius on JS's part?

Apologies if I'm not using the right terminology....

I don't think that's the reason, but I hope that's the effect!
 
Question: If, as it seems, Flores will be called intermittently during the current trial, why is it that he's allowed to sit next to Martinez while other witnesses are on the stand? Don't witnesses in general have to avoid information that pertains to the trial until after they've testified? Or is that just expert witnesses? Flores isn't an expert witness?
 
Question: If, as it seems, Flores will be called intermittently during the current trial, why is it that he's allowed to sit next to Martinez while other witnesses are on the stand? Don't witnesses in general have to avoid information that pertains to the trial until after they've testified? Or is that just expert witnesses? Flores isn't an expert witness?

Parties are never kicked out. Flores is the person representing the "State of Arizona" in the courtroom.

Expert witnesses are often allowed in the courtroom while others are testifying, if they plan to rely on or comment on someone else's testimony, or if they're needed to advise the attorneys how to cross-examine another witness (usually the opposing expert).

Lay witnesses (non-experts) who are not parties are excluded from hearing testimony of other witnesses.
 
aZlawyer, if a mitigation witness brings in testimony not proved during the case, is the prosecution allowed rebuttal?
 
aZlawyer, if a mitigation witness brings in testimony not proved during the case, is the prosecution allowed rebuttal?

Yes. Either way, actually--it doesn't matter whether it came up during the guilt phase of the trial or not.
 
Expert witnesses are often allowed in the courtroom while others are testifying, if they plan to rely on or comment on someone else's testimony, or if they're needed to advise the attorneys how to cross-examine another witness (usually the opposing expert).

IIRC, DeMarte and ALV (expert witnesses) were both asked if they had been privy to Arias trial proceedings before they took the stand, and they both answered no. Were they a special situation where it mattered that they were out of the loop? Or was that just a pro forma question? And ALV, IIRC, was required to be available after she testified until the judge released her, but she couldn't be in the gallery watching the trial? This business of who can go freely through the court doors is very confusing, and now we have media maybe/maybe not permitted to make it even more complicated.

Also, for the purposes of a trial like this, who constitutes "victim's family" and "defendant's family"? Is anyone you can label "family" allowed in for discussions in chambers? Does the judge keep a short list of allowable parties? If you don't have a blood family, does a partner count? a good friend? cousin? Can JA turn Donovan into "family"?
 
Question: If expert witnesses are allowed in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying so they can provide counsel and wisdom to the attorneys on "their side", if the public is excluded are the experts excluded as well? If JA is secretly on the stand, DeMarte would not be able to give JM advice on JA's behavior in the courtroom? The pattern of her lies? The features of her psychopathy?
 
IIRC, DeMarte and ALV (expert witnesses) were both asked if they had been privy to Arias trial proceedings before they took the stand, and they both answered no. Were they a special situation where it mattered that they were out of the loop? Or was that just a pro forma question? And ALV, IIRC, was required to be available after she testified until the judge released her, but she couldn't be in the gallery watching the trial? This business of who can go freely through the court doors is very confusing, and now we have media maybe/maybe not permitted to make it even more complicated.

Also, for the purposes of a trial like this, who constitutes "victim's family" and "defendant's family"? Is anyone you can label "family" allowed in for discussions in chambers? Does the judge keep a short list of allowable parties? If you don't have a blood family, does a partner count? a good friend? cousin? Can JA turn Donovan into "family"?

The point was that they could have been privy to her trial testimony if they had cared to be. But they only cared about what she and her attorneys had carefully scripted for them to opine upon. BUT you do have to make the request and explain why an expert needs to be in the courtroom during another witness's testimony--it isn't automatic.

The victims are defined by statute. The "defendant's family" is not a thing under the law. They are just public spectators. If someone from the defendant's family goes into chambers, something is going on that involves that person specifically.

Question: If expert witnesses are allowed in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying so they can provide counsel and wisdom to the attorneys on "their side", if the public is excluded are the experts excluded as well? If JA is secretly on the stand, DeMarte would not be able to give JM advice on JA's behavior in the courtroom? The pattern of her lies? The features of her psychopathy?

If an expert is needed to advise on testimony, they would not be excluded when the public is excluded. And yes, if JA is truly on the stand, there are approximately a billion major problems with that, including experts not being able to assess this new information and amend their opinions if necessary.
 
AZlawyer, here you are!

Ok. We all want to know what you think of the news that JA is the secret witness?
 
AZlawyer, here you are!

Ok. We all want to know what you think of the news that JA is the secret witness?

I responded over in the retrial thread, but I think it is not possible unless JSS has just mentally imploded. Someone asked if she could have been on the stand providing foundation for another witness's testimony (even just as simple as identifying someone's voice on the phone), and I agreed that it was possible.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
2,268
Total visitors
2,435

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,032
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top