Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[oaktree]

What exactly does the next step look like? Will the same witnesses be brought in, and will the same questions be asked? It is just like an instant replay? And if so, why can't they just show the tapes of the trial?

 

[AZlawyer]

Could you please give an example of evidence that would be too prejudicial? Thank you.

Yes. Remember the video shown in court of Travis telling a story with Jodi on his lap? The audio would have been too prejudicial for the jury to hear (and I just realized that probably is one thing that was kept out for that reason). Travis was telling a story about having a gun pointed at him and thinking he was going to die. There is, of course, some chance that that's where Jodi "got the idea", but is it really relevant where she got the idea? Does the fact that Jodi was present for this story really make it more likely that she killed Travis with premeditation instead of some other scenario? If there's evidence of premeditation, knowing where she maybe got the idea is irrelevant. If there's no evidence of premeditation, this video gets you nowhere toward that goal.

So I would say no, it's totally irrelevant. But here's where the prejudice rule comes in...if you say, well, yes, there is some tiny bitty sliver of relevance (probative value is the real term to use here), then the question is, is there a significant chance that the jury will take this tiny bit of relevant information and use it improperly? And the answer is clearly yes, because lots of WS'ers watched that video and said "OMG this makes her look so guilty." It doesn't, not really, not as a matter of EVIDENCE of guilt, but something about us wants to say "this can't be a coincidence. It must mean something."

That's prejudicial evidence.

 

[AZlawyer]

What exactly does the next step look like? Will the same witnesses be brought in, and will the same questions be asked? It is just like an instant replay? And if so, why can't they just show the tapes of the trial?

Lots of what was presented in the trial isn't relevant at this point, so the tapes would have to be heavily redacted. Also, unless both sides agree that tapes are OK vs. live witnesses, the judge would not force them to use the tapes, because presumably they would be less effective.

Lots of what was presented previously WILL be relevant in this redo phase, though, so, yes, the same witnesses will be called, and the same questions will be asked--only this time there will be transcripts of the prior testimony to use in cross-examination.

 

[BMoody]

Would Juan be allowed to, or would it even be a good idea for him to show portions of the tapes of the trial during this phase? I am thinking particularly of the several times that she gave the finger, but more importantly the several times she did her throat slash move, especially the last time which was following Samantha's impact statement.

 

[atthelake]

Snip

Lots of what was presented previously WILL be relevant in this redo phase, though, so, yes, the same witnesses will be called, and the same questions will be asked--only this time there will be transcripts of the prior testimony to use in cross-examination.

I.CANNOT .RESIST. !

LaViolette again ! Doubt it! :floorlaugh:

Seriously ..your thought on her again as expert second time around . TIA

 

[kscornfed]

AZ, any idea why the circumstances of her arrest didn't come in? In a rental car, brand new 9 mm taped to the engine and knives hidden in books?

 

[K_Z]

1. Assuming Nurmi and/ or Wilmott remain on as Jodi's lawyers, I'm curious as to what their "duties" are in the interim between either another jury selection, or if the State offers LWOP. Is there enough work on this case that they will essentially be working full time on Jodi's case, filing motions and such, or is this a lull for them where they can take a breather, fall back, and begin working on "other" cases? What is the pace of the work they have to do related to Jodi's case now? (Is the case on hold, or is it still an active case? Can new discovery be brought, etc?)

2. Will the mitigation specialist remain on the case, with requests for extra funding for her services, or is her job done until another jury is convened?

3. Can the mit spec continue to discover mitigation in this interim? For example, Darryl Brewer stated in a TV interview that there were a number of people in the Big Sur area who would have spoken for Jodi, but no one reached out to them. Could that happen now?

4. If another judge is substituted for JSS, would that be a situation that would create a months long delay, for that individual to get up to speed on the case, or would it be a fairly smooth handoff?

5. If Nurmi and/ or Wilmott petition to get off the case, and other lawyer/s are appointed, would that create a months long delay, or would the judge keep it fairly limited so as to conclude the case in a reasonable amount of time? (And I'm thinking maybe 6 months from now is what might be considered reasonable?)

6. Is there any legal or statutory limit as to how long a convicted person can be in a limbo state of convicted, but unsentenced?

7. If one of the expert witnesses did not want to continue to be involved in the remainder of the case (Demarte, ALV, or Samuels), would they be compelled to remain and testify, or can they be replaced with new experts?

Thank you in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

Would Juan be allowed to, or would it even be a good idea for him to show portions of the tapes of the trial during this phase? I am thinking particularly of the several times that she gave the finger, but more importantly the several times she did her throat slash move, especially the last time which was following Samantha's impact statement.

I think those things are too open to interpretation. I don't think JM will try to admit them.

I.CANNOT .RESIST. !

LaViolette again ! Doubt it! :floorlaugh:

Seriously ..your thought on her again as expert second time around . TIA

Ugh. I can't imagine the defense team would want her back on the stand. Maybe they'll have what's-his-name (the one they put on at the very end) expand his expert role.

AZ, any idea why the circumstances of her arrest didn't come in? In a rental car, brand new 9 mm taped to the engine and knives hidden in books?

Probably because it was irrelevant. In what way does this information help you determine whether Jodi killed Travis with premeditation or for some other reason?

1. Assuming Nurmi and/ or Wilmott remain on as Jodi's lawyers, I'm curious as to what their "duties" are in the interim between either another jury selection, or if the State offers LWOP. Is there enough work on this case that they will essentially be working full time on Jodi's case, filing motions and such, or is this a lull for them where they can take a breather, fall back, and begin working on "other" cases? What is the pace of the work they have to do related to Jodi's case now? (Is the case on hold, or is it still an active case? Can new discovery be brought, etc?)

2. Will the mitigation specialist remain on the case, with requests for extra funding for her services, or is her job done until another jury is convened?

3. Can the mit spec continue to discover mitigation in this interim? For example, Darryl Brewer stated in a TV interview that there were a number of people in the Big Sur area who would have spoken for Jodi, but no one reached out to them. Could that happen now?

4. If another judge is substituted for JSS, would that be a situation that would create a months long delay, for that individual to get up to speed on the case, or would it be a fairly smooth handoff?

5. If Nurmi and/ or Wilmott petition to get off the case, and other lawyer/s are appointed, would that create a months long delay, or would the judge keep it fairly limited so as to conclude the case in a reasonable amount of time? (And I'm thinking maybe 6 months from now is what might be considered reasonable?)

6. Is there any legal or statutory limit as to how long a convicted person can be in a limbo state of convicted, but unsentenced?

7. If one of the expert witnesses did not want to continue to be involved in the remainder of the case (Demarte, ALV, or Samuels), would they be compelled to remain and testify, or can they be replaced with new experts?

Thank you in advance!

1. It's still an active case. There will no doubt be motions, requests for new witnesses, etc. But they should have some time to work on other cases as well.

2. Yes, the mitigation specialist will remain on the case.

3. Yes, new mitigation witnesses could be identified.

4. The substitution of a judge would not create a long delay. Maybe a short delay if the judge had another trial scheduled at the time this trial is scheduled to resume.

5. I don't see why they would be replaced, but IMO that would create a long delay.

6. No, there is no limit.

7. Experts cannot be compelled to testify, because slavery is illegal in the US.

 

[westie mom]

Between my own life experiences/demands, coupled with the fact that the threads in this case move at a speed that exceeds both light and warp speed from Star Trek combined, making any effort to respond to a particular post feels pretty futile since the threads are at LEAST 100+ posts ahead of the one considered for response before you can even blink I have remained in lurkdom over the course of this marathon trial while reading until my eyes felt like both crossing and bleeding. Of course, trying to make sure I was absolutely current with developments sent me to work with limited sleep on MANY mornings...call it "Arias-Nurmi-Wilmott overload/disease" if you will!! Thankfully, Diet Pepsi and 5 hour energy were designed for JUST such days!

Anyway, as someone whose livelihood is directly tied to the Civil Courts of numerous States (and nope, I'm not an attorney), I did have a question pop up that I would VERY much appreciate AZ lawyer, Morman Attorney (or any other attorney practicing/familiar with Criminal law in that absolutely GLORIOUS State of AZ that I hope to get back to as part of my "bucket list") helping me out with. I was trapped in my car for CMJA's "soliloquy" as well as Juan's Penalty Phase closing...with that said, thank GOD for satellite radio!!!!

Generally, in the Civil arena, ANY Pleading signed and notarized by a Party OR their Counsel (generally Discovery Responses, RTA Responses, factual statements in the form of either an Affidavit or quoted as part of a Motion, as examples) can be introduced as evidence at any point during trial - largely for absolute Impeachment purposes, whether of the witness on the stand OR during Closings (have had a LOT of fun due to this in multiple cases we decided to defend - 99.99% on the strengths of their merits alone).

My question arises from CMJA's soliloquy to the jury, particularly her attempting to "BLAME" the Alexanders and Juan for the "failure" of all of these folks to "settle" the case short of trial, which then "forced her" to not only disrespect the memory of Travis for all to hear, but to approach perjury in her own unsubstantiated accusations that have just pi$$ed most of us off over the course of this trial...ARGH!! In AZ, is there any legal provision or prohibition for Juan to be able to slap that Notorized, signed Motion and its attachments right onto the Elmo for the entire world to see the attempted extortion of CMJA and/or Nurmi to intentionally to blackmail both the Alexander family, along with State, to unleash a smear campaign against the very character of Travis if a plea to Murder 2 with something less that 15 years confinement wasn't proffered???

As always, the above is IMHO, MOO and any or all available disclaimers...

Thanks so much for any insight!!

Westie Mom

 

[CarolinaWoman]

1. Is there a possibility that Judge Stephens would be replaced? She got emotional at the end.
2. Is a the penalty trial short or will it be long and drawn out?
3. Can they change anything like no cameras allowed in the courtroom?

 

[a/k/a me]

By what I have observed, is it possible that JSS may have called a mistrial prematurely?
Her response to an inquiry, was the Allen charge and she may have misunderstood the question, which could have been one asking for the procedural process, rather than a declaration of inability to reach an unanimous decision. The Foreman's response of 'shock' of calling a mistrial, prompts this question.

 

[fruity]

7. Experts cannot be compelled to testify, because slavery is illegal in the US.

This isn't a question specifically about this case, but a comment from a friend (while watching this case) reminded me of a question I have regarding witnesses.

My friend had an awful experience after she witnessed a crime. She testified against the person, but said that she would never do so again because of how harrowing the court case was. If she ever (God forbid) witnesses another crime, can she be made to testify? I know that here in Australia they could subpoena you. Is there anything you can do to avoid testifying if you are subpoenaed?

I know that witnesses are very different to experts (I mean, there might be a thousand experts but only one witness), so I suspect I already have my answer, but can you elaborate if you have time?

Thanks!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Between my own life experiences/demands, coupled with the fact that the threads in this case move at a speed that exceeds both light and warp speed from Star Trek combined, making any effort to respond to a particular post feels pretty futile since the threads are at LEAST 100+ posts ahead of the one considered for response before you can even blink I have remained in lurkdom over the course of this marathon trial while reading until my eyes felt like both crossing and bleeding. Of course, trying to make sure I was absolutely current with developments sent me to work with limited sleep on MANY mornings...call it "Arias-Nurmi-Wilmott overload/disease" if you will!! Thankfully, Diet Pepsi and 5 hour energy were designed for JUST such days!

Anyway, as someone whose livelihood is directly tied to the Civil Courts of numerous States (and nope, I'm not an attorney), I did have a question pop up that I would VERY much appreciate AZ lawyer, Morman Attorney (or any other attorney practicing/familiar with Criminal law in that absolutely GLORIOUS State of AZ that I hope to get back to as part of my "bucket list") helping me out with. I was trapped in my car for CMJA's "soliloquy" as well as Juan's Penalty Phase closing...with that said, thank GOD for satellite radio!!!!

Generally, in the Civil arena, ANY Pleading signed and notarized by a Party OR their Counsel (generally Discovery Responses, RTA Responses, factual statements in the form of either an Affidavit or quoted as part of a Motion, as examples) can be introduced as evidence at any point during trial - largely for absolute Impeachment purposes, whether of the witness on the stand OR during Closings (have had a LOT of fun due to this in multiple cases we decided to defend - 99.99% on the strengths of their merits alone).

My question arises from CMJA's soliloquy to the jury, particularly her attempting to "BLAME" the Alexanders and Juan for the "failure" of all of these folks to "settle" the case short of trial, which then "forced her" to not only disrespect the memory of Travis for all to hear, but to approach perjury in her own unsubstantiated accusations that have just pi$$ed most of us off over the course of this trial...ARGH!! In AZ, is there any legal provision or prohibition for Juan to be able to slap that Notorized, signed Motion and its attachments right onto the Elmo for the entire world to see the attempted extortion of CMJA and/or Nurmi to intentionally to blackmail both the Alexander family, along with State, to unleash a smear campaign against the very character of Travis if a plea to Murder 2 with something less that 15 years confinement wasn't proffered???

As always, the above is IMHO, MOO and any or all available disclaimers...

Thanks so much for any insight!!

Westie Mom

If you are familiar with civil court, you will know that settlement offers are not admissible to show liability, because otherwise people would not make settlement offers. It is the same with plea offers in criminal court.

Also, what JA said was not inconsistent with her plea offer. Her position with respect to the plea offer was that, without the plea, she would be forced against her will to trash Travis.

1. Is there a possibility that Judge Stephens would be replaced? She got emotional at the end.
2. Is a the penalty trial short or will it be long and drawn out?
3. Can they change anything like no cameras allowed in the courtroom?

1. No, it is perfectly OK for a judge to be human.
2. It will be long and drawn out this time, because last time a lot of the evidence relevant to the penalty phase had already been presented in the prior phases.
3. Yes, that could be changed this time, or the jury could be sequestered.

By what I have observed, is it possible that JSS may have called a mistrial prematurely?
Her response to an inquiry, was the Allen charge and she may have misunderstood the question, which could have been one asking for the procedural process, rather than a declaration of inability to reach an unanimous decision. The Foreman's response of 'shock' of calling a mistrial, prompts this question.

No, I don't think she called the mistrial prematurely. Even if she misunderstood or overreacted to the first question, the second time there was apparently no confusion that the jury was deadlocked. And they had already heard the "try harder" speech, so there would have been no point in giving it again.

Apparently the foreman just didn't understand the result of a deadlock. Not surprising as it is not mentioned in the jury instructions.

This isn't a question specifically about this case, but a comment from a friend (while watching this case) reminded me of a question I have regarding witnesses.

My friend had an awful experience after she witnessed a crime. She testified against the person, but said that she would never do so again because of how harrowing the court case was. If she ever (God forbid) witnesses another crime, can she be made to testify? I know that here in Australia they could subpoena you. Is there anything you can do to avoid testifying if you are subpoenaed?

I know that witnesses are very different to experts (I mean, there might be a thousand experts but only one witness), so I suspect I already have my answer, but can you elaborate if you have time?

Thanks!!

If you are a fact witness (someone who knows the facts) rather than an expert (someone who has developed an opinion, normally after being paid to do so), then you can't avoid testifying. Even if you are out of "subpoena range," in the US, a special proceeding could be brought in your home state to require you to testify by phone/video conference. If you are out of the country, you might be safe, although perhaps not--I haven't checked if the Hague Convention covers this subject.

 

[fruity]

If you are a fact witness (someone who knows the facts) rather than an expert (someone who has developed an opinion, normally after being paid to do so), then you can't avoid testifying. Even if you are out of "subpoena range," in the US, a special proceeding could be brought in your home state to require you to testify by phone/video conference. If you are out of the country, you might be safe, although perhaps not--I haven't checked if the Hague Convention covers this subject.

Thank you!

Just because it's interesting: my friend had moved to England by the time the court case started, they flew her back to Australia and paid for accommodation for the duration of it. Like I said she was willing to testify for that case, things might be different if someone was very upset and unwilling. Maybe not if they were an important witness.

 

[bettybaby00]

Apparently the foreman just didn't understand the result of a deadlock. Not surprising as it is not mentioned in the jury instructions.

Snipped by me...

I had asked a question earlier relating to whether or not jurors understood what a mistrial in the aggravating and/or penalty phase would mean. I don't think I was very articulate however, as I didn't get a direct answer like above.

I haven't been able to read everything as I went on vacation while jury was still deliberating, and I'm still away so my internet time is limited.

From what I can gather it seems as if jury was under the impression that a hung jury during this phase would, in effect, lob the decision to the judge.

I don't get why this isn't part of the jury instructions? It seems evident that the reality of contemplating the DP for someone is much more difficult than many imagine. thats why I kept wondering whether or not they were informed of what a hung jury would mean, and how much that info would likely effect their decision making process.

Sorry, I'm rambling...my question is why isn't this part of the jury instructions? And can the state inform the jury of something like this?

 

[AZlawyer]

Snipped by me...

I had asked a question earlier relating to whether or not jurors understood what a mistrial in the aggravating and/or penalty phase would mean. I don't think I was very articulate however, as I didn't get a direct answer like above.

I haven't been able to read everything as I went on vacation while jury was still deliberating, and I'm still away so my internet time is limited.

From what I can gather it seems as if jury was under the impression that a hung jury during this phase would, in effect, lob the decision to the judge.

I don't get why this isn't part of the jury instructions? It seems evident that the reality of contemplating the DP for someone is much more difficult than many imagine. thats why I kept wondering whether or not they were informed of what a hung jury would mean, and how much that info would likely effect their decision making process.

Sorry, I'm rambling...my question is why isn't this part of the jury instructions? And can the state inform the jury of something like this?

I think they don't like to put "if you can't agree" in the jury instructions, because it makes them think that's an option. Even the "hung jury" instruction, after they've already indicated they're having trouble agreeing, is worded to suggest that hanging the jury is not an option. But I think this is misleading, and at least at the "hung jury" instruction stage they ought to be told the effect of a hung jury.

 

[ontariolynn]

Living in Canada our Court System is very much different. My question is:

The TV interviews that she gave Thursday night, which were not favorable to Jodi in the least, can they be brought back into court for the new jury to view, just so that they can see her different responses to the media questions, and judge for themselves the type of person that she portrayed once she was on National TV, which certainly did not come across as a person wanting forgiveness, as many of her answers to the questions from the different interviewers were very flippant, and arrogant, and most importantly showed her true character as being very uncaring about others only herself.

I am not talking about wanting the sweater so the TV viewers would not see her jail outfit, or the make up as that only says that she is vain, but her answers out of her own mouth, just hours after her getting up in to plea, if you call it that for the jury not to give her the DP.

Thank you

Lynda from Ontario

 

[bparsons]

do you know where the link is to see the actual document ... MOTION TO DISMISS STATES NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY.

 

[westie mom]

If you are familiar with civil court, you will know that settlement offers are not admissible to show liability, because otherwise people would not make settlement offers. It is the same with plea offers in criminal court.

Also, what JA said was not inconsistent with her plea offer. Her position with respect to the plea offer was that, without the plea, she would be forced against her will to trash Travis.


Thanks so much for the reply and insight!! I guess civil settlement offers/negotiations are handled a bit differently out there, as in all of the Jurisdictions I've had cases in, the only time there is a Court filing is AFTER all sides have agreed to the terms of the settlement and the final terms are approved by the Court, particularly if minor children are involved. With this being a formal Motion with an attached Affidavit from CMJA, I wondered if that might be a bit different and more useful to showing the depth of her sociopathy/psychopathy to the new jury.

Have a great Holiday weekend! And thanks again for always being so helpful when legal questions arise,

Westie Mom

 

[dcsmyth1]

Re: the "rose colored glasses" video. Watching that, and assuming that the narrator was accurate (i.e., did not have an ulterior motive for making it sound worse than it is), why was Arias not aware of the realities of life in max M1 Perryville prison, so that she could make an informed decision about whether the DP (no appeals, please) might actually be preferable or easier?

The prison official in the video seemed surprised that Arias' lawyers have not told her the truth about LWOP. Maybe they did that to keep up her spirits or whatever. But if they kept that info from her deliberately, is that a ground for some type of appeal for inadequate counsel?