Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Melanie]

Is it an option for JA to get a sentence of 25 years as in the Susan Wright case -- who stabbed her husband 193 times? Her sentence was later reduced to 20.

Is this case the DP or LWOP as the only options?

Thanks so much,

Melanie

 

[tinkabella]

Can new discovery be made during the trial? jodi claims travis broke her finger, can martinez get an X-ray to check out if her finger was broken 15 years ago? or if its the result of tendon damage from killing travis? Can new evidence be presented by the prosecution at this point in trial?

 

[gitana1]

Can new discovery be made during the trial? jodi claims travis broke her finger, can martinez get an X-ray to check out if her finger was broken 15 years ago? or if its the result of tendon damage from killing travis? Can new evidence be presented by the prosecution at this point in trial?

New evidence can be presented and new discovery can conducted if something cones out during trial that one side was unaware of that needs to be explored.

 

[Morning Glory]

The recorded phone call today was quite controversial and afterwords many are surprised that it was a defense exhibit. Is it possible that the defense did not believe the call would be played in it's entirety?

 

[gitana1]

The recorded phone call today was quite controversial and afterwords many are surprised that it was a defense exhibit. Is it possible that the defense did not believe the call would be played in it's entirety?

They knew that eventually, the whole thing would be played. You can't offer part of evidence without the other side being able to offer the rest if the evidence that provides context. But instead of playing a snip and then forcing the prosecution to play the whole thing during rebuttal, which would make it look like the defense was hiding something and playing games, the defense played the whole thing.

My feeling is either Jodi insisted on this evidence being offered against advice of counsel or the defense is just grasping at straws because their case is so very thin.

I thought they were convincing people until they introduced the tape, though. One other possibility: perhaps the prosecution intended to introducd it in rebuttal to prove what we heard- that Jodi was a willing participant. So they felt they had to present it first to frame it differently. If so, it didn't work.

 

[AZlawyer]

Im sure this has been answered but I can't go all the way back through the threads. Regarding the taped phone call, If Jodi was in california recording this call and travis was in Arizona, how would the call be allowed in when both states have different law on recording calls? Which state wins out on this and is this legal?

There would be (and presumably was) briefing and argument on this "choice of law" issue. AZ law would apply, but AZ law (and the law of all other states) sometimes provides for "borrowing" another state's law for certain issues. So AZ law might say for this one issue we need to use CA law. But there probably is not any single "right on point" case that gives the answer to this one--most likely both sides came up with case law and made arguments and the judge had to make a decision.

If Travis was in AZ, the judge might have decided it was fair to apply AZ law, as an AZ citizen would reasonably expect that someone could record them without their knowledge.

Is there a time limit on victim impact statements? Is there a limit on the # of people allowed to make statements?

There is no time limit, but the judge would be allowed to impose a reasonable time limit if there were a filibuster.

There is no limit on the number of people that I'm aware of--I think just on the relationships of the people to the victim (parent, child, spouse).

Is it an option for JA to get a sentence of 25 years as in the Susan Wright case -- who stabbed her husband 193 times? Her sentence was later reduced to 20.

Is this case the DP or LWOP as the only options?

Thanks so much,

Melanie

I haven't seen the charges, but there should be lesser included offenses that would permit other sentences.

 

[Zeno49]

With respect to the self defense claim in this trial:

I believe that the standard criminal law texts talk about 1) duty to retreat (Florida I believe has a “stand your ground” statute) 2) use of force that correlates with the threat 3) evidence that injury death etc are imminent.

So. . . .
IF a menacing person A approaches a victim B by walking and the victim B had wide latitude to retreat then B cannot shoot or knife A. B would be justified only if A ran caught B and then proceeded to attack B.
IF A assaulted B with a bat then could B pull out a gun and shoot A??
OR IF A yelled and grabbed B (and A had no weapon) then B cannot pull out a gun and shoot A.
IF A yelled screamed and remonstrated at B then B cannot reasonably claim that B was in imminent danger and B “thinking” A was homicidal cannot pull out a gun and shoot A

AND THEN
IF TA were naked and also angry at JA to the extent he exited the shower stall to
1) Yell and scream at JA ------ then JA cannot kill in self defense
2) Grabbed JA by the wrist and shook JA----- then JA cannot shoot or knife in self defense
3) Grabbed JA by the neck and proceeded to choke her - then JA – assuming she could not extricate herself – could use lethal force against TA.

It seems to me that a JA self defense to be plausible would have to show evidence of “violent struggle” and also some kind of wound inflicted by TA and the wound really would have to be bruises around her neck. She cannot claim that TA was violent “as if” he wanted to kill JA and thus she had to kill TA.
It also will not do to simply rely on JA’s perceptions of danger. She could claim that TA was homicidal simply if TA raised his hand with a clinched fist.

The major problem JA will have in pursuit of the self defense is to justify all the knife wounds in front and back the near decapitation injury and the shot to the head as was NECESSARY to save JA’s life.

To justify this massive set of injuries one would have to imagine JA was fighting with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the TERMINATOR. The Terminator despite all the injuries inflicted “just kept coming”.
The second problem in JA self defense is why JA is dragging a corpse back into the bathroom.

Please advise.

 

[GulfCoastMom]

One of the WB posters, earlier today, someone stated something to the affect that the defense counsel may not even go into the actual killing in order to keep the Prosecutor from being able to question Jodi about it. I know they were just posting their thoughts, but that has weighed on my mind. Is that even possible?

 

[Nova]

Zeno, while you are waiting for a professional opinion, let me share my experience as a juror in a California self-defense/murder case. (CA, btw, has no duty to retreat.)

The self-defense claim was based entirely on testimony by the defendant and his best friend that the victim, in the midst of a drunken ramble, said, "I'm gonna put a cap in somebody's *advertiser censored*." (The claim failed, eventually, because there were many other witnesses, none of whom heard the alleged remark. Also, we had trouble believing that the defendant charged the victim with a knife because he believed the victim had a gun.)

So while there are instructions re appropriate levels of response, in my experience the Court gives quite a bit of latitude to a defendant who claims he believed his life was in danger.

 

[elizabethie]

if voir dire means this: Voir dire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States and Canada, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court. As defined by Gordon P. Cleary: "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."[4] As noted above, in the United States (especially in practice under the Federal Rules of Evidence), voir dire can also refer to examination of the background of a witness to assess their qualification or fitness to give testimony on a given subject.[5]

how does this apply to Juan-derful's use of this challenge against JA about the e-mail threesome between Abe/Travis/Jodi?

 

[minor4th]

One of the WB posters, earlier today, someone stated something to the affect that the defense counsel may not even go into the actual killing in order to keep the Prosecutor from being able to question Jodi about it. I know they were just posting their thoughts, but that has weighed on my mind. Is that even possible?

No, it's not possible to keep the prosecutor from asking about the murder. The defense will have to question the defendant about it in order elicit any self-defense evidence. So far, Jodi has testified that she killed Travis and that she did it because he attacked her and she had to defend herself. If that's all she says about it, that's enough for the prosecutor to question her about the circumstances.

 

[minor4th]

if voir dire means this: Voir dire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



how does this apply to Juan-derful's use of this challenge against JA about the e-mail threesome between Abe/Travis/Jodi?

If the defense has failed to lay the proper foundation and authentication for admission of documentary evidence, such as the email, the prosecutor can take the witness on voir dire to challenge the reliability of the evidence or to establish the reliability or foundation for the evidence. Voir dire is available during the other case's side because it is directly related to the admissibility of the evidence in question.

I can't remember exactly the circumstances in this instance with Juan, but I think Jodi testified that she sent the email to Abe and forwarded it to Travis, but on its face, it appeared the email was sent directly to Travis and was not addressed to Abe. That's enough to call into question the authenticity or reliability of the evidence before it is admitted.

 

[Lupie43]

When the prosecution starts its cross on JA can both defense attorneys object @ the same time?

I know when JM shocked the courtroom with the photo of TA, both defense attnys jumped up @ the same time. I realize a lot of this is the potential affect on the jury.

Do you think the judge will instruct only one attny can object? Assuming Mr. Nurmi would be the one since he dealt with JA's testimony.

Thanks in advance.

 

[AZlawyer]

When the prosecution starts its cross on JA can both defense attorneys object @ the same time?

I know when JM shocked the courtroom with the photo of TA, both defense attnys jumped up @ the same time. I realize a lot of this is the potential affect on the jury.

Do you think the judge will instruct only one attny can object? Assuming Mr. Nurmi would be the one since he dealt with JA's testimony.

Thanks in advance.

Normally the judges in Maricopa County Superior Court follow the "one lawyer per witness" rule, which means objections on cross are given by the attorney who did the direct.

BUT but but but if the other defense attorney jumps up and says something that is actually a good objection I guarantee the judge will grant it rather than creating an appeal issue. And sometimes the judges are a little "loose" about the rule as long as the courtroom is still in good control and everything is flowing along well. Like if one attorney is prepared to argue a particularly complicated evidentiary issue at a sidebar during cross, has the case law at her fingertips, etc., but didn't do the direct, probably no one would even mention it.

 

[minor4th]

AZLawyer - so glad you're here to give specific Arizona legal info.

 

[princesspjs]

Can new discovery be made during the trial? jodi claims travis broke her finger, can martinez get an X-ray to check out if her finger was broken 15 years ago? or if its the result of tendon damage from killing travis? Can new evidence be presented by the prosecution at this point in trial?

New evidence can be presented and new discovery can conducted if something cones out during trial that one side was unaware of that needs to be explored.

What would the prosecutor need to do in order to have Jodi submit to an x-ray on her finger? Would he need to submit some sort of request to the judge and then wait on a ruling or could he get an x-ray tech to roll a portable unit into the courtroom while he's cross examining her? (Oh how I'm hoping for the latter... that would be priceless!)

AZLawyer - so glad you're here to give specific Arizona legal info.

I agree! Thank you to both of you for all of your guidance. :bow:

 

[princesspjs]

One of the WB posters, earlier today, someone stated something to the affect that the defense counsel may not even go into the actual killing in order to keep the Prosecutor from being able to question Jodi about it. I know they were just posting their thoughts, but that has weighed on my mind. Is that even possible?

No, it's not possible to keep the prosecutor from asking about the murder. The defense will have to question the defendant about it in order elicit any self-defense evidence. So far, Jodi has testified that she killed Travis and that she did it because he attacked her and she had to defend herself. If that's all she says about it, that's enough for the prosecutor to question her about the circumstances.

Will Jodi *have* to answer any question that is asked of her? What if she refuses? Is Jodi able to plead the 5th during the cross examination or do we only see that in the movies or when Gus is on the stand?

 

[minor4th]

Will Jodi *have* to answer any question that is asked of her? What if she refuses? Is Jodi able to plead the 5th during the cross examination or do we only see that in the movies or when Gus is on the stand?

She will have to answer the question and cannot plead the 5th on cross examination. She has waived her 5th amendment privilege by testifying. If she refuses to answer the judge will order her to answer.

 

[AZlawyer]

What would the prosecutor need to do in order to have Jodi submit to an x-ray on her finger? Would he need to submit some sort of request to the judge and then wait on a ruling or could he get an x-ray tech to roll a portable unit into the courtroom while he's cross examining her? (Oh how I'm hoping for the latter... that would be priceless!)


I agree! Thank you to both of you for all of your guidance. :bow:

He would have to make a motion, but at this stage of the proceedings it could be an oral motion made, argued, and ruled upon all at once. It definitely would not be done during cross or before the jury.

 

[lmkag96]

I have so many questions...but here are a few:

(1) Why can't the forged letters be introduced? Why have they been "ruled to be excluded"? Aren't they evidence?

(2) Will the jury see the interrigation videos in which she initially claimes intruders killed Travis? If not, why?

(3) Why is the jury prevented from knowing JA has been in jail for the last 4 years?

(4) How can she make allegations against Travis when he is not here to defend himself? Is it because she is on the stand and can say whatever she wants?

Thanks for answering all of our questions!