Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

Status
Not open for further replies.

Donatella

New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Could the matter with ALV have something to do with the $$ that she has billed to the state. She did mention on the stand twice that she visited JA while she was in town for her daughter's wedding. Did she bill the state for those travel expenses?
 

ClosArgs

New Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
699
Reaction score
0
You can prep a witness as far as demeanor and preparing them for cross. You just can't tell them what to say. You can let them know that their phrasing or tone could be interpreted in a way they don't want.

I will practice questions with mine - cross them do they know what it will be like. I tell them exactly how to dress and how to not get frazzled or defensive. Someone should have done that more with Laviolette.

Thanks gitana1, you make it easier to understand.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Could the matter with ALV have something to do with the $$ that she has billed to the state. She did mention on the stand twice that she visited JA while she was in town for her daughter's wedding. Did she bill the state for those travel expenses?

No, I don't think it would have been a problem if she did.
 

womblek

New Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
I posted on the general questions thread and got no response, so I'm moving my question here because I really want to know. I hope you all can help me. First of all, I should make it clear that I believe JA is guilty of 1st degree felony murder and I believe the State has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt (yes, I have formed my opinion without hearing all the evidence). Here's my question:
When did the "battered woman" (self defense) defense first appear in this case? On 4/11/13, during her time on the stand answering juror questions, ALV stated that when she first met her JA spoke very positively about Travis and "didn't want to think of herself" as a battered woman. I believe ALV first met JA in November 2011. I just can't form a complete understanding about where the battered woman defense came from in this case. Can anybody answer that for me?
As a follow up, my understanding of cases in which the battered woman defense has been successful involved horrific on-going abuse in relationships that is more in line with the classic dominating abuser who has succeeded in isolating his partner and working over time to make the woman completely dependent on him. The women in such situations kill out of desperation and fear for their lives. This is clearly not the case here so it seems to me that the battered woman defense, even if the incidents of violence that JA now reports did occur, is not applicable. The defense hasn't put forth evidence to support total domination by Travis and JA being or feeling trapped in the relationship. The only testimony that JA feared for her life was JA's own and there are clearly secondary gains associated with her saying so (not to mention that she drove 1000 miles, and worked diligently to cover her tracks before and after, to put herself in that "life threatening" situation). Have I missed other testimony that supports those claims? TIA for any feedback.
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
I posted on the general questions thread and got no response, so I'm moving my question here because I really want to know. I hope you all can help me. First of all, I should make it clear that I believe JA is guilty of 1st degree felony murder and I believe the State has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt (yes, I have formed my opinion without hearing all the evidence). Here's my question:
When did the "battered woman" (self defense) defense first appear in this case? On 4/11/13, during her time on the stand answering juror questions, ALV stated that when she first met her JA spoke very positively about Travis and "didn't want to think of herself" as a battered woman. I believe ALV first met JA in November 2011. I just can't form a complete understanding about where the battered woman defense came from in this case. Can anybody answer that for me?
As a follow up, my understanding of cases in which the battered woman defense has been successful involved horrific on-going abuse in relationships that is more in line with the classic dominating abuser who has succeeded in isolating his partner and working over time to make the woman completely dependent on him. The women in such situations kill out of desperation and fear for their lives. This is clearly not the case here so it seems to me that the battered woman defense, even if the incidents of violence that JA now reports did occur, is not applicable. The defense hasn't put forth evidence to support total domination by Travis and JA being or feeling trapped in the relationship. The only testimony that JA feared for her life was JA's own and there are clearly secondary gains associated with her saying so (not to mention that she drove 1000 miles, and worked diligently to cover her tracks before and after, to put herself in that "life threatening" situation). Have I missed other testimony that supports those claims? TIA for any feedback.

I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.

In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.

All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.
 

judy828

New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a couple of questions...

IF the prosecution receives new evidence in this case.. can he (if the judge allows it) come off of the rest and continue?

I see where they are listening to something in the judges chambers. Would it be just the attorneys and judge present listening or would Jodi be allowed in there to listen to it as well?

I hope I get this answer before court resumes. Thanks in advance!!
Where do I ask a general question about the trial?
 

womblek

New Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.

In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.

All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.

Wow AZlawyer you are amazing! Thank you for your clear and concise response. You have a great talent in the use of the written word. I bet you talk real good too:thumb:
 

sourgrapes

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
470
Reaction score
9
(...snipped for space)

In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.

All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.

So, was the DT expecting ALV to give this "point of view"? How is the jury expected to know what another person in a similar DV relationship would act?

Is this why ALV kept going to real-life examples and commenting on other victims in her care?

This is interesting. I've never considered that under these conditions, it is not what an 'average' person would do; rather it is what a person under the same circumstances would do.

Is this considered case law? Will the DT need to find similar cases to give precedence? I'm so confused.:waitasec:
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
445
Reaction score
1
Some Questions here:
  1. Could JA be charged yet with -- Obstruction of Justice???
  2. Could JA be charged yet with -- Undignified Remains of a numan Body???
  3. Could JA be charged by the family -- A wrongful Death suit???
  4. Does AZ have a Victims Fund also for Travis family?
  5. Could anyone in her family be charged with "Knowing Assistance/Breach of Fiduciary Duty" by at all??? Because Parents do have a responsibility to kids, what about Adult children -- IF they suspect mental problems and do not try to intervene or get help for them. Is this possible, as in the Police tape they (parents) admit she has problems -- but did they try to do anything. Maybe if they did, TA could be alive. Just a thought....



Just wondering with all her lies to the Police and also the fact that she left his body to decompose after killing him ( AND ) due to the fact that she IS claiming Self-defense @ Trial, so she could have called right away to the Police and his remains handled in a timely matter.

Even if she has NO money, a wrongful death suit to make sure SHE NEVER profits at all -- and if she does -- that goes to TA family?? After all she could have some insurance somewhere and she should never have a penny in any matter at all.

Thanks in Advance (TIA)
 

trouts2

New Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gitana1
Minor4th
Mormon Attorney
Azlawyer

Thank you for your patience and time for answering questions.

David Kirkpatrick
 

connie9030

New Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Given the fact that Jodi put Travis back in the shower after the killing and washed him off, does the state believe she planned to kill him in the shower all along? I have read comments suggesting she killed him in the shower because it made him more vulnerable but if you have a gun you can walk up to a person anywhere and put a bullet in their head without them seeing it coming. Has anyone discussed the possibility of there being another reason for killing him in the shower? i.e. all the blood goes down the drain therefore a cleaner crime scene. I think washing him off was in her plan too, to rid him of any of her DNA, but wonder if the main reason was to simply contain and get rid of the blood through the shower drain. Any talk of that concept?
 

Spellbound

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
19,026
Reaction score
37,219
I am troubled by ALV's testimony for only one reason:

If Alyce LaViolette were to be charged with (and found guilty of) purgery on the stand, can all her testimony be tossed out? If that were to happen, could Jodi file for ineffective assistance of counsel?

Thanks in advance!
 

Love Never Fails

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
10,877
Reaction score
60,098
I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.

In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.

All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.

This thread is the best because of the legal minds answering questions here. As observers we tend to get emotional and see and hear a lot of things jurors can't see. From jurors questions, they appear really on the ball. So to come to this thread and get a clear cut answer is very calming. I suffered from DV during my first marriage, so posting as a potential juror, I haven't believed a word from Jodi's mouth or the expert witnesses. Thanks to all attorneys posting here for cutting through the bull, if you will, and telling us what the law actually states. Kudos to all of you!
 

deb2e

New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
az lawyer..can the hearing be about alv notes where she wrote jodi told her knive on night stand and shot in the closet ,because didnt the pros. have to fight for her notes..so wouldnt it be like a confession and should have been turned over...jm couldnt cross exam ja on another version because he didnt have her notes
 

carnnell

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
626
Reaction score
0
Howdy legal minds

I am curious. Since ALV was less than honest on her CV as her evidence toward her expertise, could JM argue (vigorously) to disqualify her as an expert and argue to have all or part of her testimony thrown out? (wishful thinking)?
 

deb2e

New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
thank you az lawyer for all the time you take to answer questions...couldnt the defense be in trouble because alv notes has what jodi told her about the actual crime (knife on the night stand and shot in the closet) and alv said these things in jm deposition and in testamony in a closed door hearing. the pros. had to fight according to minutes for these notes defense fought to keep them out. if jm didnt have alv notes stating another version of the crime ,and jm wasnt able to cross jodi on them isnt that wrong .the defense tried to pull a fast one
 

zoozoo

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.

In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.

All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.

BBM I am NOT an attorney - hope it is ok to reply on this thread!
I just looked back at a timeline that a websleuther put together. With that in mind and (IIRC) the fact that Samuels testified he tested/evaluated JA starting at end of 2009, beginning of 2010, here is one scenario LOOSELY CONSTRUCTED AND MOO as to the evolution of the defense strategy.
1) 2008 up to meeting Samuels, JA continues with Ninja story;
2) Many months meeting with Samuels and Nurmi, JA elaborates on the nature of the sexual relationship, how she was "used", and JA starts to understand Nurmi's specialty in defending accused sex offenders. She begins to see the advantage of TA being portrayed as a "sex offender".
3) Sometime spring 2010, Nurmi and Samuels able to convince JA NInjas are not going to fly; she comes up with pedophilia story and is hoping she can connect TA's fear she would expose him to stories that he escalated abusing her (in her testimony several times she made a point to stress that SHE connected her supposed catching him with little boy pics to his increasing anger and "abuse") to the point that his crazy rage at camera dropping and her over-the-top self-defense claim would be justified. She starts cooking up fake pedophilia letters.
4) At some point (JA claims about one and a half years after MAY 2008 when she "lost" the phone with the phone sex recording on it) DT realizes there is a phone sex tape and convinces JA it will help with pedo and abuse claim. Phone is "found" by the aunt in the grandpa's car.
5) Summer 2010 she springs fake pedo letters on Nurmi et al. - they balk and say they can't fight to get them admitted because they know they are false. JA takes over as her own attorney and tries to get fake letters admitted. Once denied, she ask her lawyers be reinstated.
6) JA and counsel realize they need more DV to explain TA's claimed excessive rage at camera dropping and JA's response with overkill because pedo letters are out. ALV enters the picture in 2011. Another DV expert had bowed out by this time, so the DV aspect of the story was probably being developed well before fall 2011 when ALV first met with JA.
7) At first JA has trouble figuring out what sort of abuse events she is supposed to manufacture re: TA, but ALV is able to coax her along over their 44 hours of meetings. (Don't know how much interaction the first DV expert had with JA, or other potential DV experts, if any, who later declined the case had with her, but she could have gleaned important guideposts for DV claim from her meetings with them - sociopaths are good at that type of "gleaning".)
8) And here we are today.

This is way longer than I thought it would be. Please feel free to remove or move this to another thread if it does not belong here.
 

polleypockets

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
2
TH's on hln are saying in the penalty phase the jury has to find 100% for the death penalty, and if the the jury is hung during the penalty phase the prosecution can empanel a new jury for just the penalty phase, is this true? and if it is how does that work if every one is watching the media coverage and know all the things that were not allowed into evidence?

eta: btw az lawyer, that whole story about alyce coming back for an "impeachement and perjury trial" on tuesday is taking off all over the internet now and every one thinks its true - its crazy
 

zoozoo

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
Thank you all attorneys for your answers to legal questions.
What qualifies as a "justification defense"? On one timeline, I read that JA filed her intention to "assert justification defenses" in June 1010. Could that include a "heat of passion" type defense (IIRC, AZ doesn't actually call it "heat of passion") or would it only refer to "self-defense"? Are there other "justification defenses"? Insanity?
 

polleypockets

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
2
sorry 1 more question, it looks like the DT kept a lot of relevant info from alyce that may have effected her assessment and diagnosis, could this cause an appeal for jodi, and can alyce actually sue over this for damages?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top