Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[shiloh42]

No one can ever predict a jury's behavior which is why I wish the talking heads on HLN et al would just STFU and be quiet and well mannered. But that's a useless wish. Oh well.

I have a question for the lawyers, OT: back in the CA case, the defense made heinous allegations against CA's father in the opening statements, which I don't think were never followed up with any evidence. Could CA's father have sued the attorney for slander? Or is the attorney protected in some way?

 

[AZlawyer]

No one can ever predict a jury's behavior which is why I wish the talking heads on HLN et al would just STFU and be quiet and well mannered. But that's a useless wish. Oh well.

I have a question for the lawyers, OT: back in the CA case, the defense made heinous allegations against CA's father in the opening statements, which I don't think were never followed up with any evidence. Could CA's father have sued the attorney for slander? Or is the attorney protected in some way?

Those statements were protected by an absolute privilege connected with in-court allegations. George could not sue for them.

 

[Frigga]

AZ, I have never watched the death penalty determination phase of a trial. I understand the order it goes in but I am unsure how each phase progresses; ie is there testimony and cross... that sort of thing. Can you help by a brief explanation. TIA and sorry if this has already been discussed~ Frigga

 

[BearAngel]

1. I sure hope they aren't considering that. First of all, there was definitely testimony that the gunshot would have killed him if he weren't already dead. Second, JA admitted on the stand that she was the person who stabbed Travis, although she didn't specifically remember doing it due to the "fog." Third, she did not "confess"--telling a false story to cover up your true involvement in a killing is hardly a confession.

2. The entire case is not based on the ME's report, but what do you mean "does that remove the evidence that was associated with it"? I don't understand the question.

The ME said that there were 3 different fatal wounds--the gunshot, the slit throat, and the stab to the heart--and I don't believe the defense disagreed with any of those conclusions.

Thank you...this was a coffee break conversation...but gave me pause, so I asked....the idea behind the question was basically, can you kill someone who is already dead? In other words, if the knife wounds were the COD, then would Jodi (albeit in a convenient fog) be considered to have knowingly killed him...we were discussing insanity. :blushing:

The ME (handsome one) made an error, and I personally like case law, so that is why that was brought up...Lord knows there is enough corroborating evidence, so as to not change the outcome, but we could not find a precedent case on the ME typo error. :facepalm:
Thank you for answering. I appreciate it so very much.

 

[swan366]

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and ask....what happens if the jury is hung? How long is it before they are considered hopelessly deadlocked? Would Jodi stay in jail until the next trial unless there's a plea, and when the next trial be? (Would she eligible for bail?)

(I will not be surprised if the jury comes back with an M1 verdict two minutes after I ask this, just to punish me for my negative thinking.)

 

[Prebeccal]

Does the jury have transcripts of the testimony they were present for?

 

[Sign]

Hi again AZlawyer,

1) Can you please clarify how a jury or foreman reaches a hung jury conclusion? Is there a prescribed, or typical, time-frame or number of ballots before such a decision is reached, and how is this communicated to the judge?

2) What are the judges options if the jury hangs? I have heard that if there is, for example, one hold-out juror, this juror can be replaced with an alternate? Is this true? It sounds too bizarre to be true, and seems completely at odds with the reasons behind a random draw of final jurors in the first place.

3) I'm having a little difficulty trying to express this next question so I hope you can bear with me... What I'm trying to ascertain is whether jurors, in filling out their ballots, are being asked to weigh the innocence or guilt of the defendant in terms of the State's case/hypothesis, or in terms of their 'own' evaluations of all the evidence. For example, could a juror disagree with fundamental claims by the State (e.g. gunshot last) and still find JA guilty of M1? If so, and I assume it is so, the more important question becomes, based on your experience, how likely do you think the risk is that a juror(s) will misunderstand their duty, such that they may say "well, I don't buy the gunshot last, that would make it look more like a heat of passion, so I'm going to say Murder 2?", WITHOUT trying to determine 'for themselves' what occurred, and assign guilt accordingly. This issue goes to the heart of my concerns since closing arguments by Nurmi. I feel that he muddied the waters and poked real holes in the State's version of events. I realize as you've said previously that JM was not there to prove exactly how things went down, only that there was intention and premeditation. However, unfortunately IMO, JM DID argue steadfastly that the gunshot was last, and this to me is close to impossible. If I'm a juror, I'm arguing strongly that while the State's sequencing was wrong, JA is absolutely guilty of M1. But I'm not a juror, so I'm just nervous... Sorry for rambling, I guess my question boils down to a) is the duty of the juror to determine guilt or innocence based on their own assessment of the evidence, versus determining whether they accept the State's version of events, and b) how often do jurors misunderstand this duty? I hope this inquiry makes sense

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi again AZlawyer,

1) Can you please clarify how a jury or foreman reaches a hung jury conclusion? Is there a prescribed, or typical, time-frame or number of ballots before such a decision is reached, and how is this communicated to the judge?

2) What are the judges options if the jury hangs? I have heard that if there is, for example, one hold-out juror, this juror can be replaced with an alternate? Is this true? It sounds too bizarre to be true, and seems completely at odds with the reasons behind a random draw of final jurors in the first place.

3) I'm having a little difficulty trying to express this next question so I hope you can bear with me... What I'm trying to ascertain is whether jurors, in filling out their ballots, are being asked to weigh the innocence or guilt of the defendant in terms of the State's case/hypothesis, or in terms of their 'own' evaluations of all the evidence. For example, could a juror disagree with fundamental claims by the State (e.g. gunshot last) and still find JA guilty of M1? If so, and I assume it is so, the more important question becomes, based on your experience, how likely do you think the risk is that a juror(s) will misunderstand their duty, such that they may say "well, I don't buy the gunshot last, that would make it look more like a heat of passion, so I'm going to say Murder 2?", WITHOUT trying to determine 'for themselves' what occurred, and assign guilt accordingly. This issue goes to the heart of my concerns since closing arguments by Nurmi. I feel that he muddied the waters and poked real holes in the State's version of events. I realize as you've said previously that JM was not there to prove exactly how things went down, only that there was intention and premeditation. However, unfortunately IMO, JM DID argue steadfastly that the gunshot was last, and this to me is close to impossible. If I'm a juror, I'm arguing strongly that while the State's sequencing was wrong, JA is absolutely guilty of M1. But I'm not a juror, so I'm just nervous... Sorry for rambling, I guess my question boils down to a) is the duty of the juror to determine guilt or innocence based on their own assessment of the evidence, versus determining whether they accept the State's version of events, and b) how often do jurors misunderstand this duty? I hope this inquiry makes sense

1) There is no typical time frame or number of ballots before a jury is "hung." The jury reports to the judge that they are hopelessly deadlocked. Normally the judge tells them to go back and try harder , but eventually the judge will have to accept the jury's inability to reach a verdict.

2) No, the judge cannot toss out the "holdouts"!

3) Yes, it is the duty of the jurors to determine guilt or innocence based on the jury instructions, not based on whether or not they think the prosecutor got all the details right. And yes, lots of jurors misunderstand this. Hopefully, if some jurors misunderstand, others will not and will explain the instructions.

 

[AZlawyer]

Does the jury have transcripts of the testimony they were present for?

No, they don't have any transcripts.

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and ask....what happens if the jury is hung? How long is it before they are considered hopelessly deadlocked? Would Jodi stay in jail until the next trial unless there's a plea, and when the next trial be? (Would she eligible for bail?)

(I will not be surprised if the jury comes back with an M1 verdict two minutes after I ask this, just to punish me for my negative thinking.)

They are considered hopelessly deadlocked whenever they really are hopelessly deadlocked--there is no time limit. Jodi would stay in jail, yes.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, I have never watched the death penalty determination phase of a trial. I understand the order it goes in but I am unsure how each phase progresses; ie is there testimony and cross... that sort of thing. Can you help by a brief explanation. TIA and sorry if this has already been discussed~ Frigga

Each phase is a mini-trial, with testimony, cross-examination, rebuttal, arguments...you get the drift. But I have explained it in more detail somewhere in the last few pages.

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

Does anyone know if Det. Flores' Investigation Report (attached) has been submitted into evidence? http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/floresinvestigationreport.pdf

Thanks in advance! :tyou:

 

[rachelle]

My question is about AFTER she is convicted and sentenced: Ok, it's two parts really; first part is can someone appeal a verdict if they are sentenced to death? And would they be appealing the death sentence, or the guilty verdict? Or both? Also, who has to pay for an appeal? The defendant? Or is it paid for by the state, like her lawyers are?

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Does anyone know if Det. Flores' Investigation Report (attached) has been submitted into evidence? http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/floresinvestigationreport.pdf

Thanks in advance! :tyou:

I doubt it. Normally, those are kept out as hearsay--the prosecution needs to actually present the evidence, not just the detective's recitation of the evidence.

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is about AFTER she is convicted and sentenced: Ok, it's two parts really; first part is can someone appeal a verdict if they are sentenced to death? And would they be appealing the death sentence, or the guilty verdict? Or both? Also, who has to pay for an appeal? The defendant? Or is it paid for by the state, like her lawyers are?

TIA

The appeal, which would be automatic in the case of a death sentence, would cover both the verdict of guilt and the death sentence. The appeal is paid for by the state.

 

[Katie-L]

First THANK YOU AZ LAWYER for answering all my mundane questions. Really appreciated.

I do have another. This one has been bothering me for awhile now and I can't find an answer to it elsewhere.

Regarding the "felony murder" charge:-

Throughout the trial I was under the impression that evidence would be presented regarding a claim of "murder while in the commission of a crime" (that I figured would be the robbery of Arias' grandparents home and the taking of the gun).

No such evidence was ever discussed or referenced. A copy of the police report was posted on this site (on another thread), showing that the case was closed due to lack of evidence. So I'm assuming there are no suspects, nor persons of interest.

So I naively concluded that this charge would not be part of the final instructions.

It was.

In Martinez' closing, he made a very brief reference to that charge - but his claim made no sense to me. If I understood it correctly, the state is claiming that Arias killed Travis Alexander 2 additional times - while killing him - so it was actually 3 crimes - two of which were committed in the process of committing the first.

I've never heard anything like that before. Reasoning says that if you kill someone - they are dead. You can't kill them again. You can commit additional crimes on the body - but can't commit the crime of murder on the same person more than once.

Does this charge make sense to you? Can you shed any light on it at all?

Thanks so much.

 

[rachelle]

Since a verdict has now been reached, when it gets to the mitigating phase, will there be other evidence presented that was NOT presented in trial? If so, what kind of evidence might that be? In other words, is there evidence, whether presented by the state OR defense, that is only used in case of the mitigating part? Hope you understand what I'm trying to ask lol.

 

[AmmoCat]

Quick question. I stumbled across this while Googling jury deliberation time as a result of a discrepancy in different reports regarding the time the Andriano jurors took to convict in the first phase (R v Black clarified the discrepancies) but I didn't see reference to this in the jury instructions in this case. Did I miss something, or are there additional instructions as well? Thanks to all of you for the answers that you have been providing.

 

[AZlawyer]

Quick question. I stumbled across this while Googling jury deliberation time as a result of a discrepancy in different reports regarding the time the Andriano jurors took to convict in the first phase (R v Black clarified the discrepancies) but I didn't see reference to this in the jury instructions in this case. Did I miss something, or are there additional instructions as well? Thanks to all of you for the answers that you have been providing.

That case is from England. It would not have any bearing upon an Arizona proceeding.

 

[AZlawyer]

Since a verdict has now been reached, when it gets to the mitigating phase, will there be other evidence presented that was NOT presented in trial? If so, what kind of evidence might that be? In other words, is there evidence, whether presented by the state OR defense, that is only used in case of the mitigating part? Hope you understand what I'm trying to ask lol.

Yes. First there will be an aggravation phase for the state to prove "cruelty." There will be some but not much evidence in that phase, and we've heard most of it before (Travis was conscious for a period of time during the attack, he was in a standing position at the sink losing blood, he had defensive wounds on his hands, etc.). There might be more detail about some of these things, but it won't really be new. The defense might bring in new evidence to challenge the cruelty conclusion, though.

Then, in the mitigation phase, it will be like a free-for-all presentation of a lot of new "evidence" that will send most WS'ers into apoplectic fits. The rules of evidence will be...um...sparingly applied. You will hear everything good about Jodi that can be imagined, from anyone willing to say it. We may need a new "legal questions" thread for that phase lol.