Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Hi - have a question please for our legal experts-

Can you please explain what the numbers mean when you see a case citation such as this ?

State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, ¶76, 161 P.3d 540 (2007).

It means, to find the 2007 opinion given by the Arizona Supreme Court about the appeal on this case, you would go to volume 215 of the Arizona reporter books, page 497 -- or volume 161 of the third set of Pacific reporter books, page 540. The specific cite you listed is to paragraph 76 of the opinion (recent opinions contain paragraph numbers--older ones don't).

In reality, of course, no one buys these books any more except big firms and law libraries. The rest of us would just type "161 P.3d 540" into the "find" box on Westlaw.

thank you for answering our questions ..after it is all over will the closed door meetings and sealed stuff be released?

Not automatically. The judge would have to release them, and she probably won't unless someone from the media hires an attorney (Dave Bodney most likely) to pursue the issue.

I have a question about that too. The juror said he's the one who asked Samuels the "bad haircut" question, and he said he did it to make a point. Could that be an issue, asking a question to make a statement instead of getting information?

In general, I have wondered about the tension between allowing juror questions and the admonition of not discussing anything with other jurors, since the questions do tell jurors what you're thinking and could influence them.

The juror questions definitely do give other jurors an idea of what the questioner is thinking. This is not a problem, because there is no rule that other jurors are not allowed to figure out what you're thinking.

There is also no problem with asking a question to make a statement instead of to gather information. Most cross-examination questions are like that.

So any defense witnesses would be giving witness testimony?

Yes. The same for any prosecution witness. Only the victims are considered not to be "witnesses" in this stage. Or the defendant, I think, if she chooses to give a statement asking for mercy.

I read somewhere that if Arias receives the death penalty the state would have to pay for any appeals; ullhair: but if she receives life with or without parole, she would have to pay for any appeals. :floorlaugh: Can you tell me if this is true?

I am wondering if maybe this is why she is saying that she would rather get death.

:truce:

No, if she's indigent, the state would pay for her appeal either way.

Thanks in advance for answering this question (which I did try to research....found all kinds of info on hybrid vs. binding states. etc.!!)

Question: Can the judge override a jury death penalty decision/recommendation in Arizona?

No.

This may have asked before, so I apologize if it was answered and I didn't find it on this thread.

I understand that, in the final (mitigation) phase, the following will occur:
a) Prosecutor's Opening Statement to the jury
b) Defense's Opening Statement to the jury
c) Victim Impact Statements (Travis' family & friends) to the jury
d) Defendant's statement to the jury

I understand that c) and d) are not cross-examined by the opposing side.

My question is regarding testimony from others/experts:
1) Would that occur before d)?
2) Can both sides put people on the stand?
3) Are these others/experts subjected to cross-examination?

TIA

Witness statements would happen before (d). Both sides may present witnesses, and the witnesses are subject to cross-examination.

Hello AZ Lawyer, juror #8 will be giving an interview tonight on Dr Drew. Can this do harm to the conviction? Like overturn it somehow? I'm really concerned at this stage, when it so close to the end it may cause a big problem. I hope there is nothing to worry about. If this has been asked I could not find it. I would like to know what the legal ramifications would be if any. Thank you AZ Lawyer

There shouldn't be any problem, unless he says something that reveals that there was a huge flaw in the process, like, "well, on day 1 of trial, we all took a vow to send her to the death chamber no matter what."

During the victim impact statements can the family address Jodi directly (i.e. "You took our brother away from us in a cruel manner") or do their statements have to be made only to the jurors and the court? Thanks

They are supposed to be telling the jury about the impact of the crime on their family and about Travis as a person. If I were a juror, I would be sort of insulted if they used the time to talk to Jodi instead, especially since Jodi does not give any craps about the impact of the crime on their family or Travis's qualities.

Regarding procedure -

What can we expect as far as order during the mitigation phase tomorrow? I'm assuming since her life is at issue the defense will get to speak first and last?

Yes, the defense goes first and last.

lol broken key board - can nurmo say she wouldun't following her instrutions and justs steamed forward w/ what she thought was needed to win

If there is an issue raised of ineffective assistance of counsel, Nurmi will not be saying anything about it. There will not be testimony taken on the issue--it will just be a matter of an appellate court looking at the record.

 

[pinkie60]

I just saw on Fox.com, ja's defense attorneys filed an appeal this morning to withdraw from the case and it was denied.
If it was granted, i'm assuming this would delay the penalty phase significantly?

 

[AZlawyer]

I just saw on Fox.com, ja's defense attorneys filed an appeal this morning to withdraw from the case and it was denied.
If it was granted, i'm assuming this would delay the penalty phase significantly?

Yes, unless Jodi was planning to represent herself--in which case the motion would have been only half-granted because IMO the judge would have made the attorneys stay on as advisory counsel.

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

Mitigating Circumstances? I only see age and mental illness as possibilities.What do you AZ and other legal experts see?

A. Wrongfulness is impaired (Did not know right from wrong)? No
B. Unusual/Substantial Duress? No
C. Minor Participation? No
D. Could not have seen foreseen conduct was a grave risk? No
E. Defendants Age? 32 (Maybe)

F. No Prior criminal record or illicit conduct?
1. Frequent rage and physical violence toward mother.
2. Lied about Marijuana she was using on roof of house.
3. Attacked and kicked dog who ‘disappeared’ and never came back.
4. Kicked and broke walls and doors and smashed things.
5. “Her own actions scare people”
6. Stalked and used the men in her life prior to Travis
7. Gave Chris Hughes such an evil look that he told Travis not to bring her around anymore and he didn’t want her around his children.
8. Threatened TA’s female friends.
9. Broke in Travis’s email, Face-book, and ATM and sent messages to herself.
10. Broke into Travis’s house several times and was there uninvited at other times.
11. Stalked Travis at his house and on his dates.
12. Slashed all four tires of Travis’ car twice.
13. Slashed tires of a girl acquaintance of Travis once.
14. Travis friends called other friends out of fear of Jodi.
15. Peeped outside TA’s window when he was with someone else.
16. Broke into Grandparents house and stole gun, $30, and stereo.
17. Turned license played upside down to evade police.
18. Turned off cell phone, dyed hair, and borrowed gas cans to evade police.
19. Premeditated and planned attack on Travis.
20. Hide gun and knife from Travis for several hours.
21. She and NOT Travis, had a morbid curiosity of the “Psycho” movie and combined that with her own psychosis, personality disorder (black and white- no gray, go from loyalty to intense rage).
22. Stabbed Travis---29 times.
23. Cut a gaping hole in TA’s neck.
24. Shot TA in head.
25. Removed evidence—gun and knife from crime scene and destroyed/hide evidence.
26. Removed (Stole) car mats from rental car and did not return them.
27. Had a 9mm gun, 2-knives, and a box of ammo in her car when arrested.
28. Forged pedophile papers prior to trial.
29. Lied throughout interviews and trial, falsely claimed abuse.
30. Narcissist and above the Law.

31. Six disciplinary actions In Jail
A. Fight with cellmate
B. Disobey return to cell
C. 3-different violations for hiding pens
D. Hiding various creams.
E. Hiding various pictures.

32. Accused prosecutor of being threatening on the stand.
33. Broke pencils and gave other people the finger.
34. Tweeted derogatory statements to Nancy Grace and Prosecutor.
35.Borderline Personality Disorder: Past behavior=future behavior.
36. Continual Stalking by Jodi

G. Victim consented to criminal conduct? No

H. Cooperated with the Police? No (Lied and changed stories several times)
1. Wasn’t there.
2. Ninja’s/two intruders.
3. Self-Defense
4. Travis was abusive and deserved it.
5. Travis was a pedophile and deserved it.

I. Model Prisoner:
1. Fight with cellmate
2. Disobey return to cell
3. 3-different violations for hiding pens
4. Hiding various creams.
5. Hiding various pictures.

J. Able to be rehabilitated? If she is border-line it will be tough and she shows no remorse.

K. Intelligence to contribute to Society: <modsnip> is at 119.

L. Character? Lies and blames and tweets, lied to police, lied about intruders, lied about pedophilia, lied about domestic violence, not enough paper to go into detail, continues to trash victim, continued manipulation.

M. Offense committed under severe mental, emotional disturbance? This may be the only relevant point she has.

N.Shows Remorseno)

1. &#8220;He had it coming.&#8221;
2. Wanted make-up in jail and smiled for her mug shot, saying that&#8217;s what Travis would have wanted.
3. Showed more remorse on police video tape for dog she kicked (who then disappeared).
4. Made out/intimate relations with Ryan Burns immediately after killing.
5. &#8220;No Jury will Convict Me.&#8221;
6. Morbid curiosity of autopsy photos to help build her case.
7. &#8220;No reason to be sad, smile and say Cheese.&#8221;
8. Cried about what SHE would miss out on during police interrogation.
9. Frequent smiles and giggles during proceedings.
10. Lied about pedophilia after killing, and forged papers to kill him again.
11. Lied about domestic abuse after killing him thus killing him again.
12. Filed motion saying if convicted remorse would not be a factor in penalty and she would never apologize.
13. Said in police interrogation tape that TA&#8217;s murder was a temporary loss for his family and they would get over it.
14. Savage and brutality of killing&#8212;29-stab wounds, shot in head, near decapitation.
15. Sent twenty Iris&#8217;s to his Grandmother after she killed him.

 

[AZlawyer]

Mitigating Circumstances? I only see age and mental illness as possibilities.What do you AZ and other legal experts see?

A. Wrongfulness is impaired (Did not know right from wrong)? No
B. Unusual/Substantial Duress? No
C. Minor Participation? No
D. Could not have seen foreseen conduct was a grave risk? No
E. Defendants Age? 32 (Maybe)

F. No Prior criminal record or illicit conduct?
1. Frequent rage and physical violence toward mother.
2. Lied about Marijuana she was using on roof of house.
3. Attacked and kicked dog who ‘disappeared’ and never came back.
4. Kicked and broke walls and doors and smashed things.
5. “Her own actions scare people”
6. Stalked and used the men in her life prior to Travis
7. Gave Chris Hughes such an evil look that he told Travis not to bring her around anymore and he didn’t want her around his children.
8. Threatened TA’s female friends.
9. Broke in Travis’s email, Face-book, and ATM and sent messages to herself.
10. Broke into Travis’s house several times and was there uninvited at other times.
11. Stalked Travis at his house and on his dates.
12. Slashed all four tires of Travis’ car twice.
13. Slashed tires of a girl acquaintance of Travis once.
14. Travis friends called other friends out of fear of Jodi.
15. Peeped outside TA’s window when he was with someone else.
16. Broke into Grandparents house and stole gun, $30, and stereo.
17. Turned license played upside down to evade police.
18. Turned off cell phone, dyed hair, and borrowed gas cans to evade police.
19. Premeditated and planned attack on Travis.
20. Hide gun and knife from Travis for several hours.
21. She and NOT Travis, had a morbid curiosity of the “Psycho” movie and combined that with her own psychosis, personality disorder (black and white- no gray, go from loyalty to intense rage).
22. Stabbed Travis---29 times.
23. Cut a gaping hole in TA’s neck.
24. Shot TA in head.
25. Removed evidence—gun and knife from crime scene and destroyed/hide evidence.
26. Removed (Stole) car mats from rental car and did not return them.
27. Had a 9mm gun, 2-knives, and a box of ammo in her car when arrested.
28. Forged pedophile papers prior to trial.
29. Lied throughout interviews and trial, falsely claimed abuse.
30. Narcissist and above the Law.

31. Six disciplinary actions In Jail
A. Fight with cellmate
B. Disobey return to cell
C. 3-different violations for hiding pens
D. Hiding various creams.
E. Hiding various pictures.

32. Accused prosecutor of being threatening on the stand.
33. Broke pencils and gave other people the finger.
34. Tweeted derogatory statements to Nancy Grace and Prosecutor.
35.Borderline Personality Disorder: Past behavior=future behavior.
36. Continual Stalking by Jodi

G. Victim consented to criminal conduct? No

H. Cooperated with the Police? No (Lied and changed stories several times)
1. Wasn’t there.
2. Ninja’s/two intruders.
3. Self-Defense
4. Travis was abusive and deserved it.
5. Travis was a pedophile and deserved it.

I. Model Prisoner:
1. Fight with cellmate
2. Disobey return to cell
3. 3-different violations for hiding pens
4. Hiding various creams.
5. Hiding various pictures.

J. Able to be rehabilitated? If she is border-line it will be tough and she shows no remorse.

K. Intelligence to contribute to Society: <modsnip> is at 119.

L. Character? Lies and blames and tweets, lied to police, lied about intruders, lied about pedophilia, lied about domestic violence, not enough paper to go into detail, continues to trash victim, continued manipulation.

M. Offense committed under severe mental, emotional disturbance? This may be the only relevant point she has.

N.Shows Remorseno)

1. “He had it coming.”
2. Wanted make-up in jail and smiled for her mug shot, saying that’s what Travis would have wanted.
3. Showed more remorse on police video tape for dog she kicked (who then disappeared).
4. Made out/intimate relations with Ryan Burns immediately after killing.
5. “No Jury will Convict Me.”
6. Morbid curiosity of autopsy photos to help build her case.
7. “No reason to be sad, smile and say Cheese.”
8. Cried about what SHE would miss out on during police interrogation.
9. Frequent smiles and giggles during proceedings.
10. Lied about pedophilia after killing, and forged papers to kill him again.
11. Lied about domestic abuse after killing him thus killing him again.
12. Filed motion saying if convicted remorse would not be a factor in penalty and she would never apologize.
13. Said in police interrogation tape that TA’s murder was a temporary loss for his family and they would get over it.
14. Savage and brutality of killing—29-stab wounds, shot in head, near decapitation.
15. Sent twenty Iris’s to his Grandmother after she killed him.

Besides the list in the statute, the defense can argue, well, anything they want really.

Here's the list I came up with in March:
--she's been "abused" her whole life, starting with the wooden spoon and ending with mean old Travis
--she's somewhat deranged mentally and doesn't react normally to things
--she was really really in love with Travis and was under tremendous stress because he didn't love her back
--she doesn't remember killing him, so it would be unfair to punish her for it
--her family would be sad if she were put to death, and just when she and her parents were starting to get along...
--this was her very first crime
--no way will she ever kill anyone again--she's over that now
--age under 30 (someone had to remind me of this one lol--I forgot she was young because she had aged so much in jail)

Here's the list Nurmi presented earlier today:
1.Arias was only 27 years old at the time of the murder
2.She had no prior criminal history
3.She was a good friend
4.Arias lacked family support
5.Arias was abused and neglected as a child
6.She is trying to make the best of her life
7.Arias is trying to improve herself
8.She is a talented artist

 

[cosmos]

Martinez seemed to suggest that the jury should reject her claim to have no prior criminal history because she lied under oath about the third gas can and that's a crime even though she was not convicted of it. Is that a proper argument? So can the jury make up a list of her crimes that she hasn't been convicted of, including lying to police, or even the slashed tires that they heard about, to argue for the death penalty?

 

[CarolinaWoman]

When Arias addresses the jury next week can speak as long as she wants to or is there some sort of time limit? (Visions of 18 days on the stand here.)

 

[AZlawyer]

Martinez seemed to suggest that the jury should reject her claim to have no prior criminal history because she lied under oath about the third gas can and that's a crime even though she was not convicted of it. Is that a proper argument? So can the jury make up a list of her crimes that she hasn't been convicted of, including the stolen gun, or even the slashed tires that they heard about, to argue for the death penalty?

Yes, I think it's a proper argument. The jury could consider crimes for which she hasn't been convicted in deciding whether or not to give her any "credit" for the mitigating factor of "no prior criminal history." They can't consider them as aggravating factors, of course, but I don't see the problem considering them as rebuttal to mitigation.

 

[AZlawyer]

When Arias addresses the jury next week can speak as long as she wants to or is there some sort of time limit? (Visions of 18 days on the stand here.)

There is no set time limit, but the judge will probably call for a break if it goes to too long and privately tell her and her attorneys that she's hearing a lot of repetition and they need to wrap it up.

 

[Optics]

Will Juan Martinez get a final chance to speak after the defendant's statements to the jury?

 

[bsk]

My short question is: Is the jury supposed to consider the possible role of parole? I'm guessing they are not, which Nurmi then used to twist the truth.

Here's the background of where that came from. Nurmi's first sentence yesterday was: "Ladies and gentlemen, the verdict that you will render at the end of this phase of the trial will determine whether or not Jodi Arias will spend the rest of her life in prison."

JM objected to this as improper argument. That seems correct as it does not necessarily mean she will spend the rest of her life in prison. They had a sidebar, and then Nurmi was allowed to double down afterward: "Your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, will determine whether or not Jodi Arias spends the rest of her life in prison or if she's sentenced to be executed. That's what your verdict will determine."

This was a well-calculated move by Nurmi, because he wants the jury to believe that she will never again walk free if they spare her the death penalty. If they realize there is a chance of freedom, they may be more likely to vote for death.

So do you think it was an improper argument or not? (BTW I suppose it would be simpler if JM did speaking objections like the DT and had said: "Objection. Improper argument because it does not mean she would spend the rest of her life in prison.") Would it have been proper for JM to state the full alternatives in his opening? I'm guessing that would have been objected to and stricken if he had.

 

[RitzBitz]

Hi Lawyers!

Thanks so much as always!

Question please.....When Jodi does her statement can she say whatever she wants? Does she have to provide the State with her written statement beforehand or can she just get up there and ramble? If she starts getting out there, can the State object?

 

[Sustained]

Thanks AZLawyer for answering my previous question about case notation.

Here's another and apologies ahead of time if it has already been asked :

If this jury is hung on the penalty and we need to empanel a new jury, what is the procedure for getting the new jury up to speed on the trial ?

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

Besides the list in the statute, the defense can argue, well, anything they want really.

Here's the list I came up with in March:
--she's been "abused" her whole life, starting with the wooden spoon and ending with mean old Travis
--she's somewhat deranged mentally and doesn't react normally to things
--she was really really in love with Travis and was under tremendous stress because he didn't love her back
--she doesn't remember killing him, so it would be unfair to punish her for it
--her family would be sad if she were put to death, and just when she and her parents were starting to get along...
--this was her very first crime
--no way will she ever kill anyone again--she's over that now
--age under 30 (someone had to remind me of this one lol--I forgot she was young because she had aged so much in jail)

Here's the list Nurmi presented earlier today:
1.Arias was only 27 years old at the time of the murder
2.She had no prior criminal history
3.She was a good friend
4.Arias lacked family support
5.Arias was abused and neglected as a child
6.She is trying to make the best of her life
7.Arias is trying to improve herself
8.She is a talented artist

Not a bad list---but Nurmi did bring up abuse as both a child and as an adult. I think the adult abuse issue will hurt him and make him look like he is blaming the victim.

After all her lies, to rehash she doesn't remember doesn't help her either.

Nurmi can say this is her first crime but there are several incidents that came up in court that makes this disingenuous as well whether she was arrested or not.

The dog was kicked and disappeared, she has gotten into a fight in Jail, she fought with her mom. So I don't think the Jury will buy that she won't offend again.

----I think mentally deranged and age may be factors as you mentioned.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Quick question for one of our talented and dedicated attorneys.

During the mitigation phase, does the jury get to question the sworn witnesses?

 

[AZlawyer]

Will Juan Martinez get a final chance to speak after the defendant's statements to the jury?

Yes.

My short question is: Is the jury supposed to consider the possible role of parole? I'm guessing they are not, which Nurmi then used to twist the truth.

Here's the background of where that came from. Nurmi's first sentence yesterday was: "Ladies and gentlemen, the verdict that you will render at the end of this phase of the trial will determine whether or not Jodi Arias will spend the rest of her life in prison."

JM objected to this as improper argument. That seems correct as it does not necessarily mean she will spend the rest of her life in prison. They had a sidebar, and then Nurmi was allowed to double down afterward: "Your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, will determine whether or not Jodi Arias spends the rest of her life in prison or if she's sentenced to be executed. That's what your verdict will determine."

This was a well-calculated move by Nurmi, because he wants the jury to believe that she will never again walk free if they spare her the death penalty. If they realize there is a chance of freedom, they may be more likely to vote for death.

So do you think it was an improper argument or not? (BTW I suppose it would be simpler if JM did speaking objections like the DT and had said: "Objection. Improper argument because it does not mean she would spend the rest of her life in prison.") Would it have been proper for JM to state the full alternatives in his opening? I'm guessing that would have been objected to and stricken if he had.

I don't know of any clear Arizona law on this issue. My guess is that JM would not have objected to a statement that the choice was between a life sentence and death (with no mention of parole), but he thought (and I agree) that Nurmi's characterization was misleading to the jurors, suggesting that there would be no parole. The judge disagrees, I guess.

Hi Lawyers!

Thanks so much as always!

Question please.....When Jodi does her statement can she say whatever she wants? Does she have to provide the State with her written statement beforehand or can she just get up there and ramble? If she starts getting out there, can the State object?

She can't say whatever she wants, no. She doesn't have to provide the statement beforehand, but if she says something that is "evidence" regarding a mitigating factor or innocence of the crime, she may open up the door to cross-examination and additional rebuttal by the state. So Nurmi and Wilmott will probably review her proposed statement carefully to ensure she doesn't open any doors.

Thanks AZLawyer for answering my previous question about case notation.

Here's another and apologies ahead of time if it has already been asked :

If this jury is hung on the penalty and we need to empanel a new jury, what is the procedure for getting the new jury up to speed on the trial ?

The new jury would be given only basic information--perhaps a stipulated statement of the bare-bones facts of the case, along with the information that Jodi had already been found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and that the aggravating factor of cruelty had been found (with definitions of those things). Anything else relating to mitigation or rebuttal that was presented in the guilt or aggravation phase of the trial would have to be re-presented to the new jury.

 

[AZlawyer]

Quick question for one of our talented and dedicated attorneys.

During the mitigation phase, does the jury get to question the sworn witnesses?

Yes.

 

[bparsons]

what will happen if they do not agree on death penalty? Do they decide LWOP/any prison time or does the judge? Thanks in advance.

 

[cocomod]

I have read about as much of the trial as I can (working mom with little time here!). I do not think that I heard this, but I am wondering why it wasn't presented. (I apologize in advance if it was used by the prosecution and I missed it!)

I know that Jodi was already convicted of being cruel, but I really thought that they might bring up one additional factor in the cruelty phase. Can't they drive home the fact that Jodi didn't have wounds? Not specifically that Travis didn't "abuse" her when she so maliciously slaughter him. But, he was a BIG, strong guy. He lived for a short time after she started the attack. She didn't have wounds from him defending himself! He was fighting for his life, and she didn't have any wounds. It seems like he could have at least punched her in the face, and he didn't.

 

[AZlawyer]

what will happen if they do not agree on death penalty? Do they decide LWOP/any prison time or does the judge? Thanks in advance.

If they are a hung jury, another jury will be empaneled to decide life vs. death. If they unanimously decide for life, the judge decides LWOP vs. natural life.

I have read about as much of the trial as I can (working mom with little time here!). I do not think that I heard this, but I am wondering why it wasn't presented. (I apologize in advance if it was used by the prosecution and I missed it!)

I know that Jodi was already convicted of being cruel, but I really thought that they might bring up one additional factor in the cruelty phase. Can't they drive home the fact that Jodi didn't have wounds? Not specifically that Travis didn't "abuse" her when she so maliciously slaughter him. But, he was a BIG, strong guy. He lived for a short time after she started the attack. She didn't have wounds from him defending himself! He was fighting for his life, and she didn't have any wounds. It seems like he could have at least punched her in the face, and he didn't.

That information doesn't fit within any of the aggravating factors, so that's why it wasn't raised in the aggravation phase. JM did point out in the guilt phase that she got away without a scratch--except for her finger.

The "cruelty" factor has to do with the victim's mental and physical suffering and the defendant's understanding of that suffering--the victim's decision not to defend himself would not be relevant to the issue of cruelty. Also, I think JM's theory was that Travis was in shock/dazed and was only weakly able to stumble to the sink for a few seconds, put up his hands against the knife for a few seconds, and try to crawl away. I don't believe JM's theory would be consistent with a theory that Travis was still strong and able to fight back once he mentally processed what Jodi was doing.