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?
I suppose it could be part of an "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument, but let me ask you this question--do you think ALV would have done a better job with more info? I don't. I think she would either have (1) refused to take the case or (2) looked like even more of a fool.
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?
Self-defense is the only one that could apply here. There's defense of a third person, justified use of deadly force by a police officer...nothing else comes to mind.
"Heat of passion" is not a "defense" really at all. It just means you committed manslaughter instead of murder.
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
Obviously the new jury would have to be made up of people who haven't seen whatever other evidence you're talking about. Frankly, I have no idea what the other evidence is because I'm not watching the media coverage--see how easy it is? :floorlaugh:
Re your second paragraph: :banghead:
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
I don't think anyone can be in trouble for that one. If the defense moved to exclude the notes from the state and lost, then the state got the notes, so no harm, no foul IMO.
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)?
No. Frankly, her exaggerations were no big deal and pretty much par for the course for an expert CV. And for sure they were not significant enough to change her from a qualified DV expert into a non-qualified DV expert.
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
Wait. I thought he did have the notes, based on another question (above). I'm confused now. :waitasec: But the defense definitely does
not have to turn over any confession or inconsistent statement made by the defendant! Where do you think we are, France?
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!
No. I don't think she's even committed perjury. And if she did, she certainly won't be charged with it. No one has time to charge every witness who lies on the stand. This is a daily occurrence during trial. And if she were charged, any charges would not be handled within the Arias case. And it would not cause her testimony to be thrown out anyway.
What happens when a witness lies is that you prove it on cross-examination, and then the jury thinks, "Oh. This person is a liar. We'll keep that in mind." End of story.
Some Questions here:
- Could JA be charged yet with -- Obstruction of Justice???
- Could JA be charged yet with -- Undignified Remains of a numan Body???
- Could JA be charged by the family -- A wrongful Death suit???
- Does AZ have a Victims Fund also for Travis family?
- 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)
Obstruction of justice for lying to the police? No. That would be a 5th Amendment violation.
I don't think there is any Arizona crime for leaving a body in an undignified state. Maybe for not reporting a death? But if so, again it would be a 5th Amendment violation to charge the murder defendant with that crime.
It is way way too late for the family to sue for wrongful death. The statute of limitations is 2 years.
I think there is a victim's fund, but I doubt they hand out damages for murder. I think it's more for victims of financial scams? But not sure.
The only way her parents could be sued would be by TA's family for wrongful death. The family would certainly lose that suit, as JA's parents didn't have any duty to do anything about her mental issues and didn't have any clue she could possibly murder anyone. Besides, as I said, it is way too late for that lawsuit.
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:
Yes, ALV was qualified as an expert based on her experience dealing with victims of DV, so that's what she gets to talk about.
In AZ (and many other states), the reasonableness of force used in self-defense is judged by the standard of a "reasonable person"--UNLESS the person on trial is a victim of DV by the deceased, in which case the reasonableness of force used is judged by the standard of a reasonable person who has suffered that type of DV.