Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion* #2

[tlckgram]

Yes, there can be defense misconduct, but with prosecutorial misconduct, you can drop the case as punishment. You can't convict the defendant as punishment for defense team misconduct!

The defense team is not allowed to present testimony they know to be false. I doubt the defense attorneys could be said to "know" any of the testimony or evidence presented in this case was false.



I respect/understand what you are saying. It just is so clear that they presented untrue "evidence". If it was so easy for JM to find the truth, how can it be okay that the defense can seemingly pretend that they had no idea much of their "evidence" was false? And it wasn't just the mitigation phase they did this in, they did it in the guilt phase.

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, there can be defense misconduct, but with prosecutorial misconduct, you can drop the case as punishment. You can't convict the defendant as punishment for defense team misconduct!

The defense team is not allowed to present testimony they know to be false. I doubt the defense attorneys could be said to "know" any of the testimony or evidence presented in this case was false.

I respect/understand what you are saying. It just is so clear that they presented untrue "evidence". If it was so easy for JM to find the truth, how can it be okay that the defense can seemingly pretend that they had no idea much of their "evidence" was false? And it wasn't just the mitigation phase they did this in, they did it in the guilt phase.

How do you KNOW which side presented the truth? For example, Witness 1 said Travis shoved Deanna at the Bishop's house. Deanna says it didn't happen. The Bishop says Travis wasn't there at the time. Witness 1's mommy said yes he was. It may seem pretty obvious to us that Witness 1 was lying, but it is "possible" he was telling the truth. The defense team can't refuse to present evidence just because they "strongly believe" it is false--they have to KNOW.

 

[tlckgram]

How do you KNOW which side presented the truth? For example, Witness 1 said Travis shoved Deanna at the Bishop's house. Deanna says it didn't happen. The Bishop says Travis wasn't there at the time. Witness 1's mommy said yes he was. It may seem pretty obvious to us that Witness 1 was lying, but it is "possible" he was telling the truth. The defense team can't refuse to present evidence just because they "strongly believe" it is false--they have to KNOW.

I get your point. But they knew. (last word) LOL

 

[grayhuze]

I didn't put quotes around it. He said in the guilt phase that Flores was mistaken and that he (Dr. Horn) never told him (Flores) that the gunshot was first.

Do you find that credible? That on three separate occasions Flores stated that Horn told him the gunshot was first and that he would not immediately have been incapacitated. Now Horn says he never remembers ever talking to Flores about the case.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you find that credible? That on three separate occasions Flores stated that Horn told him the gunshot was first and that he would not immediately have been incapacitated. Now Horn says he never remembers ever talking to Flores about the case.

This thread is for legal questions. We are all equally qualified to make credibility determinations.

 

[Hope4More]

Supposedly they will be available after the verdict, assuming anyone is interested enough in paying $20 per day of testimony to get copies.

Of course the DT can try to do whatever they want. When I was clerking at the AZ Supreme Court, we received a Motion for a Free White Male Judiciary (denied FYI). Not too long ago, an attorney in Maricopa County Superior Court filed a Motion to Compel Lunch (with the opposing counsel--to discuss a discovery dispute). The Motion to Compel Lunch was granted. So the DT can file a motion to...whatever.

ETA: Minute entry granting motion to compel acceptance of lunch invitation, just for fun. http://www.adrforum.com/rcontrol/documents/MiscFiles/minute_entry.pdf

. Love the quote by Pascal .....that "he had not the leisure" to be more succinct.

Just wanted to say thank you one last time for all your insights, and for sharing your knowledge and time so generously. I've learned a lot from you, and am grateful.

 

[Paintr]

This thread is for legal questions. We are all equally qualified to make credibility determinations.

Anyone ever tell you that you would make a wonderful judge? If not, let me be the first.

Thank you kindly for being here and being so patient with the million questions we threw at you. :rose:

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

If the jury hangs or chooses life instead of death, would JSS sentence Jodi immediately, or would she want to review the case first?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the jury hangs or chooses life instead of death, would JSS sentence Jodi immediately, or would she want to review the case first?

She should be ready to sentence her immediately, but I think she will set a separate hearing because she will need to hear from the family about funeral expenses, etc., so she can include victim compensation in the judgment.

Normally it takes a month or so to find a hearing date when the judge and all attorneys are available.

 

[Love Never Fails]

She should be ready to sentence her immediately, but I think she will set a separate hearing because she will need to hear from the family about funeral expenses, etc., so she can include victim compensation in the judgment.

Normally it takes a month or so to find a hearing date when the judge and all attorneys are available.

Will Jodi remain at Estrella until sentencing date with JSS?

 

[noor]

If arias gets LWP will she get credit for time served?
I guess her lawyers can ask for it, but is it up to the judge to make that decision?

Not that I think she'll get LWP, because of no parole board in AZ.


Thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

Will Jodi remain at Estrella until sentencing date with JSS?

Yes.

If arias gets LWP will she get credit for time served?
I guess her lawyers can ask for it, but is it up to the judge to make that decision?

Not that I think she'll get LWP, because of no parole board in AZ.


Thank you.

She has to get credit for time served. The judge has no choice in that matter.

 

[Paintr]

Just read somewhere that, if this jury deadlocks, the decision goes to JJS. BUT the DT gets to put on witnesses (no cross examination) to try to persuade the judge that she should get LWP? So Mrs. Arias could still speak for her daughter and even Jodi could speak. Is this true?

Please tell me that it isn't true. I just couldn't take more Travis is the villain speeches.

 

[AZlawyer]

Just read somewhere that, if this jury deadlocks, the decision goes to JJS. BUT the DT gets to put on witnesses (no cross examination) to try to persuade the judge that she should get LWP? So Mrs. Arias could still speak for her daughter and even Jodi could speak. Is this true?

Please tell me that it isn't true. I just couldn't take more Travis is the villain speeches.

No, that part of the trial has already happened. I don't see why JSS would need any more info.

 

[Paintr]

No, that part of the trial has already happened. I don't see why JSS would need any more info.

She may not need any more, but I am sure that the DT would insist on giving her more info. :tantrum:

So it is not possible? In any case?

 

[AZlawyer]

She may not need any more, but I am sure that the DT would insist on giving her more info. :tantrum:

So it is not possible? In any case?

Sure, it's possible. The judge can listen to whomever she wants.

 

[tlckgram]

One last question AZL. First thanks for all your help during both phases of these trials. What I was wondering is if she wins a new trial on appeal, can she still be subject to possible death sentence?

 

[AZlawyer]

One last question AZL. First thanks for all your help during both phases of these trials. What I was wondering is if she wins a new trial on appeal, can she still be subject to possible death sentence?

I don't think there was any error that would justify a new trial. But that's a good question hypothetically speaking. I don't think double jeopardy would be a problem because both penalty phase juries were hung, but I believe the AZ appellate courts would say that our statutory system precludes a third penalty phase trial under these circumstances. So I think the answer would be no.

 

[SassyBrat]

Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
This thread is for legal questions. We are all equally qualified to make credibility determinations.

Anyone ever tell you that you would make a wonderful judge? If not, let me be the first.

Thank you kindly for being here and being so patient with the million questions we threw at you. :rose:

I concur, thank you for your patience.

 

[atthelake]

:seeya: AZL

QUESTION:

Can you provide any information or prior cases for which a juror was kicked due to "not deliberating" in Arizona (or elsewhere?) Are you aware of case history where such has happened?

And if not, what do you believe would have needed to have had to been written/possible scenarios in a note to the judge to have a juror kicked for the court to believe it fits the law that the juror should be replaced with an alternate.

What is the threshold of a note for such a decision that you think jurists may consider if it has no case law? Can you give an example of a sample note which would fly as to the juror getting removed?

Expound please...as I may not be clear in my question.

TIA for all that you do for us :blowkiss: