Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm a little late on this one..but why was Chris Hughes permitted to repeat things his wife, Skye, told him?
It seemed very strange to me, especially since it happened over and over again.
Sorry if this has already been covered.
Can the bishops in which both JA & TA spoke to be called and compelled to testify or would this be considered hearsay and or privileged?
i asked gitana this but didn't get an answer so here goes.
can you explain how the DA thinks that if the gunshot was first, it makes this murder not cruel? they seem to think it's very important and i don't get why it matters.
we know TA had defensive wounds---although IMO, he didn't have many and he had none on his arms---so i'm thinking he was definitely not 100% at the time he was being stabbed. (i'm a gunshot first person in this case.) i just don't know why it matters when it comes to deciding the cruelty of the crime.
also, could it be that the ME is sticking the 'gunshot last' for this reason? that the DA WANTS that wound to have been first?
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!!
DT claims there is a phone sex call recorded by Jodi of Travis and her having phone sex where he says she climaxies like a 12 year old girl.
How the heck could they get that in ?
I'm curious about the phone call too.
Can the defense play the (alleged) phone sex recording if JA doesn't testify? How would they do this and who would introduce this -- would the computer forensic expert be able to do this?
Would they have to authenticate both voices as being JA's and TA's? Wouldn't JA have to give context if the defense is alleging that she's "faking an orgasm" and he's using her as a sex object as opposed to them having consensual phone sex?
It seems Juan will fight to keep it would as it's irrelevant but if it does get admitted he would insist JA would need to 'present' it.
TIA if you're able to answer!
DT claims there is a phone sex call recorded by Jodi of Travis and her having phone sex where he says she climaxies like a 12 year old girl.
How the heck could they get that in ?
I got my legal decoder ring out of a Cracker Jack box so take this for what its worth. It would seem according to jury instructions published by the Arizona bar that lesser offenses are included with a first degree murder charge (except felony). I'm including the link so one of our esteemed attorneys can take a peek when they have time.
http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf
Relevant portion of instructions begins at pp. 112 with felony and premeditated definitions just above.
A defendant is justified in using or threatening deadly physical force in self-defense if the following two conditions existed:
1. A reasonable person in the situation would have believed that deadly physical force was immediately necessary to protect against anothers use or apparent attempted or threatened use of unlawful deadly physical force; and
2. The defendant used or threatened no more deadly physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the situation.
A defendant may use deadly physical force in self-defense only to protect against anothers use or apparent attempted or threatened use of deadly physical force.
Self-defense justifies the use or threat of deadly physical force only while the apparent danger continues, and it ends when the apparent danger ends. The force used may not be greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the apparent danger.
The use of deadly physical force is justified if a reasonable person in the situation would have reasonably believed that immediate deadly physical danger appeared to be present. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of deadly physical force in self-defense.
You must decide whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe that:
Deadly physical force was immediately necessary to protect against anothers [use] [attempted use] [threatened use] [apparent attempted use] [apparent threatened use] of unlawful deadly physical force.
You must measure the defendants belief against what a reasonable person in the situation would have believed.
A defendant has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force in self-defense if the defendant:
1. Had a legal right to be in the place where the use or threatened deadly physical force in self-defense occurred; and
2. Was not engaged in an unlawful act at the time when the use or threatened deadly physical force in self-defense occurred.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with such justification. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge.
If there have been past acts of domestic violence as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3601, subsection A, against the defendant by the victim, the state of mind of a reasonable person shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person who has been a victim of those past acts of domestic violence. A.R.S. § 13-415.
Probably privileged under the "priest/penitent" privilege. There are some instances in which even privileged communications can be pierced and the testimony compelled -- such as sexual crimes against children in my state. It probably varies by state.
If it was a statement by Jodi, it would not be hearsay if it's offered by the State. Statements by the "party opponent" (Jodi in this case) are not hearsay. Statements by Travis would be hearsay.
I have a question about these evidentiary hearings... why weren't they done pre-trial?
(thanks for all the answers in this thread!!!)
In talking to Flores in the interview room she mentions that the bishop told her that Lisa turned down TA's proposal. This is what I was referring to, that she spoke of her and the bishop's discussion of TA and her relationship with him. So I guess I am asking if in this occasion the DA could call the bishop to the stand and discuss this talk they had. Since the Mormon church bishops, from what I have read, serve a term of seven years instead of a life long term, would that still apply legally as a life long priest/penitent conversation, again, legally?
another poster on the trial discussion thread asked why the jury was asked to leave for three minutes and then return (before Arias took the stand). Do you know why that would happen?