Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Love Never Fails]

Can JM still being in witnesses during this penalty phase? If so, has a list of those witnesses been published? Thank you so much.

 

[swan366]

Is it possible that Patricia Womack and/or Darryl Brewer were allowed to plead Jodi's case yesterday when the proceedings were closed to the public?

What if Jodi just flat-out did not want to participate in any way in the mitigation process after hearing the Alexanders' victim impact statements, insisting that she wants only the death penalty...was that an option for her?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can JM still being in witnesses during this penalty phase? If so, has a list of those witnesses been published? Thank you so much.

Yes, he can bring in witnesses to rebut the defense witnesses. His witness lists are public record, but I don't think anyone has obtained copies and published them here.

Is it possible that Patricia Womack and/or Darryl Brewer were allowed to plead Jodi's case yesterday when the proceedings were closed to the public?

What if Jodi just flat-out did not want to participate in any way in the mitigation process after hearing the Alexanders' victim impact statements, insisting that she wants only the death penalty...was that an option for her?

I seriously doubt that the judge suddenly agreed to close the mitigation hearing without making an announcement to that effect.

Yes, JA could insist that she doesn't want to put on any more mitigation evidence, as long as the judge is convinced that she's competent to make that decision (which she clearly is). JM could still rebut any mitigation evidence she presented in the guilt phase, though. And I suppose the jury would have to be very clearly reminded to disregard anything Nurmi said in his opening statement re: mitigation.

 

[swan366]

AZ Lawyer: I just want to thank you so much for your time and patience in answering questions. Your answers are always concise and easy to understand. If you don't already teach law, you should consider it!

One last general question before all heck breaks loose next week: Since both JM and JW work for the State, do they work out of the same building or, Heaven forbid, share the same office space? I'm assuming the personnel, computer systems and filing space for the district attorneys and public defenders are completely separate?

 

[ktucker52]

my question is about the behaviors of the defense attornys- can they be disciplined for presenting a case that had no facts other than what the defendant told them I understand they have to do what they can to defend her but attacking the victim in they way they did - can they be held accountable in any way- can the victims family go after them for slander can j wilmot be disciplined for her disrespect she exhibited to the court judge jury and prosecutor and co counsel - she was writing the entire time the prosecutor did his closing argument even during the brother' impact statement-isn't there a certain decorum that should be exhibited in court

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ Lawyer: I just want to thank you so much for your time and patience in answering questions. Your answers are always concise and easy to understand. If you don't already teach law, you should consider it!

One last general question before all heck breaks loose next week: Since both JM and JW work for the State, do they work out of the same building or, Heaven forbid, share the same office space? I'm assuming the personnel, computer systems and filing space for the district attorneys and public defenders are completely separate?

Yes, everything is kept separate.

my question is about the behaviors of the defense attornys- can they be disciplined for presenting a case that had no facts other than what the defendant told them I understand they have to do what they can to defend her but attacking the victim in they way they did - can they be held accountable in any way- can the victims family go after them for slander can j wilmot be disciplined for her disrespect she exhibited to the court judge jury and prosecutor and co counsel - she was writing the entire time the prosecutor did his closing argument even during the brother' impact statement-isn't there a certain decorum that should be exhibited in court

No, they can't be disciplined, because they were absolutely ethically required to present their client's story, even if it involved attacking the victim.

They cannot be pursued for slander because there is an absolute privilege for such statements made in a court of law in connection with an open proceeding.

Also, it is not disrespectful at all to write notes/ideas while the prosecutor or witnesses/victims are speaking, and I would be quite shocked if someone on their team was NOT writing something during practically every second of the trial proceedings.

 

[Ransom]

AZ lawyer:

all about Donavan Bering: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012009/m3543122.pdf

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.go...todate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries#search

IF none of the above holds: have to go here:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/
Enter: Bering
Enter: Donavan

Herein lie the problem about DB being a convicted felon, probation officer, etc.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SIDEBAR #3- Arias/Alexander forum

help please. I think this is getting out of hand. raying:

TIA.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

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.

Excellent point!!!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ lawyer:

all about Donavan Bering: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012009/m3543122.pdf

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.go...todate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries#search

IF none of the above holds: have to go here:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/
Enter: Bering
Enter: Donavan

Herein lie the problem about DB being a convicted felon, probation officer, etc.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SIDEBAR #3- Arias/Alexander forum

help please. I think this is getting out of hand. raying:

TIA.

So what's the problem exactly?

 

[redkatrampant]

So what's the problem exactly?

If I may, I believe there is the question of the legality of someone who is on probation/parole consorting with another prisoner OR attending the trial. And now that Jodi has been convicted Donovan is still in contact with her which is a no-no?

 

[Ransom]

So what's the problem exactly?

Well, I thought I said what the problem was? :findinglink: See above. I may just need to go to bed and regroup, maybe, by Monday. :whiteflag:
Not a fan of FB "facts" which I posted along with DB court ME.

Oh well. :bedtime:

 

[Ransom]

If I may, I believe there is the question of the legality of someone who is on probation/parole consorting with another prisoner OR attending the trial. And now that Jodi has been convicted Donovan is still in contact with her which is a no-no?

WHAT parole? SEE above. NO parole for DB ... ever!!!!!!! Nevermind.:truce: I flat give up.

 

[redkatrampant]

WHAT parole? SEE above. NO parole for DB ... ever!!!!!!! Nevermind.:truce: I flat give up.

no need to give up. it was an and/or because I was not sure which applied.

 

[AZlawyer]

If I may, I believe there is the question of the legality of someone who is on probation/parole consorting with another prisoner OR attending the trial. And now that Jodi has been convicted Donovan is still in contact with her which is a no-no?

Well, IF her probation terms include not associating with convicted felons and IF she is still talking to Jodi, then I guess she has a problem. I don't know if that term is always included in the probation orders, though, and it didn't appear in the court minute entry about DB's probation. (The terms that appear in the minute entries are not usually ALL the terms, so without seeing the actual physical order we don't know what the other terms might be.) And I don't know if DB is still tweeting Jodi's thoughts (post-verdict)--or, if she is, if they are Jodi's true post-verdict thoughts communicated post-verdict directly to DB.

So...too many "ifs" for me.

I highly doubt that her probation order would forbid her from attending the trial. That seems quite ridiculous to me and certainly wouldn't qualify as associating with felons.

Well, I thought I said what the problem was? :findinglink: See above. I may just need to go to bed and regroup, maybe, by Monday. :whiteflag:
Not a fan of FB "facts" which I posted along with DB court ME.

Oh well. :bedtime:

You said you thought it was getting out of hand. I wasn't sure if you meant that the people on Facebook were out of hand because they were going after DB, that the people on Facebook were out of hand because their facts were wrong (which I don't know for sure that they were), that DB was out of hand for violating her probation terms, that people on WS posting about the situation were out of hand somehow, or what.

 

[BuzzieCat]

Thank you AZ Lawyer. I really appreciate what you do for us.

I had a couple of questions about the mitigation testimony of Patricia Womack and Darryl Brewer. Do they have to speak? Can they refuse, or are they forced to do it like a subpoena?

Also, I've read that they are going to testify and therefore can be cross-examined by the prosecution, but there is the option for them to just speak at a podium and not be cross-examined, provided they don't say anything that would be considered evidence. Is this true? If so, whose decision is it whether to testify or just speak? And why would someone choose one over the other? I'm a little confused because I guess I would have thought it would be better for Jodi (and possibly for Womack and Brewer) for them to just go up and say that they consider her a good friend and worth sparing as opposed to testifying and opening themselves up for cross-examination.

Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZ Lawyer. I really appreciate what you do for us.

I had a couple of questions about the mitigation testimony of Patricia Womack and Darryl Brewer. Do they have to speak? Can they refuse, or are they forced to do it like a subpoena?

Also, I've read that they are going to testify and therefore can be cross-examined by the prosecution, but there is the option for them to just speak at a podium and not be cross-examined, provided they don't say anything that would be considered evidence. Is this true? If so, whose decision is it whether to testify or just speak? And why would someone choose one over the other? I'm a little confused because I guess I would have thought it would be better for Jodi (and possibly for Womack and Brewer) for them to just go up and say that they consider her a good friend and worth sparing as opposed to testifying and opening themselves up for cross-examination.

Thanks.

I think they are both from out of state, so they are probably here voluntarily rather than under subpoena. (You can only force someone under subpoena to travel a certain distance.)

Neither of these witnesses would have the option to just make a statement rather than testifying under oath and with cross-examination. That option is reserved for victims and defendants.

 

[deb2e]

question if defense doesn't put on anything and rests can juan still put on his side or is it over than and they go to closings again thankyou

 

[AZlawyer]

question if defense doesn't put on anything and rests can juan still put on his side or is it over than and they go to closings again thankyou

Well, the defense has already presented some of its mitigation evidence as part of the guilt phase (e.g., "abuse as a child and adult"), so JM would be able to present evidence rebutting anything that has already been presented in the guilt phase--to the extent he hasn't already done so.

 

[4Jacy]

Is CFJA allowed a TV in her cell? Please say "no", I've had enough stress from this case!!

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Is CFJA allowed a TV in her cell? Please say "no", I've had enough stress from this case!!

TIA

Once she's transferred to prison, I believe she can buy one for her cell, yes.