POLL: Did Jodi Arias take the stand because she wanted to?

[sleuth21]

She had no choice. Self defense is an "affirmative defense." The burden is on the defense to produce evidence of self defense and the prosecution then must rebut that evidence to show that it was not. She had no choice since there were no other witnesses and only her testimony can lay the foundation for her battered woman defense as well. If she didn't claim self defense she was looking at LWOP at a minimum. This is her only way to avoid 1st degree murder. Her defense team had to have had many discussions with her regarding the risks inherent in her testifying. But at the end of the day, unless her testimony causes the jury to want to give her the DP, she had nothing to lose and a lot to possibly gain by claiming SD and taking the stand. She also probably thought that she could put on her victim face and con the jurors into buying her nice girl persona.

 

[SapphireSteel]

True psychopaths don't believe they will ever be caught.

If they are caught, they just keep lying.

They will stand there and swear black is white, without even breaking a sweat.

I used to work with one and her manner and girlish, flirtatious ways are eerily similar to JA.

They genuinely believe everyone is stupid except for them, and often they actually believe their own lies.

Either way they're just wired "wrong" and that's what we're seeing with this girl. She will probably never be able to admit that she killed Travis intentionally.

I believe she was put on the stand by her lawyers in a last ditch effort to illustrate just how damaged she actually is. The jury will possibly feel some compassion for her. Next we will be getting chapter and verse of various rapes and abuse she suffered through her life, they will be going for the sympathy card.

And why not? The French understand her crime, as it is a crime of passion. She should not get the DP because that should only be for heinous repeat offenders, and JA was only dangerous to one person, the person she felt scorned her.

I feel kind of sorry for her and I think the jury will too. She is clearly deeply damaged and there could be an insanity type defence...eg, he pushed her too far and she was already "out there". The case is also a damning testimony against organised religion once again hiding (nurturing?) hypocrisy. TA was some sort of church leader despite acting in distinctly unchristian ways, and no one turned a hair. I also wonder if that particular church has stepped up and supported Jodi, being Christian means hate the sin not the sinner. At least, it used to.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. In France she probably would get a 24 month suspended sentence.

 

[Nosey Parker]

She had no choice. Self defense is an "affirmative defense." The burden is on the defense to produce evidence of self defense and the prosecution then must rebut that evidence to show that it was not. She had no choice since there were no other witnesses and only her testimony can lay the foundation for her battered woman defense as well. If she didn't claim self defense she was looking at LWOP at a minimum. This is her only way to avoid 1st degree murder. Her defense team had to have had many discussions with her regarding the risks inherent in her testifying. But at the end of the day, unless her testimony causes the jury to want to give her the DP, she had nothing to lose and a lot to possibly gain by claiming SD and taking the stand. She also probably thought that she could put on her victim face and con the jurors into buying her nice girl persona.

BBK

Well, I think she may have achieved that much!

 

[elmomom]

I go back and forth. I know she wanted to testify, she thought she could "seduce" the jury into acquitting her (she has some ego!). And I do think to prove self-defense most defense teams will want to have the defendant testify. But I do believe that her defense team knew how badly she would perform, so I tend to think they tried to dissuade her. I get no sense that either Nurmi or Wilmott has any affection for her, or belief in her innocence.

 

[krkrjx]

Perhaps one of our certified criminal attorneys or paralegals can answer this: minus other eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence, isn't it very difficult to prove "self-defense" if the defendant does NOT take the stand?

I suppose exceptions might be cases where the killer was a victim of long-term abuse witnessed by others. But in cases like this, where there is so little evidence that JA had any reason to fear for her life, how does she prove her case without testifying?

(Just to remind us all: as I understand it, "self-defense" is an an affirmative defense. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove she was in imminent fear for her life. In theory, she can't just have her lawyer say it and then demand the prosecution prove otherwise.)

I agree. In most jury trials the burden of proof is on the State. If the State does not prove its case, the jury must acquit. In a case of self-defense the defendant must prove their claim. It is a situation where, unlike a typical jury trial, if the defense does not prove its case the jury must find her guilty.

I think Jodi believed she could charm the jurors. I believe Nurmi felt she had nothing to lose by trying. I have to say that this type of tactic is sometimes successful, and that the defense knows that. I just do not think they knew what they were up against with JM; I believe they might have come to a different decision if they had known.

 

[Rosebud1952]

I think I read somewhere that she was willing to take LWOP in some sort of settlement agreement, but JM would not hear of it. He was going for the DP. So in that case, she had nothing to lose. And the DT, at every step, was trying to get the DP thrown out for different reasons, but the judge denied it multiple times. The DP is trying as hard as it can just to have the DP off the table.
She is a most-unlikeable person, but it's hard for me to believe that 12 people would decide on the DP.

I know a lot of people don't like Nurmi, but he is just doing his job and that is to defend his client. I think I read somewhere he didn't even want the case, he was trying to get off of it, but the Judge would not let him. And you know, in the end, Jodi is going to throw Nurmi and Willmont under the bus, and I am sure they know it.

 

[krkrjx]

I think I read somewhere that she was willing to take LWOP in some sort of settlement agreement, but JM would not hear of it. He was going for the DP. So in that case, she had nothing to lose. And the DT, at every step, was trying to get the DP thrown out for different reasons, but the judge denied it multiple times. The DP is trying as hard as it can just to have the DP off the table.
She is a most-unlikeable person, but it's hard for me to believe that 12 people would decide on the DP.

I know a lot of people don't like Nurmi, but he is just doing his job and that is to defend his client. I think I read somewhere he didn't even want the case, he was trying to get off of it, but the Judge would not let him. And you know, in the end, Jodi is going to throw Nurmi and Willmont under the bus, and I am sure they know it.

IIRC, JM was going for first degree murder and JA wanted to plead to second degree. JM would not hear of it. I am not convinced JM is hellbent on death penalty and death penalty only. But maybe JA thinks he is, and thus figured she had nothing to lose and maybe something to gain by testifying?

 

[Boytwnmom]

Unfortunately for her lawyers, the self defense option didn't leave them much choice. And I'm sure she would have insisted on it anyway, after all, "No jury would convict her" and that's because of her superior abilities to sway and charm.

The defenses only hope was for her to be so "likable" that the jury would forgive her the extreme overkill that negates any claim of self defense. If the jury is composed of normal people rather than pathological ones, the defense is out of luck. I can't recall loathing anyone much more than her. And it's hard to imagine her generating much in the way of sympathy and warm feelings given her acts and the lies she has spun to cover them as well as her continued lack of remorse.

 

[gitana1]

Can I just clear this up real quick? No defense attorney would encourage their client to take the stand. Ever.

 

[Ladylub]

She demanded it and then her lawyer coached her through it all.

 

[gitana1]

I think she demanded to testify. She's just that manipulative and narcissistic IMO. I can't stand the way she speaks to the jury as though she was a seasoned professional hired to give their expert testimony. Plus 'no jury will ever convict her' so why listen to your attorney. I've lost all faith since Casey walked,but I'm hoping and praying this jury doesn't fall for this crock of dung.

I totally agree. Jodi hs been talking her way out of consequences all her life, IMO. Naturally, she thinks she can do so again.

 

[Jinkasaurus]

Can I just clear this up real quick? No defense attorney would encourage their client to take the stand. Ever.

But if they wanted to use the self-defense theory, did they have any other choice in this case?

 

[gitana1]

But if they wanted to use the self-defense theory, did they have any other choice in this case?

Well, yes. Look at the casey anthony case. She never testified at all. Instead, the defense told a story in opening that they never proved via testimony/evidence and although thAt case was a horrible anomaly, it does show that it is possible to mount a defense through suggestion alone.

However, I do think it's true that self defense cases normally cannot be proven without testimony. Unless there are tons of witnesses.

 

[Tsunvirtual]

This is the last time anyone will care what JA says. She's milking it for all it's worth. Her tells of smiling, being flirty and "shy"... no way she would or could stay off the stand. I think her D-team is willing and planned it because they knew she was toast anyway.

We want to hear from her one last time when they get ready to execute her and ask if she has anything to say.

 

[katiecoolady]

I voted for combo.. I think she demanded it and so they worked it to perfection: it is way too "planned" and "contrived" imhoo

I also voted for the combo platter of crazy

 

[Lorelilly]

She demanded to take the stand and her DT had no choice. Since she claimed self defense there was no other option besides testifying. Now we have to hope the jury sees through all her bull and are as disgusted by her as we are.

 

[SapphireSteel]

We want to hear from her one last time when they get ready to execute her and ask if she has anything to say.

:what:

The law isn't supposed to be about revenge.

 

[scorpio24]

I also voted for the combo platter of crazy

I know it sounds impossible, I'll bet Jodi could find a way to vote all three ways - and explain AT LENGTH the reason for each! :twocents:

 

[Kacey4]

She Has to be in control. She demanded it.

 

[Jeffssis]

Combination of both, however, she believes she's smarter than everyone else in her mind, is most likely calling the shots.

I agree and I imagine she's driving her defense team absolutely bonkers. Can you imagine dealing with her for years! And then, having to make yourself give her the best defense possible. It's a tremendous catch 22 for those two. Remember he wanted out at one time and was denied the out.