FWIW.
I've transcribed the last segment of the 10/06/14 Pre-Trial Hearing.
I hope it may be helpful at some point in our discussions.
I can't type another minute, so am calling it a night. Ciao y'all.
Jodi Arias Pre-Trial Hearing
10/06/14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Dc7F9-kws
Transcript draft.
This is not an official transcript of the video.
All errors are my own.
I'm beginning at 43:56
Juan Martinez (Prosecution)= JM
Kurt Nurmi (Defence) = KN
Jennifer Willmott (Defence) = JW
Judge Sherry Stephens = JSS
Last segment of the video beginning at: 43:56
JSS Mr. Martinez, in light of the fact that the Defence is withdrawing Mr. Magee as a witness, do you believe there will be any reason for you to raise this issue?
JM No, because, as we've talked at the bench, one of the things that I will be filing is a motion to preclude any reference to Mr. Magee and/or any information he provided and that was used by their experts as part of the basis for their opinion.
44:27
JSS Similarly, with regard to the claim that Dr. Geffner was the subject of sexual harassment allegations, is that something that you may not pursue after you have completed your interview with Dr. Geffner?
JM It depends what his answer is. It may be that there are documents out there about it. And, it depends on his answer. I mean, if, if he tells me 'Well, it really wasn't a sexual harassment complaint, it was just a misunderstanding', then I'll pursue the documents. It's just some information I received, and I wanted to ask him about it.
45:11
JSS Alright. Here's what I'm going to do with this motion because I think that it is still unclear exactly the status of what's going to happen with regard to these witnesses and what the State may attempt to do. I'm going to table this. We will take this up--when will Dr. Geffner's interview be completed?
JM We still have to schedule it. We've been busy doing other stuff, so, and his interview will consist of the notes that we were just, that were just recently disclosed, I need to talk to him about that. And then, I'll talk to him obviously about this and those are the two areas that I plan to cover with him.
45:47
JSS Alright. Well, I'm going to table this until Dr. Geffner's interview is concluded. Also, with regard to Mr. Magee, I will look at the State's motion and that may affect the court's ruling with regard to the motion to compel with regard to Mr. Magee.
JM And it's my understanding that the interview that's scheduled for the 17th is canceled now.
JSS Miss Willmott, is that correct?
JW Yes, judge. He, he, Mr. Magee has received threats through the Justice 4 Travis website. And he has been, his wife, and I've been advised that his wife is now living in fear. They fear for their children based on some of the things that have been said. So, he's not willing to participate and that includes he's not willing to speak with Mr. Martinez. The other issue judge is obviously his name was supposed to be sealed, and it wasn't. And that was something we notified the court of last week, so his name is out there. It's been disclosed, so, he is concerned and doesn't feel that there is any security available to him because his name was disclosed even before we got to trial.
46:58
JSS How was his name disclosed? Do you know?
JW We don't know, Judge. It just appeared on, on the Facebook. We've been trying, attempting to trace it, but so far, we don't know. It certainly wasn't from anyone from the Defence.
47:20
JSS I want the record to be clear. The only disclosure occurred through this website. Is that correct?
JW Of his name?
JSS Yes
JW That's all that I 'm aware of.
JSS And, as a result of that disclosure, you are stating that Mr. Magee and his family have been harassed or fear harassment.
JW No. They have been harassed via the website. So, in other words, his name goes out there. There are discussions going on for days about him and about who he is, where he is. In one of these particular discussions, it's noted where he is and that a person who is discussing this on FaceBook says that they will find him and take care of him.
48:15
JSS OK
JM The State did not make this disclosure. I will note that in one of the motions, our objection to the motion is this, the only people that are having contact with the media are the defendant and her team, so we did not disclose this to anybody, so, where that came from, I don't know.
48:38
JW And Judge, just to be clear, this wasn't disclosed from the media. It's not a media leak. It's a leak that has to do with the website that is run on behalf of the victim.
48:54
JSS Do you have anything that you want to put on, in the record with regard to this leak?
JW Judge, we do. We will have some screenshots that we can, that we can file, but I don't have them today.
JSS OK. Alright.
49:12
JSS Alright. Let's take up the motion to dismiss, inability to present a complete case for life.
KN Thank you, your honour. Like I say, a lot of these motions are intertwined, but I want to incorporate what Miss Willmott said as it relates to Mr. Magee, and add his non-participation that we learned of late last night to the motion. Your honour, obviously, I don't, I don't need to add to the motion. I think the motion is fairly well articulated as it relates to which witnesses and what they would have said. The comments I want to make today for the court. Further, I want to, I want to piggyback on what Miss Willmott said about Mr. Magee because it's important not to understand that he has been put in fear by this website and threats that are made on it, but what he would have testified to.
He would have testified that he was living in Riverside County, dating a girl who was residing with Mr. Alexander and that when he was trying to edit his wedding photographs, some images of *advertiser censored*, specifically child *advertiser censored*, came to be, came on the screen. That he ultimately had a conversation with Mr. Alexander wherein Mr. Alexander said that he had been a victim of molestation in the past, and talked about some of these issues with Mr. Magee and his struggle. It's certainly a sad situation for young Mr. Alexander, but also ultimately something that is very important in the mitigation case of Miss Arias, in the fact that it supports many of the claims that were made at trial for which she was ultimately called a liar repeatedly.
So, Mr. Magee's, our knowledge of Mr. Magee and what he could bring forward and what he won't bring forward out of fear, I think is detrimental to the State's pursuit of the death penalty. Not only that, but the State has indicated that they are going to go so far as to try to preclude the experts from making any reference to it even though hearsay is admissible in these proceedings.
That being said, the other thing I want to address is the State's response. The State's response is 'well, you can just, you know, go subpoena these people and drag them in', etcetera. Well, what I would would say to that is this: while factually true, the case law on mitigation and presenting a case for life, requires that this case for life be made to give full effect to mitigation. It's what similar cases like Eddie and Skipper and Rocket tell us. And that's what it takes to comport with the dictates of the 5th amendment, the 6th amendment, the 8th amendment and 14th amendment. And, without this full effect, the death penalty cannot stand. And, if you look at all the mitigation that's lost, to all the threats, to all the things that happened because this trial was broadcast and Miss Arias was subjected to originally. Particularly, now with the recent withdrawal of Mark Magee on top of all the expert witnesses, on top of everything else, makes any attempt by the State to pursue this death penalty constitutionally inappropriate. And, therefore, the death penalty should be dismissed.
53:01
JSS Mr. Martinez
JM Not only did I call Mark Magee a liar, he is a liar, and, I, if the court allows me, because it is my work product, I would like to make a record of how I know that Mr. Magee is a liar. And I'll stand up on the tallest steeple and scream it out because I know that is a fact. He is making things up, and I, and I can prove it. And, I believe that the reason he doesn't want to testify is because he knows that if he comes down here, he will be exposed for what he is: a liar. One of the things that I will point out, just so they know. I've spoken to Vernon Parker, and one of the things that he, that Defence Counsel tells you is that Mr. Alexander was living with Mr. Parker at the time that Mr. Magee's girlfriend was living there.
Mr. Alexander wasn't living there. And the computer that they talk about? Well, the computer was in the living room and was available to everybody. So, I'm not sure why they believe that Mark Magee is the Holy Grail. I believe that it's just something that is made for appeal purposes just like in the other motion that I attached it to, tweets between their mitigation expert and Michael Kiefer where they indicate that they're just filing these things for strategic purposes so they can preserve the appeal. That's what I think is being done with this particular motion.
I do stand by the concept that they can subpoena these witnesses to come in, Mark Magee aside. And, I don't know what efforts they've undertaken to subpoena Mark Magee. I don't know what efforts they undertook to subpoena all of the witnesses that they've mentioned. But, I will say this with regard to Deanna Reed. She's in California. Some of these people are in California. She's going to show up pursuant to their request. That's one of the things that was discussed at the interview. She indicated it also on this notice that she would show up. So, I do not believe that there is any merit to this indi-, or this argument where they tell you that they cannot present their complete case for life because of their inability to present these people.
Additionally, one of the other individuals that they talk about was, and I'll just cite her by name, For example, Daniel Freeman and Desiree Freeman. There's no indication that they did not follow the dictates of a subpoena. And, there is no indication that they subpoenaed anybody else or made an attempt to, for example, subpoena Dr. Karp to come here. It's clear that they know their way to the subpoena power. and it's clear that they're able to get people. My understanding is that Darryl Brewer is going to testify.
I ask the court to consider something that has happened in this case, to, to show the court that really what's going on is they're attempting to sabotage the process. And, specifically, I want the court to make reference or take a look at Sheryll Clark. The State subpoenaed an expert that, interviewed the defendant. And, what has happened? The State subpoenaed, even though she is clearly a hostile witness, they've objected to it. Even if you have a hostile witness, if you subpoena them there's a way to get them here. So, their lack of effort in subpoenaing these people, is not grounds to make a motion to dismiss. Because, they have been unable to make a complete case for life, and I would welcome the opportunity to make an ex parte record of my work product as to why I can say that Mark Magee is a liar.
57:25
JSS Alright. Anything else, Mr. Nurmi?
KN Well, your Honour, it's not us. For the record it is not, although we side with them and believe that calling Dr. Karp is not appropriate, it is attorneys for Dr. Karp that relate to the quashing of her subpoena, not us. So, there's much bluster about that. We're guilty of everything under the sun, including subverting the process. I think the State's disclosure with this ex parte record is really indicating now that he has something to disclose in an ex parte record, he has something to which Miss Arias is entitled because it could be used against her. So, we're asking that he make that available today. He obviously has something to disclose in an ex parte record. So, could, could somebody please explain to me any bit of law that would not require him to turn that over?
It is not a torte product. It is called discovery, and we are entitled to it. So if he has these reasons, he can prove that he's a liar, or call our witness--again, see this is our point. He comes in and there's an intimidation. There's a bullying on behalf of the State. Following witnesses to their hearings, etcetera, etcetera. And Dr. Karp being the primary one of them. So what we have then, though, is that so he makes an allegation against Mr. Magee--he's a pedophile, somehow his name gets out, he's attributing that to Miss de la Rosa, I don't understand how that could be. Now, in his motion to dismiss, he does that as well. After his office released all the information against Miss Arias, but he..
58:09
JSS Mr. Nurmi, just let me interrupt you for a second. I just want to understand the defendant's position. It is not your position to attempt to illicit any of this information from these witnesses through hearsay. You're not, for example, going to call Miss de la Rosa to the stand and have her testify about what she's been told. Hearsay is admissible at a penalty phase trial, so, I guess--I understand you're not going to call Mr. Magee. You've withdrawn him from your witness list.
KN Yes.
JSS So, are you planning to illicit any kind of testimony about Mr. Magee during your case?
KN I suspect, I, I suspect that, that I, if--I, I'm not sure whether we will illicit it or not because I haven't had time to fully digest his non-participation. But, I think the information in the hearsay is still valid levels of inquiry if Miss Arias chooses to present that evidence. And, Mr. Martinez can attack it if he wants to and go the way of credibility of the experts. I understand that. But, he can't say, well, it's first they precluded. He says he's a liar based on information that he won't share with us.
1:00:24
JSS Mr. Martinez
JM I think that I can move to preclude him, and the grounds are that he's a liar. I know that I can prove that, but I just know that if he doesn't provide me with an interview, given the inflammatory nature of his charges under Rule 401, 402, and 403, it would be so grossly unfair to have the State defend those particular charges without that person being here. That's, that's the reason why, well, that's the reason why I'm going to make the motion to preclude him.
Not because he's just saying she's a good girl, or anything. It's that he's making these allegations that are so grossly horrific. And, he was listed as a witness, and now he's not. And, why use it under 401, 402, and 403 analysis. He can certainly come in and talk about it. But, I think it's unfair to then, then have the State deal with these without that person being here.
1:01:30
JSS Alright. Well, with regard to Mr. Magee, I'm not going to make any ruling on these issues until you file your motion to preclude or if you do attempt to interview Mr. Magee. However, if you want to make a record with regard to what you know, the court is not going to be privy to that. If you, if you think that you need to do that, what I would suggest you do is put it in a document, and it will be sealed and kept with the clerk. I'm not gong to get into that. With regard to whether or not that needs to be disclosed, I'm going to reserve ruling on that issue until after you file your motion to preclude and you have an opportunity to attempt to speak to Mr. Magee.
With regard to the motion to dismiss the State's Notice of Intent to seek the death penalty due to the inability to present a complete case for life, I'm denying that motion at this time. Much of this information will be available to the defendant through hearsay testimony of the mitigation specialist or other means. The defendant has not established that she has made any effort to subpoena these witnesses and to bring them in here, into the court. The court is denying the motion to dismiss for those reasons.
1:02:51
JSS Alright. One other thing that I want to put on the record. In reviewing the Notice to Dismiss State's Notice of Intent to seek the death penalty due to continued State's misconduct, and in the objection to that motion, there is reference to conduct by the Judicial Assistant. I have marked it. In the State's objection on Page 7: Mr. Martinez notes that during the first trial, the prosecutor and case agent were approached by a courtroom deputy raising concerns about the judicial assistant's conduct.
The deputy overheard the judicial assistant commenting the prosecutor should be stabbed 27 times. The judicial assistant was also overheard commenting to the foreperson that second degree murder would be the appropriate verdict. The defendant is incorrect when she states that the detective learned this information during a sealed proceeding.
Alright, with regard to this allegation, I have spoken with the judicial assistant. I assume that it's this court's judicial assistant that's being referenced, although no names were used. The judicial assistant adamantly denies that any of this occurred. So, if either party wants to make a record on this, then I want to have the name of the courtroom deputy who provided this information and anyone else who overheard the judicial assistant commenting to the foreperson that second degree murder would be the appropriate verdict. I think a record needs to be made on this.
The judicial assistant, again, adamantly denies that any of this occurred. She does not know if, perhaps, someone was saying this in jest or someone misunderstood some statement. We're unclear. But, I think a record should be made if, if the parties intend to urge this as a basis for any kind of action by the court.
1:05:31
JM I don't intend to urge it on behalf of any action by the court other than to dismiss or deny the defendant's request. But, if you want, I can give you the name of the officer.
[Phrase covered by cough.]
JSS Alright. Why don't you do that?
JM Do you want it under seal or, I don't know.
JSS Well, we are in a sealed proceeding, so I…
JM Jennifer Pittman is her name.
JSS Jennifer Pittman.
JM Yes. Mmm hmm.
JSS Alright.
JM She was right over here in the corner. She said, Hey, something to the effect, and then she told us all about that. I don't know if it was one time, or a different time, but that's who told us about it.
1:06:01
JSS So she was the one who, who said that she heard say that the prosecutor should be stabbed 27 times.
JM Right. And, I do believe that what happened is that I brought it to your attention and we went back, and It was only the attorneys and us because I didn't want to embarrass anybody about it. I just thought that if the judicial assistant didn't have any contact with the jury from then on, and everything would be taken care of, I didn't want to make a big deal out of it.
JSS OK. And is this Jennifer Pittman also the one who overheard the judicial assistant commenting to the foreperson?
JM I don't know if she overheard it. I think she made a comment of that to me. In other words, she heard it from somebody else or I don't know, I don't remember exactly how that came out, but...
JSS OK.
JM And, there may have been some other people too. And, she may have also indicated that, if we're going to make it complete, that your judicial assistant was crying or something like that (I'm not sure about that) at the time of the verdict. I'm not really sure about that, but something like that was also going on.
JSS OK
1:0 7:12
JSS Alright. Mr. Nurmi anything?
KN Well no, your honour. I mean, I have a similar recollection. I don't remember the crying issue or anything else being brought up, but I remember the issue of the supposed comments. I don't know if they were attributed to your judicial assistant or some other court staff member from my recollection of the hearings. But, I do remember we had, in my recollection, we had Deputy Pittman in a sealed proceeding and just relating what she said. And, I believe that your then,and current, judicial assistant was brought in as well during those proceedings, so…
JSS OK. So, there's already been a record made, as far as you're concerned, that's adequate on that issue?
KN As, as best as I can recall, yes. Because it was, it occurred during trial proceedings which, as the court knows, has been some time now, but yes. That is, that is my recollection as well.
JSS Alright. Then, I'm not going to require any additional evidentiary hearing on that issue. If parties have a different position on that, you can let me know, and we will make an appropriate record.
1:08:17
JSS Alright. Anything else for today?
KN We did have the one, final motion in limn under seal.
JSS Oh, right.
KN That was filed (and I'm using, I'm using my dates, not the dates that they were e-filed, but) on or about the 24th of February of 2014, deal with the issue of using pseudonyms for collateral sources. I don't know how germane that is now things are a little different, but we may, regarding what witnesses may request that use. Dr. Karp is requesting such use. And, believe that they did in prior proceedings, but my suspicion is that Mr. Magee might be making that request as well.
JSS Alright. Well, until you give me specifics, I can't really ask the State to respond. So, if you believe that a pseudonym is appropriate for a specific witness, approach, and I will rule on the individual request to use the pseudonym based on the circumstances. OK.
KN Understood, your Honour.
JSS Alright. And, with regard to the other motions, I have pulled up two of them, and I can't find the one from April 9th with regard to smuggling contraband. Let's see if I can find it. You thought it was in April, correct?
KN I have, I have April 9th on mine. But, I don't have a, I didn't have a…
JSS Was if filed under seal?
KN No.
JSS Of 2014, correct?
KN Yes.
JSS …OK. April 23rd. So, I have all three of those, and I will review those before Monday at 1:30.
KN I'm sorry. You do have it?
JSS I do have it. It was filed April 23rd.
KN Sorry.
JSS It was close. Do you have anything else?
JM I don't have anything.
JSS Alright.
KN Oh, we have a request. It is our understanding that Mr. Martinez has made it known, at least as it relates to Vernon Parker, that he had an interview with Mr. Parker, and we are asking for a recording of that interview. As well as any interview conducted with, I believe her name if Marsha Parker.
JM Well, he's wrong that I spoke with Marsha Parker. I never spoke with Marsha Parker. I did speak to Vernon Parker, and his lawyer was present, telephonically. I neither recorded, nor did I take any notes during that interview, so none can be provided.
JSS And you were alone during this interview?
JM Pardon? No, I wasn't alone. His lawyer was there, Mr. Parker was there, and I was there.
JSS OK, so there were the three of you.
JM Yes.
JSS But there was no one else with you. There wasn't a detective or an investigator, it was just you.
JM Yes.
JSS You took no notes.
JM I took no notes and I did not tape record it. And, I think case law is clear that the State doesn't have to, is not required to create notes or to tape record for the benefit of other parties.
JSS I think that's correct. And when did this interview occur just so the record's clear.
JM It occurred the same day I interviewed Deanna Reed. So, that would have been October 13th.
JSS 2014.
JM Correct.
JSS Alright. That's where we are. Is there anything else? Alright. We'll see you Monday at 1:30. Thank you.
Perhaps the person having difficulty reading from a prepared speech is uncomfortable speaking in public - many people are. That's why Toastmasters exists. The idea of speaking in a group makes me a gibbering, sweating dufus. 
