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

[Luvrosco]

If JSS gives JA LWP, can the state appeal her verdict?

 

[AZlawyer]

In the penalty phase, is there any such thing as prejudicial evidence for the State? In other words, are there limits on what the State can present to counter the mitigating factors argued by the defense?

From my brief research, what I am finding is case law addressing defense failures to present evidence in mitigation which may or may not have been prejudicial. I am finding nothing regarding the State side of things.

TIA

I think you might be using the word "prejudicial" in two different ways. Neither side is permitted to present evidence that is more prejudicial than it is probative. In other words, you can't bring in evidence that the victim is a pedophile just to trash the victim; the alleged pedophilia behavior would have to actually connect to your claim of mitigation (e.g., I was so super-stressed out about my secret domestic violence relationship with this secret pedophile that conflicted with our religion and triggered my preexisting mental illness, so I premeditated his murder.) The State and defense are both subject to this limitation and others, although the evidentiary rules are seriously relaxed during this phase.

The case law about failing to present evidence and whether the failure was "prejudicial" is about something else. It concerns whether the "missed" evidence would have made a difference to the verdict. The State is never questioned on appeal about whether they failed to present evidence that might have made a difference because there is no one to sue the prosecutor for ineffective assistance of counsel.

If JSS gives JA LWP, can the state appeal her verdict?

No.

 

[Joan (Canada)]

Is there anyplace I can find the new motions that Juan filed on Dec. 22, 2014. Thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there anyplace I can find the new motions that Juan filed on Dec. 22, 2014. Thank you.

http://thetrialdiaries.com/wp-conte...-to-interview-Bryan-Numeisters-employees1.pdf

http://thetrialdiaries.com/wp-conte...lemental-motion-for-dismissal-of-charges1.pdf

 

[lilpony]

Has the trial been taking place? If so where does it stand at this point. Sure wish it was televised.

 

[AZlawyer]

The retrial of the penalty phase is on hiatus until Jan. 5. I think we're still on the defense mitigation case, although it's hard to remember with all the interruptions!

 

[5bigfish5]

My husband is basically suffering with me through this trial in absentia. BUT, he asked me if I thought Stephens was assigned this case because she was female.

NO doubt Judge Ito got the OJ/Brown/Goldman case because of his ethnicity. Just wondered what the local Attorneys think. How are cases divvied up there?

Seems like a leap of faith for some unknown reason.


Super Thanks for ALL you Guys!

 

[AZlawyer]

My husband is basically suffering with me through this trial in absentia. BUT, he asked me if I thought Stephens was assigned this case because she was female.

NO doubt Judge Ito got the OJ/Brown/Goldman case because of his ethnicity. Just wondered what the local Attorneys think. How are cases divvied up there?

Seems like a leap of faith for some unknown reason.


Super Thanks for ALL you Guys!

The assignments are random among the handful of criminal judges in the death penalty rotation.

 

[skab]

Does each side of the case, defense/prosecutor have to disclose EVERYTHING to each side before trial? For example, would the defense have already seen the magazines with the code in them? Or is that what the admitting into evidence thing is for? How much of their whole case do they disclose? Another example that just happened, would the defense have known prior to yesterday that the letter was going to be discussed? I have never watched a case before except this one or the fiction on TV and wondered whether there really is a thing as a Perry Mason moment. Thank you!!!

 

[grammieto5]

Hi AZL, thank you for all your help with this trial. If an expert witness has their testimony thrown out, do they still get paid?

 

[My-Future-Ex-Husband]

Hi AZL. In the previous penalty phase could the other jurors have gone to the judge and said that one juror flatly refused to deliberate (WZ apparently)?

Thank you.

Oh and, seeing as Matt McCartney isn't testifying and he is alive why is nothing anyone is saying he said hearsay? Thanks again.

 

[AZlawyer]

Does each side of the case, defense/prosecutor have to disclose EVERYTHING to each side before trial? For example, would the defense have already seen the magazines with the code in them? Or is that what the admitting into evidence thing is for? How much of their whole case do they disclose? Another example that just happened, would the defense have known prior to yesterday that the letter was going to be discussed? I have never watched a case before except this one or the fiction on TV and wondered whether there really is a thing as a Perry Mason moment. Thank you!!!

Everything used at trial would have to be disclosed previously. Yes, the defense had definitely seen those magazines before trial but perhaps hadn't noticed the notes in them. Yes, the defense knew the letter might be discussed. Perry Mason moments are extremely rare.

Hi AZL, thank you for all your help with this trial. If an expert witness has their testimony thrown out, do they still get paid?

Yes, and I've never seen anyone's testimony get "thrown out" unless they fail to appear to complete their examination.

Hi AZL. In the previous penalty phase could the other jurors have gone to the judge and said that one juror flatly refused to deliberate (WZ apparently)?

Thank you.

Oh and, seeing as Matt McCartney isn't testifying and he is alive why is nothing anyone is saying he said hearsay? Thanks again.

Yes, they could have told the judge he would not deliberate if that were true.

Hearsay is permitted in the mitigation phase. Also, experts are generally permitted to rely on hearsay in any event.

 

[tandt]

AZL, first, thank you for all your help during this circus of a trial!

So the Defense has rested their case without JA taking the stand again from her super-secret testimony. Since she wasn't cross-examined, I read on another thread that JSS could label that her allocation or strike it completely. If the former, does she get another time to just opine about book clubs, recycling programs, etc like she did in the first trial penalty phase?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL, first, thank you for all your help during this circus of a trial!

So the Defense has rested their case without JA taking the stand again from her super-secret testimony. Since she wasn't cross-examined, I read on another thread that JSS could label that her allocation or strike it completely. If the former, does she get another time to just opine about book clubs, recycling programs, etc like she did in the first trial penalty phase?

Oh, yes, she will no doubt allocute some more.

 

[bronagh]

Hi, i'm new here but not to justice for Travis. My question is, in your opinion is J Arias case really a DP case? The reason i'm asking is i'v read that some legal minds say it is not as it is not the worst of the worst (i disagree) having said that i am not a legal person and certainly do not have a legal mind it is just my opinion.With all the lies, premeditated, cruel etc etc surely it is a DP case.
If it is not, why do you think Juan asked for the DP.

Sorry forgot to say hello to everyone here.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

Can you tell me what law, Rule, or Decision / Ruling Stephens used as justification to circumvent Federal Law pertaining to the introduction of character evidence by a defendant and the Prosecution then being prohibited from introducing character evidence showing the defendant had the same proclivities.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, i'm new here but not to justice for Travis. My question is, in your opinion is J Arias case really a DP case? The reason i'm asking is i'v read that some legal minds say it is not as it is not the worst of the worst (i disagree) having said that i am not a legal person and certainly do not have a legal mind it is just my opinion.With all the lies, premeditated, cruel etc etc surely it is a DP case.
If it is not, why do you think Juan asked for the DP.

Sorry forgot to say hello to everyone here.

I have had the "pleasure" for a former job of reading and indexing the holdings of all the death penalty cases in AZ, and have read all the opinions that came out since then just to keep up on the law. I would say this case is not what would normally come to mind for a person who's read all those cases.

I think the Maricopa County Attorney's Office (not JM personally) made the decision to ask for the DP because the case does qualify for the DP under our statutes. The MCAO tends to think that jurors should decide which qualifying cases are "bad enough" for the DP.

Can you tell me what law, Rule, or Decision / Ruling Stephens used as justification to circumvent Federal Law pertaining to the introduction of character evidence by a defendant and the Prosecution then being prohibited from introducing character evidence showing the defendant had the same proclivities.

First of all, the federal rules of evidence don't apply in state courts. Second, our state rules of evidence are very similar. Third, I don't know what character evidence you have in mind. Can you be more specific?

 

[Midnight Rambler]

The character evidence presented by the defense plainly accused TA of being a manipulator and being promiscuous. Stephens denied Juan the opportunity to show that Jodi was the same. This is the evidence that I had in mind. I thought that by law Juan would be able to counter their claims. Thanks for the quick response.

 

[AZlawyer]

The character evidence presented by the defense plainly accused TA of being a manipulator and being promiscuous. Stephens denied Juan the opportunity to show that Jodi was the same. This is the evidence that I had in mind. I thought that by law Juan would be able to counter their claims. Thanks for the quick response.

Got it. OK. The defense "evidence" re: Travis being a promiscuous manipulator was not really character evidence as defined in the rules of evidence. It was not being introduced to show that, since he had a character of being a promiscuous manipulator, it was therefore more likely that he acted in a promiscuous manipulating way on, e.g., the date of the murder. Instead, it was being introduced to show that Jodi was trapped in a secret relationship with a promiscuous manipulator (also probably a pedophile, the defense team keeps not quite saying), which, coupled with her delicate mental state, caused her to suffer from terrible stress that made her not think very clearly when deciding whether or not to murder people. Properly admitted IMO.

Whether or not Jodi was a promiscuous manipulator is irrelevant, really, since the question for mitigation is what was going on in Jodi's little self-centered brain rather than what was going on in Travis's brain. Also, JSS needs to be very careful not to let JM slip in anything that seems like aggravating factors not listed in the statute rather than rebuttal of mitigating factors. JM basically can't say anything that the jury might accidentally think they are allowed to "balance" against the mitigating factors except for the fact that Travis suffered during the murder (the statutorily-approved aggravating factor of "cruelty").

 

[bronagh]

Thank you i appreciate your reply very much.