Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[polleypockets]

Do you know when these were filed?

they were filed today - the emergency stay was turned down and court will resume on monday, but the petition still has to be evaluated by the court - if i understood the news correctly

 

[minor4th]

they were filed today - the emergency stay was turned down and court will resume on monday, but the petition still has to be evaluated by the court - if i understood the news correctly

Thank you so much. I remember hearing about this a week or so ago, but I guess it was just speculation at that point because they hadn't been filed.

ETA: I just read that it was filed in late January with the Court of Appeals -- they denied the appeal, and now they have filed it with the Arizona Supreme Court. I imagine it will be denied by that court as well, and that's the end of the line on that issue as far as interlocutory appeals go.

 

[polleypockets]

Thank you so much. I remember hearing about this a week or so ago, but I guess it was just speculation at that point because they hadn't been filed.

ETA: I just read that it was filed in late January with the Court of Appeals -- they denied the appeal, and now they have filed it with the Arizona Supreme Court. I imagine it will be denied by that court as well, and that's the end of the line on that issue as far as interlocutory appeals go.

just hitting the ty button was not enuff - thank you!

 

[princesspjs]

Thank you so much. I remember hearing about this a week or so ago, but I guess it was just speculation at that point because they hadn't been filed.

ETA: I just read that it was filed in late January with the Court of Appeals -- they denied the appeal, and now they have filed it with the Arizona Supreme Court. I imagine it will be denied by that court as well, and that's the end of the line on that issue as far as interlocutory appeals go.

:denied:

Jodi Arias’ effort to get the death penalty option in her murder case temporarily set aside was met Friday with a swift rejection from the Arizona Supreme Court in a one-sentence response denying the motion filed just hours earlier.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/free/20130222mesa-arias-case-death-penalty-ruling.html

 

[Nova]

Random picking of names out of a hat. Well, not usually a hat, but whatever's around.

Do you have an opinion about this method, AZ?

I can only imagine, but I think there might be a difference in knowing you have a near certainty of joining the deliberations v. knowing you have a 2 out of 3 shot. (If I were a defendant, I think I'd want jurors to know they had the job.)

On the other hand, it occurs to me that when the alternates are designated at the beginning, you have jurors sitting there thinking they won't have to remember the testimony since they won't get to deliberate.

Maybe I've answered my own question...

 

[AZlawyer]

:denied:



http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/free/20130222mesa-arias-case-death-penalty-ruling.html

That was just a denial of the stay request, though. I don't think they've denied the actual Petition for Review yet.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you have an opinion about this method, AZ?

I can only imagine, but I think there might be a difference in knowing you have a near certainty of joining the deliberations v. knowing you have a 2 out of 3 shot. (If I were a defendant, I think I'd want jurors to know they had the job.)

On the other hand, it occurs to me that when the alternates are designated at the beginning, you have jurors sitting there thinking they won't have to remember the testimony since they won't get to deliberate.

Maybe I've answered my own question...

Yeah, you definitely can't tell them at the beginning. And you can't pick them in any non-random way. And you can't really let them deliberate and THEN kick them out right before the vote, because then they've influenced the deliberations....

 

[Cate49]

Thought I had posted these questions yesterday but can not see post. My question was if defense lawyers can refuse a case?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thought I had posted these questions yesterday but can not see post. My question was if defense lawyers can refuse a case?

Sure, but there are three kinds of defense lawyers really:

1. Private defense lawyers, who can take or refuse any case, but have to rely on their clients to pay them.

2. Public defense lawyers, paid by the government, who certainly choose to take the job, but once they take the job they have to take the cases assigned to them.

3. Private defense lawyers who enter into contracts with the government to represent defendants in cases where, e.g., the public defense lawyers have a conflict of interest. They can certainly choose whether or not to enter into the contracts, but once they do they have to take the cases assigned to them.

And then, for any lawyer, once you are on a case the judge doesn't necessarily have to let you off the case just because you ask.

 

[lil_buddy]

Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions - you guys are a credit to your profession - I really think that!!!!

So do the jurors get to review the exhibits at their leisure?
Do they watch video of the trial?
Get to read transcripts?
Do they really only have just one shot, real time, at getting all the info presented?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions - you guys are a credit to your profession - I really think that!!!!

So do the jurors get to review the exhibits at their leisure?
Do they watch video of the trial?
Get to read transcripts?
Do they really only have just one shot, real time, at getting all the info presented?

The jurors can look over the exhibits during deliberations, yes. All exhibits admitted will be in the room with them, unless it is something that requires special care or handling, and then they can ask to see it.

They will not be given video or a transcript unless they specifically ask, and probably not even then if either of the lawyers objects. But that's up to the judge.

 

[princesspjs]

That was just a denial of the stay request, though. I don't think they've denied the actual Petition for Review yet.

You lost me (not difficult to do) I don't understand what the part that I bolded here means if it doesn't mean that they said no. :waitasec: Motion...Petition...are those different things? What did the Supreme Court deny on Friday? Please, type slow so maybe I'll have a chance to understand. :blushing:

Jodi Arias’ effort to get the death penalty option in her murder case temporarily set aside was met Friday with a swift rejection from the Arizona Supreme Court in a one-sentence response denying the motion filed just hours earlier.

 

[princesspjs]

Sure, but there are three kinds of defense lawyers really:

1. Private defense lawyers, who can take or refuse any case, but have to rely on their clients to pay them.

2. Public defense lawyers, paid by the government, who certainly choose to take the job, but once they take the job they have to take the cases assigned to them.

3. Private defense lawyers who enter into contracts with the government to represent defendants in cases where, e.g., the public defense lawyers have a conflict of interest. They can certainly choose whether or not to enter into the contracts, but once they do they have to take the cases assigned to them.

And then, for any lawyer, once you are on a case the judge doesn't necessarily have to let you off the case just because you ask.

I've often wondered how could a defense attorney represent people like FCA or JA. I understand that it is their chosen profession so they must have some sort of personal reason why they chose to be a defense attorney.

If I were a defense attorney and was going about my life, defending clients and was somehow given one of these kinds of cases could I ask the judge to remove me because I simply can't stand this particular client? Is that a valid reason to be removed from a case "Your Honor, I want to be removed because I simply hate his/her guts and would rather poke my own eyeballs out than to have to look at this person ever again?" It seems like that would be a conflict of interest...or would that just be totally inappropriate and unprofessional?

Obviously, I could never be a defense attorney.

 

[AZlawyer]

You lost me (not difficult to do) I don't understand what the part that I bolded here means if it doesn't mean that they said no. :waitasec: Motion...Petition...are those different things? What did the Supreme Court deny on Friday? Please, type slow so maybe I'll have a chance to understand. :blushing:

Yes, the motion and petition are different. The motion was to prevent Judge Stephens from holding the penalty phase of the trial until after the AZ Supreme Court has a chance to rule on the petition. The AZ Supreme Court said no--meaning that if the AZ Supreme Court still hasn't ruled on the petition by the time a verdict is reached, then Judge Stephens can move forward to the penalty phase.

The petition was to throw out the DP as an option--meaning there would not be any penalty phase at all.

The denial of the motion IMO means either: (1) the AZ Supreme Court judge who denied the motion (Pelander) is pretty dang sure the court will be denying the petition too, or (2) Pelander thinks they will have plenty of time to decide the petition before the penalty phase starts.

 

[AZlawyer]

I've often wondered how could a defense attorney represent people like FCA or JA. I understand that it is their chosen profession so they must have some sort of personal reason why they chose to be a defense attorney.

If I were a defense attorney and was going about my life, defending clients and was somehow given one of these kinds of cases could I ask the judge to remove me because I simply can't stand this particular client? Is that a valid reason to be removed from a case "Your Honor, I want to be removed because I simply hate his/her guts and would rather poke my own eyeballs out than to have to look at this person ever again?" It seems like that would be a conflict of interest...or would that just be totally inappropriate and unprofessional?

Obviously, I could never be a defense attorney.

If you were a public defender or a private attorney with a government contract, that would not be a sufficient reason. If you were a private attorney retained directly by the defendant, you could move to withdraw in this situation, although you would probably word it more vaguely/delicately--e.g., "unresolvable conflicts with the client that cannot be disclosed due to privilege" lol. BUT if the trial is just a couple of months away, you might not be able to withdraw anyway.

Also, if you were a private defense attorney who regularly withdrew because your clients were unpleasant, you would probably run out of clients pretty quickly and starve.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Could the defense have rested after the prosecutions CIC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

Could the defense have rested after the prosecutions CIC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could have, but ...

 

[Hally]

1} How is that JA can claim self defense - when her own testimony is that she can't remember what happened after the gun shot? She has ni if it is self defense, or him defending himself by her own account.

2} How can pedophilia be entered into the defense with absolutely no proof, again her own words are - a paper/pic flew on the ground next to her - a pic of a dressed young boy, out of a pile that was next to TA - which she testified she never saw the pile of papers next to TA? Please tell me that it cannot be this easy to state such a terrible thing.

 

[Nova]

Yeah, you definitely can't tell them at the beginning. And you can't pick them in any non-random way. And you can't really let them deliberate and THEN kick them out right before the vote, because then they've influenced the deliberations....

Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that alternates should be allowed to deliberate. I was only questioning the state of mind of jurors who know there is no certainty they will get that far.

But I can see benefits for both systems. Thanks.

 

[Nova]

If you were a public defender or a private attorney with a government contract, that would not be a sufficient reason. If you were a private attorney retained directly by the defendant, you could move to withdraw in this situation, although you would probably word it more vaguely/delicately--e.g., "unresolvable conflicts with the client that cannot be disclosed due to privilege" lol. BUT if the trial is just a couple of months away, you might not be able to withdraw anyway.

Also, if you were a private defense attorney who regularly withdrew because your clients were unpleasant, you would probably run out of clients pretty quickly and starve.

I'm not an attorney and I know this isn't a discussion thread, but as someone who worked legal support for more than two decades, defending some of the most unsavory multinational corporations on the planet, I'd like to add that at some point, one accepts that under our system, EVERYONE--even people or corporate entities who do bad things--is entitled to a competent defense.

Or one finds another line of work.