Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[kscornfed]

I'll probably get kicked off the board if I ask this question again. I should have put it here in the first place:

Can Martinez talk about her demeanor in closing argument? I know they can see it, or I certainly hope they do, but can he point out how very much she does NOT act like a scared, helpless, abuse victim?

 

[minor4th]

I'll probably get kicked off the board if I ask this question again. I should have put it here in the first place:

Can Martinez talk about her demeanor in closing argument? I know they can see it, or I certainly hope they do, but can he point out how very much she does NOT act like a scared, helpless, abuse victim?

Yes, to some degree. I answered you on one of the other threads -- you probably missed it because things were moving pretty fast about a bunch of different topics.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

1) I guess her self-defense argument is that even BEFORE the gunshot he was threatening her with deadly force ("Kill you bit**" and lunging). Whatever. This is a seriously weak self-defense case.

2) There is proof--her own testimony. Yes, testimony counts as proof. Yes, even if the testimony is coming from an obvious liar.

 

[minor4th]

1) I guess her self-defense argument is that even BEFORE the gunshot he was threatening her with deadly force ("Kill you bit**" and lunging). Whatever. This is a seriously weak self-defense case.

2) There is proof--her own testimony. Yes, testimony counts as proof. Yes, even if the testimony is coming from an obvious liar.

I've been thinking about the weird testimony that is supposed to support self defense. I think they're trying to get in evidence of unintentionally shooting him to get a manslaughter instruction for the jury.

 

[ziggy]

Thank you again attorneys - I'm in my final semester and studying for the Bar. It's amazing how much of evidence one can forget in two years. Just reading this thread brings much of it back and is entertaining as well.

Q: Did Nurmi open the door for the "psycho" things she did,(by way of Travis's texts to expose the sociopathic psycho Jodi) thereby allowing on cross to bring out the slashing of tires behavior? Or would he be able to bring back the witness (ex girlfriend forgot her name) to testify to the tire slashing? I think it is important for the jury to know that Jodi is a calculating, confrontational stalker type and not a shrinking violet. And, that Jodi plans...she plans her moves which would make premeditation likely and she even planned her defense in advance by taking pics of the undies and T shirt together etc.

She's a slippery one - I hope they know how to deal with a true solid sociopath.

 

[here_now12]

This question is kinda embarassing because it took me until days after the state rested to even notice it, but I'll go ahead and ask it anyway.

Is it standard procedure (in the US in general, or in AZ specifically) that the investigating detective is sitting with the prosecution?

I honestly didn't consciously notice Flores' presence outside of his testimony for a long while, but it seems somewhat strange to me that he is there for the entire trial. Of course, the work of police and prosecution go hand in hand in bringing criminals to trial, but from a mere practical point of view it seems strange to me. I mean, as long as he's attending trial, he pretty much can't do his regular job as a detective, at least not to the degree that I'd say he normally does.

So is this standard procedure in murder trials?

 

[gitana1]

Thank you again attorneys - I'm in my final semester and studying for the Bar. It's amazing how much of evidence one can forget in two years. Just reading this thread brings much of it back and is entertaining as well.

Q: Did Nurmi open the door for the "psycho" things she did,(by way of Travis's texts to expose the sociopathic psycho Jodi) thereby allowing on cross to bring out the slashing of tires behavior? Or would he be able to bring back the witness (ex girlfriend forgot her name) to testify to the tire slashing? I think it is important for the jury to know that Jodi is a calculating, confrontational stalker type and not a shrinking violet. And, that Jodi plans...she plans her moves which would make premeditation likely and she even planned her defense in advance by taking pics of the undies and T shirt together etc.

She's a slippery one - I hope they know how to deal with a true solid sociopath.

IMO, he totally opened the door. Btw, congrats! How exciting for you!

This question is kinda embarassing because it took me until days after the state rested to even notice it, but I'll go ahead and ask it anyway.

Is it standard procedure (in the US in general, or in AZ specifically) that the investigating detective is sitting with the prosecution?

I honestly didn't consciously notice Flores' presence outside of his testimony for a long while, but it seems somewhat strange to me that he is there for the entire trial. Of course, the work of police and prosecution go hand in hand in bringing criminals to trial, but from a mere practical point of view it seems strange to me. I mean, as long as he's attending trial, he pretty much can't do his regular job as a detective, at least not to the degree that I'd say he normally does.

So is this standard procedure in murder trials?

I have never seen it before but apparently it is standard in AZ!

 

[SCSam]

Does anyone think the defense was surprised by anything testified to last Thursday?

 

[InTheGarden]

To the legal eagles, regarding the coded messages found in the two magazines designed to help fabricate false testimony, what charges could be filed? And do you think charges will be filed? Against who?

Also, will the person who created the fake letters supposedly written by Travis confessing to his "pedo problem" that were proven to be a fraud be charged with a crime? Or is this being held over the head of the person so he would not testify for the defense or be used as a rebuttal witness?

 

[minor4th]

Thank you again attorneys - I'm in my final semester and studying for the Bar. It's amazing how much of evidence one can forget in two years. Just reading this thread brings much of it back and is entertaining as well.

Q: Did Nurmi open the door for the "psycho" things she did,(by way of Travis's texts to expose the sociopathic psycho Jodi) thereby allowing on cross to bring out the slashing of tires behavior? Or would he be able to bring back the witness (ex girlfriend forgot her name) to testify to the tire slashing? I think it is important for the jury to know that Jodi is a calculating, confrontational stalker type and not a shrinking violet. And, that Jodi plans...she plans her moves which would make premeditation likely and she even planned her defense in advance by taking pics of the undies and T shirt together etc.

She's a slippery one - I hope they know how to deal with a true solid sociopath.

Congratulations and good luck on the bar exam! What an "exciting" time

 

[lmkag96]

Why did it take so long for this case to go to trial? I've said it before in another thread...waiting this long gave her time to scrutinize every detail and determine where to fit in her lies. I read that Oscar Pistorius's trial will begin in June..not even six months from now, why did it take this case almost 5 years?

 

[Deebest49]

I'm new here, so please forgive me if this question has already been asked. Is it true that in the State of Arizona only a majority vote for guilty is required? Or is a full unanimous vote required?

 

[minor4th]

I'm new here, so please forgive me if this question has already been asked. Is it true that in the State of Arizona only a majority vote for guilty is required? Or is a full unanimous vote required?

Unanimous.

 

[trucrimefan]

Hello everyone I am new so please forgive if this is a question that has been answered a million times. I know they have more than the needed 12 jurors, but how do they decide which 12 at the end decide the verdict?

Never mind I just found my answer just one page away!!

 

[KBisMe]

A couple of questions...

1) Are the attorneys allowed to watch the media, look at stuff online, etc?

2) I've seen a lot of posts saying that it appears Nurmi is giving "signals" to Jodi to help her during her cross. IF he is doing something along those lines... I can't imagine that is allowed. What would happen if the judge saw that going on?

 

[minor4th]

A couple of questions...

1) Are the attorneys allowed to watch the media, look at stuff online, etc?

2) I've seen a lot of posts saying that it appears Nurmi is giving "signals" to Jodi to help her during her cross. IF he is doing something along those lines... I can't imagine that is allowed. What would happen if the judge saw that going on?

1. Yes.

2. It's not allowed, but it would be hard to prove. If this were brought to the judge's attention by the state, the judge would probably just warn Nurmi not to signal his witness.

 

[kscornfed]

it seems like these forged letters keep rearing their ugly heads. i thought there was no chance they'd come in. but could JM call matt JUST to testify about the neck bruises incident she claims happened and stay away from the letters?

 

[KBisMe]

Does the defense get to question any witnesses the state calls during rebuttal?

 

[AZlawyer]

it seems like these forged letters keep rearing their ugly heads. i thought there was no chance they'd come in. but could JM call matt JUST to testify about the neck bruises incident she claims happened and stay away from the letters?

Yes, but then to attack his credibility Juan could (and would) point out that Matt said he would lie for her. And then, if he really has evidence that Matt participated in forging the letters, he would bring up that evidence too, because it would reflect on the credibility of his other testimony if he were willing to fabricate evidence for Jodi.

ETA: Sorry! I thought your question was if JA could call Matt--now I see you said JM.

Yes, JM could call him in rebuttal to say "I never saw any neck bruises." The only way the letters would come into it then would be if the defense tries to attack his credibility by saying that he's only cooperating with the prosecution to avoid being charged with obstruction of justice/forgery/etc. But then it seems to me that might open the door for JM to explain that the forgery was at Jodi's request. It would be a risky thing for the defense to bring up.

 

[nursebeeme]

Sleuth21 is now a verified attorney!​

:thewave:​