Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Is there something in AZ law that says people with a mental illness can't be sentenced to death? Is that why they're trying this angle?

No. They just hope that the public will think it's somewhat unfair and will pressure the prosecution to drop the death penalty.

 

[dcsmyth1]

Here is further info on custody levels:

http://voices.yahoo.com/prison-life-part-1-custody-levels-inmates-prison-3371478.html?cat=7

 

[Jay]

AZlawyer -- do you know if they've replaced Martinez as prosecutor on the new case he was supposed to try? If so, that would indicate they're going to proceed with a new penalty phase for Arias; if not, it would signal they're going to drop the death penalty.

Any new rumors floating around about that?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer -- do you know if they've replaced Martinez as prosecutor on the new case he was supposed to try? If so, that would indicate they're going to proceed with a new penalty phase for Arias; if not, it would signal they're going to drop the death penalty.

Any new rumors floating around about that?

It would be extremely strange for them to replace him on a case that was ready for trial, regardless of whether or not they were proceeding with the Arias penalty phase. He would just tell JSS that he had a conflict, and one trial would be moved.

I haven't heard anything either way, but on the other hand I haven't been hanging out with any of my criminal lawyer friends lately either.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

In a second DP penalty phase trial, based on interviews CMA has given since convicted, can JM now bring Dr. Demartes back and perhaps find psychopathy into the mix along with her BPD?

 

[AZlawyer]

In a second DP penalty phase trial, based on interviews CMA has given since convicted, can JM now bring Dr. Demartes back and perhaps find psychopathy into the mix along with her BPD?

In theory he could, to rebut JA's argument about her mental issues. But in reality he can't, because JA doesn't meet the diagnosis requirements for psychopathy and so Dr. DeMarte will not diagnose her with that.

ETA: I think the closest thing in the DSM would be anti-social personality disorder, anyway, not "psychopathy," but I'm not sure.

 

[cosmos]

Wouldn't it make sense for the defense to call Dr. DeMarte to repeat her testimony that Jodi is very immature and has BPD? I'm assuming the new jury will have no way of knowing that the defense argued for PTSD and against BPD in the guilt phase unless the state brings in Dr. Samuels to repeat his testimony that she has PTSD. Surely the state would not do that? And surely the state won't be allowed to call Willmott as witness to admit she had cross examined DeMarte during the guilt phase, as a way of impeaching Willmott in the penalty retrial, so how could the jury know what transpired the first time?

I ask because Willmott ignored the PTSD testimony in the first penalty phase, and would presumably stick with BPD with a new death jury. The defense is limited in who they can call as an expert because they need someone who has already interviewed and evaluated Jodi, and be someone who supports their argument, so would that be DeMarte?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

In a second DP penalty phase trial, based on interviews CMA has given since convicted, can JM now bring Dr. Demartes back and perhaps find psychopathy into the mix along with her BPD?

No way, no how. DeMart* was quite thorough in her methods of obtaining an accurate diagnosis; and quite correct I might add.

Most people with a personality disorder like JA have "overlap" which confuses a layperson but does not confuse a well-educated Psychologist like DeMart*.

moo

 

[dcsmyth1]

I have a problem with the legal concept of pre-med as used by the state of AZ. Maybe the lawyers can comment. Let's say we have 2 scenarios:
1) Arias pre-planned the murder a week earlier and did all of the steps such as the gas cans, gun burglary, etc. She waited until the time was right, carried it out, and relished each thrust of the knife.
2) There was no pre-planning; she just visited TA to 'hang out' for a while. The knife is on the sink from cutting the rope earlier. She drops the camera, and Travis says, "You f*cking idiot--a five year-old could handle the camera better than you!", but he makes no attempt to accost JA--it's over as far as he is concerned. But JA feels a surge of anger and thinks to herself, "You b*stard, that's the last time you're gonna to talk to ME like that!", notices the knife a couple seconds later, grabs it and proceeds with the slice and dice of TA.

Both scenarios involve a prior 'reflection' to intentionally kill someone, so both would qualify for 1st degree premeditated murder, right? But to me those are very different crimes--one should be worthy of the DP if it is in effect, while the other perhaps shouldn't. Maybe the existing definition of 'premeditation' should be reserved for events like the first scenario, while the second should come under a different law, even though there was also a moment of reflection and an intent to kill. I don't think his mean words alone in scenario 2 would be enough to establish some sort of justifiable 'provocation' to make it M2 or manslaughter...

 

[dcsmyth1]

Another question for the lawyers, TIA. Let's say I'm a juror and I am "firmly convinced" that JA preplanned the killing "beyond a reasonable doubt". So I vote for Murder One. I also vote for "extreme cruelty" and do not buy any of the mitigating factors. So I should vote for the DP, right? Except I didn't tell you that I am not 100% convinced she is guilty. To put a number on it, let's say that I am 95% sure of her guilt. Can I legitimately use that 5% doubt as a mitigator to give her a life sentence? Before someone responds that if we did that nobody would ever get the DP, I think there are plenty of cases where there is much greater certainty than five out of a hundred.

 

[neesaki]

Is there something in AZ law that says people with a mental illness can't be sentenced to death? Is that why they're trying this angle?

I just don't get it, first they claim it was PTSD, not a personality disorder, which never made any sense, imo. But since that didn't fly with the jury, they now are saying they were wrong (lying?) all along, and want to use the personality disorder as their new defense. :what:

And how could anyone commit this type of crime not be personality disordered. So if that applies to everyone who commits such a violent murder, how is CMJA any different, and why/how should she be the one who is entitled to special consideration? TIA

 

[prospektor]

Now that JA is convicted of the crime the state was prosecuting her for (assuming the verdict won't be overturned on appeal), will she have to pay the cost of the trial, e.g. her seven-figure defense bill?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[cosmos]

On the previous page, I linked to an opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court that is one of many places where you read about this issue of mental illness.

You can prove that the defendant has a mental illness in the death penalty phase of the trial, but the jury and/or appeal judges can give the mental illness little mitigating weight. That is how people with mental illness can be executed in our system.

The defense is doing this because it is their job. If the defense did not do it and the defendant got sentenced to death, then the appeals court would be required to do it anyway.

 

[AZlawyer]

Wouldn't it make sense for the defense to call Dr. DeMarte to repeat her testimony that Jodi is very immature and has BPD? I'm assuming the new jury will have no way of knowing that the defense argued for PTSD and against BPD in the guilt phase unless the state brings in Dr. Samuels to repeat his testimony that she has PTSD. Surely the state would not do that? And surely the state won't be allowed to call Willmott as witness to admit she had cross examined DeMarte during the guilt phase, as a way of impeaching Willmott in the penalty retrial, so how could the jury know what transpired the first time?

I ask because Willmott ignored the PTSD testimony in the first penalty phase, and would presumably stick with BPD with a new death jury. The defense is limited in who they can call as an expert because they need someone who has already interviewed and evaluated Jodi, and be someone who supports their argument, so would that be DeMarte?

Yes, I suspect the defense will call DeMarte, or they will ask the state to stipulate that Jodi has BPD.

I have a problem with the legal concept of pre-med as used by the state of AZ. Maybe the lawyers can comment. Let's say we have 2 scenarios:
1) Arias pre-planned the murder a week earlier and did all of the steps such as the gas cans, gun burglary, etc. She waited until the time was right, carried it out, and relished each thrust of the knife.
2) There was no pre-planning; she just visited TA to 'hang out' for a while. The knife is on the sink from cutting the rope earlier. She drops the camera, and Travis says, "You f*cking idiot--a five year-old could handle the camera better than you!", but he makes no attempt to accost JA--it's over as far as he is concerned. But JA feels a surge of anger and thinks to herself, "You b*stard, that's the last time you're gonna to talk to ME like that!", notices the knife a couple seconds later, grabs it and proceeds with the slice and dice of TA.

Both scenarios involve a prior 'reflection' to intentionally kill someone, so both would qualify for 1st degree premeditated murder, right? But to me those are very different crimes--one should be worthy of the DP if it is in effect, while the other perhaps shouldn't. Maybe the existing definition of 'premeditation' should be reserved for events like the first scenario, while the second should come under a different law, even though there was also a moment of reflection and an intent to kill. I don't think his mean words alone in scenario 2 would be enough to establish some sort of justifiable 'provocation' to make it M2 or manslaughter...

You say this is how premed is defined in AZ, but as far as I know it's the same nationwide. Importantly, however, not all 1st degree premeditated murders are death-penalty eligible. Additional factors must be proved to permit a death sentence (e.g., especial cruelty).

Another question for the lawyers, TIA. Let's say I'm a juror and I am "firmly convinced" that JA preplanned the killing "beyond a reasonable doubt". So I vote for Murder One. I also vote for "extreme cruelty" and do not buy any of the mitigating factors. So I should vote for the DP, right? Except I didn't tell you that I am not 100% convinced she is guilty. To put a number on it, let's say that I am 95% sure of her guilt. Can I legitimately use that 5% doubt as a mitigator to give her a life sentence? Before someone responds that if we did that nobody would ever get the DP, I think there are plenty of cases where there is much greater certainty than five out of a hundred.

If you were only 95% convinced of guilt, you should not have voted that guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless that 5% was UNreasonable doubt, in which case, if it's unreasonable, why consider it in mitigation?

No, you can't use the 5% as a mitigator, but yes, sometimes jurors do that anyway.

I just don't get it, first they claim it was PTSD, not a personality disorder, which never made any sense, imo. But since that didn't fly with the jury, they now are saying they were wrong (lying?) all along, and want to use the personality disorder as their new defense. :what:

And how could anyone commit this type of crime not be personality disordered. So if that applies to everyone who commits such a violent murder, how is CMJA any different, and why/how should she be the one who is entitled to special consideration? TIA

It's called "arguing in the alternative," which comes naturally to lawyers but not to jurors. They are saying "she doesn't have BPD, but if you think she does, you should consider that in mitigation."

Of course, most murderers are screwed up mentally in some way. If they were stable, well-adjusted people they would not be going around killing other people. This should be and is considered in mitigation. Now, for many of them, that mitigation still doesn't outweigh the aggravating factors.

Now that JA is convicted of the crime the state was prosecuting her for (assuming the verdict won't be overturned on appeal), will she have to pay the cost of the trial, e.g. her seven-figure defense bill?

Many thanks in advance.

No.

 

[dcsmyth1]

Quote from AZ Lawyer: "You say this is how premed is defined in AZ, but as far as I know it's the same nationwide. Importantly, however, not all 1st degree premeditated murders are death-penalty eligible. Additional factors must be proved to permit a death sentence (e.g., especial cruelty)."

But both my scenarios have the same excessively cruel feature of the overkill. The only difference is the amount of time between the decision to kill and the act itself. That's a 'qualitative' difference, but to me it seems to create a 'qualitative' difference between the scenarios.
________________________

Quote from AZ Lawyer: "If you were only 95% convinced of guilt, you should not have voted that guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless that 5% was UNreasonable doubt, in which case, if it's unreasonable, why consider it in mitigation?"

I'm not quite understanding. The instructions say 100% certainty is not required, only 'reasonable' certainty. Are you saying that 95% doesn't meet the 'reasonable' standard? What does, then? 99%? 99.999999%? Serious question.

 

[AZlawyer]

Quote from AZ Lawyer: "You say this is how premed is defined in AZ, but as far as I know it's the same nationwide. Importantly, however, not all 1st degree premeditated murders are death-penalty eligible. Additional factors must be proved to permit a death sentence (e.g., especial cruelty)."

But both my scenarios have the same excessively cruel feature of the overkill. The only difference is the amount of time between the decision to kill and the act itself. That's a 'qualitative' difference, but to me it seems to create a 'qualitative' difference between the scenarios.
________________________

Quote from AZ Lawyer: "If you were only 95% convinced of guilt, you should not have voted that guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless that 5% was UNreasonable doubt, in which case, if it's unreasonable, why consider it in mitigation?"

I'm not quite understanding. The instructions say 100% certainty is not required, only 'reasonable' certainty. Are you saying that 95% doesn't meet the 'reasonable' standard? What does, then? 99%? 99.999999%? Serious question.

I'm sure the instructions don't say only reasonable certainty is required. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a lot more than reasonable certainty. It means that any "doubts" you have are unreasonable, fanciful, basically ridiculous technical doubts like a philosophy student might suggest. (I'm allowed to say that because my undergraduate degree was in philosophy. ) I don't think it really makes much sense to use percentages to talk about these things, even though I sometimes try. It makes more sense to say, "What are my doubts? OK, are those doubts reasonable? Or are they crazy paranoid conspiracy theory doubts?"

 

[dcsmyth1]

Thanks, AZ. I got it!

 

[prospektor]

Okay, so I just read a motion filed by the defense for the trial to be continued (which apparently means it will not be continued) until January 2014.
With the - however faint - prospect of JA spending several more months (or even years, who knows) in jail, waiting to be sentenced, another question arose: Will the time and condition under which she is currently held influence the time and conditions in prison after her sentencing?
To clarify: When she is sentenced to life, she will, according to my knowledge, spend a certain amount of time in maximum security, which then can be reduced down to close custody and medium security. If she is already held in similar to max condition by Sheriff Joe right now (I heard something like 23 hour lockdown), can this reduce the time (later in prison) she has to wait until she gets better conditions? Or will the time until she is eligible for reduced security only start in prison?

Many thanks in advance!

 

[MrsPC]

If on 6/20 Juan Martinez stands up & requests that the death penalty request be withdrawn, will Judge Stephens then immediately sentence Arias or what could occur?

 

[Jay]

If on 6/20 Juan Martinez stands up & requests that the death penalty request be withdrawn, will Judge Stephens then immediately sentence Arias or what could occur?

I believe AZlawyer answered this previously, saying the judge would schedule a final court date to announce the sentence. This so the families can be in court to hear the decision.