Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[minor4th]

excuse me if this has been asked, what happens if there is a hung jury? and God forbid, is there any chance of acquittal?

No, it's not an acquittal if there is a hung jury. It is a mistrial, and they will try her again - she will remain in jail until her retrial.

 

[AZlawyer]

excuse me if this has been asked, what happens if there is a hung jury? and God forbid, is there any chance of acquittal?

Minor4th answered the first part of your question.

As for the second part, of course there is a chance of acquittal. But IMO it is a small chance based on what we've seen thus far.

 

[Tsunvirtual]

I don't see this happening, but could they still make a deal for First Degree Murder LWOP?

 

[Hally]

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.

Thank you so much for answering, I 100% agree it's a weak defense excuse and to this day nothing has been proven to justify the murder. Awww on #2 I was hoping there would have to be some sort of standard or criteria to meet before it can enter into the defense v just her saying it. I have another ?

A) Can the judge tell JA to answer the question posed at her v letting her ramble on? and I mean strictly enforce this, it's to the point where JM says you met Jane doe soon after dinner. To which JA answers no I didn't, then JM says yes, here is the proof, and JA replies I said soonish v soon. It's bad really bad at this point and I think the judge should get tough on this.

Edit One more ? - Can I sue JA I am permanently damaged every time I go to the candy isle and see tootsie pops/rock candy?

 

[sleuth21]

I don't see this happening, but could they still make a deal for First Degree Murder LWOP?

Right up until the moment the jury returns its verdict it is technically possible for the parties arrive at a plea agreement. I agree with you that it's highly unlikely in this case but it is possible.

 

[SCSam]

Question for anyone: I understand the "lunch" issue but why would judge have to end court day no later that 4:30?? This is already the shortest court day I have ever seen.

 

[Myvice]

I have a question regarding the Domestic Violence Expert.

I'm assuming JA has spoken with her and it has been determined that she is a victim.

Is the expert in the courtroom and would she be allowed to change her assessment based on testimony? Will Jaun get a chance to talk to her? If she were to change her assessment of JA would it undermine the self defense plea? In your professional opinion, is this a possibility?

I missed several days of the beginning of the trial so she may have testified. I appologize if that has happened and this has been explained.

Thanks so much.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you so much for answering, I 100% agree it's a weak defense excuse and to this day nothing has been proven to justify the murder. Awww on #2 I was hoping there would have to be some sort of standard or criteria to meet before it can enter into the defense v just her saying it. I have another ?

A) Can the judge tell JA to answer the question posed at her v letting her ramble on? and I mean strictly enforce this, it's to the point where JM says you met Jane doe soon after dinner. To which JA answers no I didn't, then JM says yes, here is the proof, and JA replies I said soonish v soon. It's bad really bad at this point and I think the judge should get tough on this.

Edit One more ? - Can I sue JA I am permanently damaged every time I go to the candy isle and see tootsie pops/rock candy?

A) Yes. If JM wants to ask for the judge's help, he could probably get an instruction to answer the questions. BUT he needs to ask when the question he has posed is not flawed in any way, and when her answer is just really obstructionist. Most of the time, it seems like either he's asked a not-too-great question or she's making a tiny but not completely improper distinction. For example, when JM said "OK, you arrived there when the sun was setting," and she argued that she hadn't said the sun was setting, that was true. She hadn't said that. And perhaps it was a silly thing to argue about, but since JM was making a big deal about the time of day, the judge can't tell JA to ignore any little mistakes he might make.

B) No haha.

 

[AZlawyer]

Question for anyone: I understand the "lunch" issue but why would judge have to end court day no later that 4:30?? This is already the shortest court day I have ever seen.

I think she can't get to the jail in time for dinner if they don't end at 4:30.

ETA: Judge Stephens is working, BTW, before the 10:30 start time of the trial. This morning, BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED, she had a status conference, three pretrial conferences, two sentencing hearings, and a settlement conference.

 

[ttcRider]

Can the judge say anything to Jodi about how she answers the questions? I know she cant come out and say 'HEY! stop being such a smart @ss and just answer the question' but at what point is she considered hostile? I hope its getting on the jurors nerves as much as ours. lease:

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the judge say anything to Jodi about how she answers the questions? I know she cant come out and say 'HEY! stop being such a smart @ss and just answer the question' but at what point is she considered hostile? I hope its getting on the jurors nerves as much as ours. lease:

I just answered this question for someone above.

As far as being considered "hostile," being declared a "hostile witness" just means that the attorney gets to cross-examine you instead of asking open-ended questions. JM already gets to cross-examine JA, because she is not his witness, so there would be no point in declaring her "hostile."

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question regarding the Domestic Violence Expert.

I'm assuming JA has spoken with her and it has been determined that she is a victim.

Is the expert in the courtroom and would she be allowed to change her assessment based on testimony? Will Jaun get a chance to talk to her? If she were to change her assessment of JA would it undermine the self defense plea? In your professional opinion, is this a possibility?

I missed several days of the beginning of the trial so she may have testified. I appologize if that has happened and this has been explained.

Thanks so much.

Of course the expert could change her assessment, but if she did, no defense lawyer would ever hire her again. So she will either testify in Jodi's favor or not testify. Or, possibly, she could testify in Jodi's favor and get "spun around" on cross by Juan.

Juan will get to talk to her on the stand, if that's what you mean. Not otherwise, no.

If the defense did not have an expert regarding Travis's "abuse" of Jodi, then it would be harder for her to prove self defense. She would have to show that a reasonable person (rather than a reasonable abuse victim) would have felt that Travis was a deadly threat at that time.

 

[sleuth21]

I have a question regarding the Domestic Violence Expert.

I'm assuming JA has spoken with her and it has been determined that she is a victim.

Is the expert in the courtroom and would she be allowed to change her assessment based on testimony? Will Jaun get a chance to talk to her? If she were to change her assessment of JA would it undermine the self defense plea? In your professional opinion, is this a possibility?

I missed several days of the beginning of the trial so she may have testified. I appologize if that has happened and this has been explained.

Thanks so much.

I know AZlawyer followed up on this but I wanted to add a bit more. Some people are feeling like JM is really drawing out all of this sex talk. He is coming back with other texts or highlighting portions of conversations etc. not only for the jury and for use in closings, but it's also very helpful for his cross of the expert. The reason Nurmi went into such yucky detail with Jodi and the reason the expert is in the courtroom despite being a witness is because all of the testimony provides the foundation for the expert's opinion. Watch for the cross of the expert - JM will draw upon all of these inconsistencies he's getting on the record and the expert will either have to admit that some of this appears inconsistent with a one-sided controlling, abusive relationship or tank their credibility as an unbiased expert. Either way I see a bit of a "win" coming for the Prosecution in terms of establishing that this is NOT a real "battered woman's syndrome" situation.

 

[missjocool]

I'm not sure if this has been asked in here yet or not, and I apologize if it has... my question is this: If she does (miraculously) receive a 2nd degree murder charge, what is the maximum sentence she can receive? And, will she get credit for time served?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not sure if this has been asked in here yet or not, and I apologize if it has... my question is this: If she does (miraculously) receive a 2nd degree murder charge, what is the maximum sentence she can receive? And, will she get credit for time served?

10-25 years, and yes.

 

[katiedid2]

Wow wow wow this is getting good

 

[tracyt]

Brand new here so I hope Im doing this right. First thank you so much for taking the time to answer questions you guys!!
1. Im under the impression that the defense experts are paid, if this is correct is there a way to JM to point this out to the jury in questioning? Are you being paid for your testimony?
2. Is there a way for JM to bring up narcism, sociopathy or any other things. Can he question the expert have you heard of this and whats the definition. Just to get that into the jurys mind?
3. Who gets the very last word in this trial the prosecution or defense?

Thanks so much!

 

[minor4th]

Brand new here so I hope Im doing this right. First thank you so much for taking the time to answer questions you guys!!
1. Im under the impression that the defense experts are paid, if this is correct is there a way to JM to point this out to the jury in questioning? Are you being paid for your testimony?
2. Is there a way for JM to bring up narcism, sociopathy or any other things. Can he question the expert have you heard of this and whats the definition. Just to get that into the jurys mind?
3. Who gets the very last word in this trial the prosecution or defense?

Thanks so much!

1. Yes, the experts are paid - that goes for state experts too. No point in pointing it out that defense experts are paid when the same goes for the state's experts.

2. He can't bring up psychological diagnoses per se because he does not have an expert who has diagnosed her (as far as I know). The particular diagnosis is not really important anyway - it's the behaviors themselves that are compelling, and yes he can talk about all those behaviors.

When questioning the defense experts, he can certainly present them with information that might change their opinions -- he can even present "hypotheticals" to the experts in order to get information in the jury's minds.

3. Prosecution gets the last word.

 

[IfIMay]

Why is Nurmi allowed to "argue" his objections? I've usually seen where speaking objections were limited to the legal ground for it, like "objection relevance". Nurmi gets to cue her in to what she should say. Is it up to the Judge what is acceptable?

 

[AZlawyer]

Why is Nurmi allowed to "argue" his objections? I've usually seen where speaking objections were limited to the legal ground for it, like "objection relevance". Nurmi gets to cue her in to what she should say. Is it up to the Judge what is acceptable?

Normally the argument part of the objection is what's happening up at the sidebar, so you don't cause a mistrial by saying whatever it is in front of the jury. But if it isn't anything even potentially mistrial-worthy, there's nothing wrong with the judge letting the attorneys explain the objection.

Sometimes Nurmi just does it because he can't think of the legal objection he's making, though--like "objection, um, she was asleep" instead of "foundation."