Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Does any of our illustrious legal team remember what was going on when sealed conference with judge on 2/20 that led to yesterday's media request to unseal??

It was something to do with juror misconduct or with someone attempting to contact jurors, I would guess, because each juror was individually questioned in chambers about whatever it was.

 

[AZlawyer]

I understand it's normal and acceptable procedure for the defence to coach their witnesses prior to testifying. Do you think Nurmi and Wilmott coached Arias to be combative with the prosecutor? It seems counter-productive to their 'victim of DV theory. If they didn't, and in fact lost control of their client on the stand, why would Nurmi be grinning when she challenged Martinez? Are those responses by Nurmi acceptable to the court?

Arias also looked to the defence table for non-verbal guidance at times. Can they coach her from the table?

No, I can't imagine that they suggested she should be combative.

Perhaps Nurmi was grinning because he wanted the jury to think his case wasn't falling apart?

The judge would not step in for facial expression issues unless it got really out of hand, and probably not unless someone objected.

They can't coach her while she's on the stand, no. But of course clients will look at their lawyers trying to get some kind of telepathic help when they are sinking.

 

[AZlawyer]

After Nurmi finishes re-direct of JA does JM get to re-cross? I would think so, but someone stated that in Arizona there is no re-cross. TIA

There would be re-cross only if the judge allows Nurmi to bring in something new on redirect. Or if Jodi slips in something new in one of her rambling answers.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Thank you, AZ. I bet they are hoping their experts bring 'life jackets' with them. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[sleuth21]

There would be re-cross only if the judge allows Nurmi to bring in something new on redirect. Or if Jodi slips in something new in one of her rambling answers.

I keep thinking about this. We need a pool on whether or not Nurmi can reign her in enough to keep her rambling butt from talking herself into re-cross and and even a re-re cross. If she explains the magazine debacle I bet there is a re-cross!!! lease:

 

[atthelake]

Lawyers, on the main thread we have all day been discsussing what is with the order of direct/cross/redirect (and if can be done again and again) by first pros then defense then rebuttal and when do juror questions come in.

Can someone from Arizona law do a post that is a summary/explanation for this case that I can post over on that thread to, and perhaps bump a lot also! (Including when/if/what situation Jodi will ever be on the stand again)

TIA

 

[shiloh42]

My question to the lawyers is on Arizona jury instructions.

When I was on a jury in California, we were told that if we felt any witness was lying on the stand, it was up to us to decide whether to disregard just the part we felt was a lie, or to disregard all the testimony of that witness.

Do you have any information and/or opinion on the jury instructions regarding a potentially lying witness? Could they choose to disregard the entirety of JA"s testimony?

 

[dani]

Would investigators for the death of Travis Alexander (from Arizona) be allowed to issue a search warrant for Jodi's grandparent's home (in California)?

My thinking is since there was a .25 caliber handgun stolen and TA was killed with a .25 caliber gun, perhaps a box of ammo for that gun is in the house. And, perhaps it might help the prosecution if the "brand" of ammo is the same and it can be proven that the bullet came from that batch of ammo.

The thief (Jodi, IMO) may be clever, but I'm not sure she's smart enough to remember to take the entire ammo box.

Thank you!:seeya:

 

[sleuth21]

Lawyers, on the main thread we have all day been discsussing what is with the order of direct/cross/redirect (and if can be done again and again) by first pros then defense then rebuttal and when do juror questions come in.

Can someone from Arizona law do a post that is a summary/explanation for this case that I can post over on that thread to, and perhaps bump a lot also! (Including when/if/what situation Jodi will ever be on the stand again)

TIA

Generally it's Direct Exam - Cross Exam - Re-Direct Exam and, in this case, followed by Juror Questions.

Cross Exam questions are limited to the scope of whatever topics or issues are brought out on Direct Exam. Re-Direct is also limited to the scope of the Cross Exam.

Often the parties are done after Re-Direct except, if the judge allows, very brief re-cross.

In this case, with a witness on the stand for a month who rambles and constantly adds unnecessary info, I would imagine that there could be some additional rounds of recross and redirect but very brief - like one or two ?s - and it can't just be a repeat of the same questions from the last cross/redirect. I also imagine that if Nurmi tries to clean up the magazine debacle there will be a bit of recross on her explanation of that.
I haven't noticed if the judge has allowed the parties to follow up after juror questions but they may be allowed to ask additional questions if juror questions bring out new information.

I'm not an AZ licensed attorney so if anyone from AZ has some edits to my answer have at it. This is just the general practice I have observed in my state, federal court and lots of trials on the TV.

 

[Morning Glory]

It's a hypothetical but do any attorneys here believe that the defense will be given the same liberal policy on re-direct? Meaning, many more days of "how did that make you feeeeeeel" and long, rambling answers?

 

[Hally]

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.

Thank-you so much again AZlawyer. Very helpful, it appears it would be easier to ask for control toward the witness/defendant, as the question is being asked by the attorney. That's very good to know, I won't elaborate on what I had thought it should be. LOL

B) I had a strong feeling any chance with K-Y?

 

[sleuth21]

It's a hypothetical but do any attorneys here believe that the defense will be given the same liberal policy on re-direct? Meaning, many more days of "how did that make you feeeeeeel" and long, rambling answers?

Unfortunately, Nurmi's questions will still be asked in a way that allows her to go back to her rambling ways. However, he will be hemmed in in terms of just how many questions he can ask. He has to stick to issues that came up on cross and allow her to explain some of her inconsistencies or elaborate on her answers to questions that JM brought up for the first time on cross. But, mercifully, he can't go back over her whole life's story again or discuss things that were not challenged during cross or introduced on cross.

 

[AZlawyer]

Generally it's Direct Exam - Cross Exam - Re-Direct Exam and, in this case, followed by Juror Questions.

Cross Exam questions are limited to the scope of whatever topics or issues are brought out on Direct Exam. Re-Direct is also limited to the scope of the Cross Exam.

Often the parties are done after Re-Direct except, if the judge allows, very brief re-cross.

In this case, with a witness on the stand for a month who rambles and constantly adds unnecessary info, I would imagine that there could be some additional rounds of recross and redirect but very brief - like one or two ?s - and it can't just be a repeat of the same questions from the last cross/redirect. I also imagine that if Nurmi tries to clean up the magazine debacle there will be a bit of recross on her explanation of that.
I haven't noticed if the judge has allowed the parties to follow up after juror questions but they may be allowed to ask additional questions if juror questions bring out new information.

I'm not an AZ licensed attorney so if anyone from AZ has some edits to my answer have at it. This is just the general practice I have observed in my state, federal court and lots of trials on the TV.

BBM

In Arizona, cross is not limited to the scope of direct (although redirect is still limited to the scope of cross).

Otherwise this is all correct.

 

[CheckMate]

Do we know definitively if either side requested an instruction for lesser included offenses? That decision could be pivotal. Thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

My question to the lawyers is on Arizona jury instructions.

When I was on a jury in California, we were told that if we felt any witness was lying on the stand, it was up to us to decide whether to disregard just the part we felt was a lie, or to disregard all the testimony of that witness.

Do you have any information and/or opinion on the jury instructions regarding a potentially lying witness? Could they choose to disregard the entirety of JA"s testimony?

Yes.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would investigators for the death of Travis Alexander (from Arizona) be allowed to issue a search warrant for Jodi's grandparent's home (in California)?

My thinking is since there was a .25 caliber handgun stolen and TA was killed with a .25 caliber gun, perhaps a box of ammo for that gun is in the house. And, perhaps it might help the prosecution if the "brand" of ammo is the same and it can be proven that the bullet came from that batch of ammo.

The thief (Jodi, IMO) may be clever, but I'm not sure she's smart enough to remember to take the entire ammo box.

Thank you!:seeya:

They did search the grandparents' home. I haven't paid much attention to what was found, though.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do we know definitively if either side requested an instruction for lesser included offenses? That decision could be pivotal. Thanks!

I don't know if anyone has requested such an instruction yet, but it could be requested even right before the case is submitted to the jury, if the evidence justifies it.

 

[KBisMe]

Will Nurmi have a chance to prep JA for the juror questions? I've been wondering a lot about this. I know the judge goes through them with the lawyers so they can make objections, but is that done like a sidebar? I hope Nurmi doesn't get to talk to JA after finding out what the questions are before she has to answer!!

 

[Nova]

AZ, thank you and the other attorneys, as always.

I can't remember if you are a litigator, but do you have an opinion on how juror questioning of witnesses affects a trial?

In general (unless you've noticed something specific to this case).

 

[Wake_me]

In regards to jury members and their questions, specifically for JA.... Correct me if I am wrong, however my understanding is that the judge reviews the questions with the prosecution and defense. Wouldn't the questioning be more effective if only the judge reviewed the questions to make sure they were worded appropriately before she asks them without the prosecution or defense knowing the questions in advance. If the DT knows the questions in advance, doesn't that give them the opportunity to tell JA how to respond?

TIA