Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[sleuth21]

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

Both sides have to have an opportunity to lodge objections to the juror questions and have the judge rule. We don't do this in my jurisdiction so I have to rely on what I've seen, (or maybe AZlawyer can help us if I'm wrong) but it appears that the questions are argued in chambers and are thereafter put to the witness fairly quickly before the witness has much time to consult with the attorney who called them to the stand.
Of course, the credibility of any witness is always fair game and if someone appears to have had time to discuss their answer they can be asked about that.

 

[sleuth21]

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.

Thanks AZ. I'm moving to AZ. I like your rules better.
Thanks for taking the time to give us the inside skinny from your jurisdiction.

:gthanks:

 

[katiecoolady]

Hi Lawyers! With the respect of the Court I'd like to ask a question. lol Just trying to be lawyerly here.

Hey my question is, if the jury has been shown just excerpts of the interrogation tapes (not sure if it's just been excerpts but assuming yes?), will they be able to view the interrogations in their entirety if they want to review them?

Thanks...and thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us all. We are so fortunate to have you guys on board! :seeya:

 

[katiecoolady]

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.

So to clarify, if the evidence justifies it means the defense would have to argue that the evidence justifies this lesser included to the Judge and the State would argue against it then the Judge decides if it is applicable?:seeya:

 

[neenee15]

Wow, this thread is great! Thanks so much for taking your time to answer our questions...

The jury questions for Jody:
Can they ask her for more information on the magazine messages?

Can they ask her who she was sending message too?

If so, than can JM bring all this back in for rebuttal?

If they don't ask those questions, can JM follow up on all of the above in the rest of this trial?

Also, somebody else posted in another thread about the remote that Jody took back to Darryl (that it could be linked to the DVD player stollen from grandparents house) could they bring him back and question that further? He seemed to be reluctant to say incriminating things about her in the trial

Again thank you in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

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).

Yes, I am a litigator. I love jury questions! They give you a clue of what the jury is thinking before it's too late to do anything about it. They definitely have an effect on the trial, but IMO it is a positive effect.

 

[sleuth21]

Hi Lawyers! With the respect of the Court I'd like to ask a question. lol Just trying to be lawyerly here.

Hey my question is, if the jury has been shown just excerpts of the interrogation tapes (not sure if it's just been excerpts but assuming yes?), will they be able to view the interrogations in their entirety if they want to review them?

Thanks...and thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us all. We are so fortunate to have you guys on board! :seeya:

They would only be allowed to view the interrogation in its entirety if, and only if, the entire interrogation was entered into evidence. They can only view what is entered into evidence. If only excerpts are played in court but the exhibit itself is of a larger portion of the interrogation or the entirety of the interrogation they could view all of what is on that DVD. If any part of the interrogation was redacted /removed from the DVD exhibit they will not be able to see that.
Hope that makes sense.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi Lawyers! With the respect of the Court I'd like to ask a question. lol Just trying to be lawyerly here.

Hey my question is, if the jury has been shown just excerpts of the interrogation tapes (not sure if it's just been excerpts but assuming yes?), will they be able to view the interrogations in their entirety if they want to review them?

Thanks...and thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us all. We are so fortunate to have you guys on board! :seeya:

They will be able to review whatever has been entered into evidence. So if the entire interrogation is an exhibit that has been admitted, then they can review the whole thing even if just snippets were played in court.

I wasn't paying attention to the trial for the first couple of weeks, so I'm not sure what was admitted.

 

[AZlawyer]

So to clarify, if the evidence justifies it means the defense would have to argue that the evidence justifies this lesser included to the Judge and the State would argue against it then the Judge decides if it is applicable?:seeya:

The state doesn't always argue against it, and the defense doesn't always argue for it. I'm not sure what the positions of the parties are in this case.

But normally the judge would ask everyone's position on lesser included offense instructions (and there may already have been some preliminary briefing and/or argument on this issue) and then take argument about which lesser included offenses the jury could reasonably find based on the evidence, and then make her ruling.

 

[sleuth21]

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

I read online that it's within the judge's discretion in AZ whether or not recross is allowed.

Help us AZ lawyer. I can't imagine that this blathering defendant won't add new information on redirect. She's always got something new to explain away her behavior.

Fingers crossed that JM can get 1 last shot.

 

[sleuth21]

i asked gitana this but didn't get an answer so here goes.

can you explain how the DA thinks that if the gunshot was first, it makes this murder not cruel? they seem to think it's very important and i don't get why it matters.

we know TA had defensive wounds---although IMO, he didn't have many and he had none on his arms---so i'm thinking he was definitely not 100% at the time he was being stabbed. (i'm a gunshot first person in this case.) i just don't know why it matters when it comes to deciding the cruelty of the crime.

also, could it be that the ME is sticking the 'gunshot last' for this reason? that the DA WANTS that wound to have been first?

My understanding was that Nurmi wanted the DP off the table as a penalty for Flores supposedly perjuring himself at an earlier hearing regarding the order in which the wounds were received. When there is some kind of misconduct it is not unusual for a DA to request that a case be dismissed or for a piece of evidence to be thrown out.

I can't recall if Nurmi also argued that it vitiated the cruelty as well, but I would imagine that gun shot last gives greater indication that Travis was alive and alert through much of the stabbing.

I definitely do not think that the ME is sticking to that story for any other reason than that it is the most consistent with his findings. If he maintained that the gun shot was last for any other reason it would be perjury.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

You may have answered this question before if so just point me in the right direction and I will read that answer.

Thank you for taking time to answer questions.

To get a straight answer out of JA is like pulling teeth. Why after JM asks a question he knows the answer to, does he not just go to the court records of the direct questioning .

Like did you break your right or left finger
The records say she SAID she broke her right
After several attempts to get an answer can he not refer to what has already been stated?

Does the Prosecutor have the right to use the records for clarification of what she had stated before?

Hope you understand what I am asking, and thank you.

 

[moonbird]

to my understanding, people who are called as witnesses are admonished to NOT talk about the case with anyone (other than an attorney?) not watch television or read newspapers or any form of media about the case, and not be in the courtroom for any reason other than when they are giving their sworn testimony..

so, since j.a is now a witness, having taken the oath and is testifying on the stand, how come she is allowed to have visitors in jail (e.g. donovan b., bryan carr.. and who knows who else, probably her mom, i'd guess) who have been in the courtroom, participated in televised interviews pertaining to the case, and can talk to anyone outside of the courtroom - wouldn't that be a violation of the admonishment? they could easily give her information from the outside, pass coded messages, or give her tips on juror responses..

or, does that (the admonishment) not apply to j.a. for some reason?

 

[luv]

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.

Can Mr.Martinez recross or question her at all in regards to her answers to the jury questions?

 

[minor4th]

You may have answered this question before if so just point me in the right direction and I will read that answer.

Thank you for taking time to answer questions.

To get a straight answer out of JA is like pulling teeth. Why after JM asks a question he knows the answer to, does he not just go to the court records of the direct questioning .

Like did you break your right or left finger
The records say she SAID she broke her right
After several attempts to get an answer can he not refer to what has already been stated?

Does the Prosecutor have the right to use the records for clarification of what she had stated before?

Hope you understand what I am asking, and thank you.

Yes, the prosecutor can use prior inconsistent testimony to impeach Jodi

 

[minor4th]

to my understanding, people who are called as witnesses are admonished to NOT talk about the case with anyone (other than an attorney?) not watch television or read newspapers or any form of media about the case, and not be in the courtroom for any reason other than when they are giving their sworn testimony..

so, since j.a is now a witness, having taken the oath and is testifying on the stand, how come she is allowed to have visitors in jail (e.g. donovan b., bryan carr.. and who knows who else, probably her mom, i'd guess) who have been in the courtroom, participated in televised interviews pertaining to the case, and can talk to anyone outside of the courtroom - wouldn't that be a violation of the admonishment? they could easily give her information from the outside, pass coded messages, or give her tips on juror responses..

or, does that (the admonishment) not apply to j.a. for some reason?

The purpose of the admonition to the jury is to assure that their verdict is based solely on the evidence presented at trial. The purpose of the admonition to the witnesses is to protect against witnesses getting their stories straight based on other witness testimony. Neither of these would apply to the defendant - she's sitting through the trial, hearing all of the evidence.

 

[Diva]

In this case: my understanding is that 1st degree murder with premeditation carries the death penalty / 1st degree without premeditation carries Life without parole.
Is this correct?

If this has been asked previously I apologize.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Yes, the prosecutor can use prior inconsistent testimony to impeach Jodi

Then why would JM not have cut the line of questioning short after their jousting and just read her written statement read back---or do you think he will be doing this later....or no at at all for a reason

Thank you Minor4th

 

[Irving]

This may be a silly question, so forgive me.

It has been many years since I served jury duty.

With technology the way it is now, and with this trial being televised, are jurors allowed to DVR the trial, and then go home and re-watch testimony?

Not the HLN, CNN, or TruTV with commentary, just the direct feed that has no commentators, commercials and such.

Of course the honor system would apply as to not watch any hearings or non-jury activities, but that honor system is in place anyway.

Thanks.

 

[minor4th]

This may be a silly question, so forgive me.

It has been many years since I served jury duty.

With technology the way it is now, and with this trial being televised, are jurors allowed to DVR the trial, and then go home and re-watch testimony?

Not the HLN, CNN, or TruTV with commentary, just the direct feed that has no commentators, commercials and such.

Of course the honor system would apply as to not watch any hearings or non-jury activities, but that honor system is in place anyway.

Thanks.

No, they are not allowed to do that.