Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[minor4th]

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

He did something similar to that a time or two - he provided her with a transcript of her prior testimony because she was changing her story when she was answering his questions. But he can't just read it out loud - he has to show it to her and "refresh her recollection" and give her an opportunity to explain the contradiction. Other times he played parts of her interrogations to impeach her testimony, and he used her journals for the same purpose.

Other times, he launched into a circular verbal sparring match with her - maybe because he didn't have any testimony to impeach her or maybe because he just wanted to make it plain to the jury just how deceptive and evasive she is.

 

[minor4th]

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.

That is not correct. First degree murder is premeditated murder. Felony murder is also first degree murder. If she is convicted of either premeditated murder or felony murder, she will be sentenced to LWOP or death - those are the only options.

If she is somehow convicted of a lesser included offense, like second degree murder or manslaughter (neither of which require premeditation), then there's a sentencing range that is something less than life in prison -- AZLawyer would know this, but I don't know the specific sentencing range.

 

[katiecoolady]

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.

Do we know if the entire interrogation was admitted? Gracias!

 

[katiecoolady]

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

Bump.

 

[katiecoolady]

(How lucky are we to have lawyers on standby? Take that Gus Searcy!)

 

[moonbird]

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.

thank you for your response..

i still don't understand why j.a. would be able to meet (at the jail) with other people who have been sitting through the trial as well.. (specifically, donovan b, and bryan c.) - to me, they're like direct lines to the outside (DB, MM) and could serve as messengers, information gatherers, etc..

... okay.. moving on then..

 

[moonbird]

(How lucky are we to have lawyers on standby? Take that Gus Searcy!)

:floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

thank you for your response..

i still don't understand why j.a. would be able to meet (at the jail) with other people who have been sitting through the trial as well.. (specifically, donovan b, and bryan c.) - to me, they're like direct lines to the outside (DB, MM) and could serve as messengers, information gatherers, etc..

... okay.. moving on then..

Because they are not witnesses. If they are giving information to other witnesses, whether from Jodi or elsewhere, then those witnesses are not following the court's admonition, and that witness could be excluded from testifying.

 

[minor4th]

Bump.

I don't know the answer to that so I'm waiting for AZLawyer to chime in.

 

[RadarLuv]

Is there anything you would change in re JM's cross? On a scale to 1 to 10, what is your grade?.

I know there are all types of lawyers. So I am just assuming that y'all are trial lawyers. Is that the right word? When going to law school does one pick a specific type of field in which he practices? Or is a law degree a law degree? How does one become a judge. Sorry about the tangent....

As an aside (Did you see the you tube 4 part video of the drunk defense attorney in Las Vegas?) :floorlaugh:

 

[Cailin Rua]

From what you've seen of the defendant, do you think the bit about "his closet was bigger than my cell" was an attempt on her part to cause a mistrial or create some sort of an appeal issue based on the fact that the jury isn't supposed to know she's been in jail for this whole time? It seemed like such an odd remark to slip in there unless she's deluded enough to think that whining about the size of the victim's closet will win her points with her jury. (she could be that deluded.)

 

[gitana1]

Do we know if the entire interrogation was admitted? Gracias!

From what I recall, all of the interrogations were admitted as well as all of the media interviews of which snips were played.

Is there anything you would change in re JM's cross? On a scale to 1 to 10, what is your grade?.

I know there are all types of lawyers. So I am just assuming that y'all are trial lawyers. Is that the right word? When going to law school does one pick a specific type of field in which he practices? Or is a law degree a law degree? How does one become a judge. Sorry about the tangent....

As an aside (Did you see the you tube 4 part video of the drunk defense attorney in Las Vegas?) :floorlaugh:

I think we are all litigators but in CA where I practice, family law (my practice area) trials do not include juries. So I have never dealt with a jury (except when I helped my law partner with voir dire- he does criminal law). I think that would be intimidating!

A law degree is a law degree but you kind of decide what you want to do while in law school and externships and internships kind of direct you more, during law school.

I give Juan Martinez a 9.5. I think he is crazy brilliant. There were a few things here and there that weren't perfect. On occasion I feel he danced too much and maybe should have reigned her in more by demanding that she not add to her answers and by asking the judge to admonish her.

Also, perhaps he could have objected more to the crazy leading questions of Nurmi. And I wouldn't have minded some more, pointed, "argumentative" questions that would indicate to the jury precisely what she was seeking to evade. Things like that.

But it is very hard to second guess JM. His job is vastly tougher than mine and he has much more experience than I do. Also, EVERYONE makes mistakes, omits things, etc., during trial. We also walk out thinking about what we could have done better. It's impossible to be perfect but I felt JM was really masterful.

I think he knows his jury well and knows precisely what he's doing. I think he has them in the palm of his hand. And may I never have to eat those words!!!

Bump.

I don't believe so, based on what happened during trial so far. I think there is no more questioning after juror questions.

 

[gitana1]

:what:

From what you've seen of the defendant, do you think the bit about "his closet was bigger than my cell" was an attempt on her part to cause a mistrial or create some sort of an appeal issue based on the fact that the jury isn't supposed to know she's been in jail for this whole time? It seemed like such an odd remark to slip in there unless she's deluded enough to think that whining about the size of the victim's closet will win her points with her jury. (she could be that deluded.)

It came from her mouth so I can't see how it would cause a mistrial. I think she was going for the sympathy vote. She's been doing that her whole life, IMO and she's good at it. I think she's very shrewd and very scary.

 

[minor4th]

Is there anything you would change in re JM's cross? On a scale to 1 to 10, what is your grade?.

I know there are all types of lawyers. So I am just assuming that y'all are trial lawyers. Is that the right word? When going to law school does one pick a specific type of field in which he practices? Or is a law degree a law degree? How does one become a judge. Sorry about the tangent....

As an aside (Did you see the you tube 4 part video of the drunk defense attorney in Las Vegas?) :floorlaugh:

We are all trial lawyers. I think sleuth is the only criminal trial lawyer though.

I think Juan is very effective and has had many years to hone his craft. He is very successful, so on that basis I have no room to critique. His style is different than my own, but there are as many different styles as there are lawyers.

As an aside, but related, when I was in law school I had no interest in being a trial lawyer because it scared me :lol: but in real life, trial work is so much fun and I bet all the other lawyers on here would probably agree with me that youre not a REAL lawyer unless youre a trial lawyer :rocker:

 

[katiecoolady]

From what I recall, all of the interrogations were admitted as well as all of the media interviews of which snips were played.



I think we are all litigators but in CA where I practice, family law (my practice area) trials do not include juries. So I have never dealt with a jury (except when I helped my law partner with voir dire- he does criminal law). I think that would be intimidating!

A law degree is a law degree but you kind of decide what you want to do whole in law school and externships and internships kind of direct you more, during law school.

I give Juan Martinez a 9.5. I think he is crazy brilliant. There were a few things here and there that weren't perfect. On occasion. I feel he danced too much and maybe should have reigned her in more by demanding that she not add to get answers and asking the judge to admonish her.

Also, perhaps he could have objected more to the crazy leading questions of Nurmi. And I wouldn't have minded some more, pointed, "argumentative" questions that would indicate to the jury precisely what she was seeking to evade. Things like that.

But it is very hard to second guess JM. His job is vastly tougher than mine and he has much more experience than I do. Also, EVERYONE makes mistakes, omits things, etc., during trial. We also walk out thinking about what we could have done better. It's impossible to be perfect but I felt JM was really masterful.

I think he knows his jury well and knows precisely what he's doing. I think he has them in the palm of his hand. And may I never have to eat those words!!!



I don't believe so, based on what happened during trial so far. I think there is no more questioning after juror questions.

Thank you! :seeya:

 

[BMoody]

Does anyone know how many murder defendants Juan has cross examined and how many of those were convicted. I ask because very few defendants in a murder trial choose to testify and I can only think that this could be Juan's first time.

 

[sleuth21]

Is there anything you would change in re JM's cross? On a scale to 1 to 10, what is your grade?.

I know there are all types of lawyers. So I am just assuming that y'all are trial lawyers. Is that the right word? When going to law school does one pick a specific type of field in which he practices? Or is a law degree a law degree? How does one become a judge. Sorry about the tangent....

As an aside (Did you see the you tube 4 part video of the drunk defense attorney in Las Vegas?) :floorlaugh:

I was among the critics of his cross the first couple of days. I only saw 3-4 points actually being pulled out of her after a day of cross. I also worried that some jurors would shut down because it was such an angry, aggressive tone and some people aren't comfortable with confrontation. However, the reactions he was getting out of the defendant were worth their weight in gold. We have seen so many different faces of Jodi during this cross that it's all been worth it whether major points were made or not.

By the last 2 days of his cross I was just bowled over. He moderated his approach and tone in a way that I think would be tolerable to anyone sensitive to confrontation without being nice to her. He is clearly a seasoned veteran who has command if the evidence and knows this case. He also comes across as highly credible and someone the jurors can really trust.

Sounds like we are all trial attorneys on this board. I'm with Minor - you aren't a real attorney unless you try cases!!! I started out in estates and trusts and said I would rather die that do ucky criminal law. The courtroom just tends to suck some of us in.

Off to finish watching the drunk defense attorney video.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there anything you would change in re JM's cross? On a scale to 1 to 10, what is your grade?.

I know there are all types of lawyers. So I am just assuming that y'all are trial lawyers. Is that the right word? When going to law school does one pick a specific type of field in which he practices? Or is a law degree a law degree? How does one become a judge. Sorry about the tangent....

As an aside (Did you see the you tube 4 part video of the drunk defense attorney in Las Vegas?) :floorlaugh:

I would give him a 9. There are definitely things I would have done differently, but as I said on another thread I'm sure he would have some critiques of my cross-examination technique too.

I am a trial lawyer too, yes. You don't have to pick a specialty in law school, although in the last year or so you can choose your classes to some extent, so you can study what interests you.

In AZ, except in the very rural counties where judges are still elected, you have to go through a merit selection committee process and be appointed by the governor to become a judge.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

Yes, both lawyers will be given the opportunity to follow up on jury questions if the answers raise new issues.

 

[gitana1]

We are all trial lawyers. I think sleuth is the only criminal trial lawyer though.

I think Juan is very effective and has had many years to hone his craft. He is very successful, so on that basis I have no room to critique. His style is different than my own, but there are as many different styles as there are lawyers.

As an aside, but related, when I was in law school I had no interest ok being a trial lawyer because it scared me :lol: but in real life, trial work is so much fun and I bet all the other lawyers on here would probably agree with me that youre not a REAL lawyer unless youre a trial lawyer :rocker:

Yeah. I kind of do feel that way. It shocked me when I was in law school to learn that most of my fellow students did not intend to litigate!!!

Yes, both lawyers will be given the opportunity to follow up on jury questions if the answers raise new issues.

Oops! I gave the wrong info upthread!