Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[nursebeeme]

I just posted this on the main thread but wondered what you lawyers have to say about the finger picture that was shown today:

I am thinking more about the finger picture today...

What was perplexing me was WHY would they wait until re-direct to show this picture? Why not on direct when she was talking about Burns?

I think they did it as part of a plan, if you will. They knew that Juan would go for the finger and they didn't want him to cross that picture.

Basically I think they wanted to have a 'last word', if you will, on the finger (but with that being said I am sure that Juan will have more to say about that)

Why do you think they waited?

Do you think this picture can be re-crossed since it is new evidence?

 

[ilovewings]

would somebody please tell me how the judge would allow Jodi to put her arm aroun her attorney's shoulder? WTH is that?

 

[meanddblj]

regarding the entry of the dissected sex tape being allowed...could JM go over the Judge's head somehow to go on record stating its bias?

 

[Sleuths4Me]

In AZ, the defendant is required to "ubmit to a reasonable physical or medical inspection of his or her body, provided such inspection does not include psychiatric or psychological examination," if relevant. Here, Jodi testified that the finger was broken when Travis kicked it, whereas in Reality Land, she sliced through a tendon with a bloody knife (IMO JMO and all that jazz). I think JM could have forced an x-ray in this situation to see what the actual injury was.

Could this already be done but we don't know about it yet and Nurmi won't present it since it will show no break and JM will get to drop the "bombshell"

 

[Sleuths4Me]

How does the jury asking questions work? Does the judge/DT/SA read them as they come in or only after they are done questioning? I think it's awesome they can ask questions.

 

[AZlawyer]

How is the defense's burden of "some evidence" in an affirmative defense (is that the term in AZ or just in CA?) explained to the jurors?

(I did try googling this. Some jurisdictions put the defense's affirmative burden at "preponderance of the evidence", but I take it from your replies that that is not the Arizona standard. As a juror on a self-defense case in CA (20 years ago), it seemed to me that the instructions put the defense's burden pretty high.)

As always, thanks in advance. All of our lawyers are so generous to give of their knowledge so freely. I hope you all recognize the service you perform in terms of educating the public. I have to believe your work here will be repaid in better educated jurors (and more willingness by the public to do their jury service) in the future.

The judge will decide if the defense has met the "some evidence" burden, and then the jury will be instructed ONLY that the state has the burden of proving lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[AZlawyer]

I just posted this on the main thread but wondered what you lawyers have to say about the finger picture that was shown today:



Why do you think they waited?

Do you think this picture can be re-crossed since it is new evidence?

I don't think it was new evidence.

And I don't think they "waited." Until the cross, no one had challenged the earlier photo as showing an undamaged finger.

 

[AZlawyer]

would somebody please tell me how the judge would allow Jodi to put her arm aroun her attorney's shoulder? WTH is that?

It is a demonstration of how her fingers would hang in such a photo, even if damaged.

 

[AZlawyer]

regarding the entry of the dissected sex tape being allowed...could JM go over the Judge's head somehow to go on record stating its bias?

No. He was allowed to play the tape in full, and will be allowed to remind the jury about that in his closing.

I don't think the AZ court of appeals would care enough to deal with it on a special action. It is not too important in the context of the full tape having been presented to the jury.

 

[AZlawyer]

Could this already be done but we don't know about it yet and Nurmi won't present it since it will show no break and JM will get to drop the "bombshell"

Well...I don't think so. Because Nurmi would have known the results and would have tried to deal with the damage on redirect.

 

[AZlawyer]

How does the jury asking questions work? Does the judge/DT/SA read them as they come in or only after they are done questioning? I think it's awesome they can ask questions.

The judge goes through the questions with counsel when they are ready to ask the questions--not before.

 

[katiecoolady]

Are any juror questions that don't get presented to the witness still public record? Do we get to see them at some point? Gracias!

 

[Nova]

The judge will decide if the defense has met the "some evidence" burden, and then the jury will be instructed ONLY that the state has the burden of proving lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you. I'm afraid I'm not asking my question properly. I'm trying to figure out how much evidence is "some". How would you define it?

Is the uncorroborated (and self-serving) testimony of the defendant sufficient to be considered "some evidence"?

Because if so, how can the judge rule on whether "some evidence" has been presented when the jury as trier-of-fact hasn't had a chance to decide the credibility of the defendant and the reliability of her testimony?

Put another way, if the judge rules that the defense has met its requirement with the defendant's testimony, hasn't the judge essentially usurped the jury's prerogative to dismiss the defendant's testimony in whole or in part? Isn't a certain legitimacy conferred on that testimony from the bench?

 

[forb8182]

It is a little circular in this case for sure, at least the way it's been presented by the state. Of course, not all murders take place in the defendant's home, so second degree burglary doesn't always apply. Still, it's a little odd.

Personally, I would have said that the felony underlying the second degree burglary (i.e., the reason she entered/remained in the home) was kidnapping or extortion. In other words, I would have said, OK, either (1) she went there with the intent to kill him (premed. murder) or, (2) in the alternative, she went there with the intent of holding him against his will at gunpoint and forcing him to agree to something (Cancun?) with the threat of revealing sex tapes, etc., if he didn't agree, and the gun went off by "accident" (felony murder).
JM did say that the felony underlying the burglary would have been aggravated assault, which would apply if TA was held at gunpoint/knifepoint as I mentioned above, but he keeps saying that the assault was the "attack" rather than the threat. Once you prove an intentional attack involving a gunshot to the head, a stab wound to the heart, or a slit throat, you might as well just prove premeditated murder IMO.

Was it ever established through JA and TA phone records that she was telling the truth that she called him and told him she was coming to see him? Clearly, if there is doesn't mean he may have told her don't come see me. Does the felony apply only because she did not leave after sex? I still don't understand how this charge applies.

 

[G&AMom]

No. He was allowed to play the tape in full, and will be allowed to remind the jury about that in his closing.

I don't think the AZ court of appeals would care enough to deal with it on a special action. It is not too important in the context of the full tape having been presented to the jury.

The tape being replayed confused me. Like you point out, the tape had already been played in full, and Nurmi had lots of time on direct to make all the points he wanted. But yesterday (Monday) he gets to play snippets with words projected on the screen. I don't get it.

On the other thread, some were suggesting that the judge is bending over backward because this is a DP case. I can certainly understand that. But to me, this goes way beyond that. Nurmi has made his argument. He will get the chance to tie it all together in his summation. I don't understand what the grounds for appeal would be just because he doesn't get to repeat something several times. :waitasec:

 

[FairWorld]

I'm not aware of any actual study on this issue. Defense attorneys think it humanizes their clients to have them act...well...human in front of the jury. Juries are just made up of normal people, so depending on the group of normal people you get their reactions may differ. Obviously normal humans tend to react differently to fake smiles/tears than to real smiles/tears.

Thank you AZlawyer. I hope this question will be studied, as people can be influenced by unconscious factors. Presumably, awareness of the fact that non-rational factors can come into play can serve to limit their influence on decision-making. And of course, some people are intrinsically less likely than others to allow emotion, personal history, gut feelings, etc. to influence their reasoning.

This raises another question: are courts allowed to, and do some of them in fact, instruct juries about some of the ways one's rational reasoning can be 'hijacked' by one's kneejerk reactions? (e.g., say, be more likely to convict based on gender, attractiveness, etc.) Or does this sort of knowledge usually just get transmitted via the oral tradition by more experienced jurors in the jury room?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZlawyer. I hope this question will be studied, as people can be influenced by unconscious factors. Presumably, awareness of the fact that non-rational factors can come into play can serve to limit their influence on decision-making. And of course, some people are intrinsically less likely than others to allow emotion, personal history, gut feelings, etc. to influence their reasoning.

This raises another question: are courts allowed to, and do some of them in fact, instruct juries about some of the ways one's rational reasoning can be 'hijacked' by one's kneejerk reactions? (e.g., say, be more likely to convict based on gender, attractiveness, etc.) Or does this sort of knowledge usually just get transmitted via the oral tradition by more experienced jurors in the jury room?

Some courts have started instructing jurors on ways that witnesses might be wrong--i.e., why "eyewitness" testimony is not necessarily correct even if the person is attempting to be truthful. But I have not heard of any instructions on how jurors might be biased.

ETA: I don't think such an instruction could be given unless there were some scientific basis for it (comprehensive study results).

 

[AZlawyer]

The tape being replayed confused me. Like you point out, the tape had already been played in full, and Nurmi had lots of time on direct to make all the points he wanted. But yesterday (Monday) he gets to play snippets with words projected on the screen. I don't get it.

On the other thread, some were suggesting that the judge is bending over backward because this is a DP case. I can certainly understand that. But to me, this goes way beyond that. Nurmi has made his argument. He will get the chance to tie it all together in his summation. I don't understand what the grounds for appeal would be just because he doesn't get to repeat something several times. :waitasec:

I think the judge could have denied Nurmi's request and there would have been no problem on appeal.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you. I'm afraid I'm not asking my question properly. I'm trying to figure out how much evidence is "some". How would you define it?

Is the uncorroborated (and self-serving) testimony of the defendant sufficient to be considered "some evidence"?

Because if so, how can the judge rule on whether "some evidence" has been presented when the jury as trier-of-fact hasn't had a chance to decide the credibility of the defendant and the reliability of her testimony?

Put another way, if the judge rules that the defense has met its requirement with the defendant's testimony, hasn't the judge essentially usurped the jury's prerogative to dismiss the defendant's testimony in whole or in part? Isn't a certain legitimacy conferred on that testimony from the bench?

Yes, the testimony of the defendant is evidence. It is evidence even if the jury later decides to give no weight to it due to lack of credibility. That doesn't make her testimony "non-evidence." The judge is not deciding anything at all about whether or not the jury should give any credence or weight to the evidence presented by the defendant.

 

[AZlawyer]

Are any juror questions that don't get presented to the witness still public record? Do we get to see them at some point? Gracias!

Yes, they will be filed with the court clerk after the trial is over. Unless they are sealed for some reason, the public can get copies from the clerk at that time.

Oh by the way, if you're bored while at the courthouse, you can also (now, without waiting for the trial to be over) pay $20 per day for the video of any non-sealed proceedings that happened before the trial started.