Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[nursebeeme]

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.

I should have been more clear... I was talking about the new picture of the cut finger (from the helio phone)

 

[clarabloomer]

Does JA have access to all of her journals and texts, etc. (an obvious aid to her story telling!)?

 

[AZlawyer]

I should have been more clear... I was talking about the new picture of the cut finger (from the helio phone)

Sorry for the misunderstanding! I haven't watched that part, though. This was her "work injury" cut, right? When did she say she took the picture (or when was the time stamp)?

I'm sure JM will get recross on that particular photo if he wants it.

As for the reason it was not brought up on direct--the point on direct was to say that Travis hurt her finger in Jan 2008, not to discuss all injuries to that finger. It wasn't relevant at that point whether she had ever hurt the finger at work. But then JM challenged her testimony that Travis hurt her finger in Jan 2008 by producing evidence of a June 2008 finger injury that happened during the killing, at which point any alternative explanations for the June 2008 injury became relevant.

 

[nursebeeme]

Sorry for the misunderstanding! I haven't watched that part, though. This was her "work injury" cut, right? When did she say she took the picture (or when was the time stamp)?

I'm sure JM will get recross on that particular photo if he wants it.

As for the reason it was not brought up on direct--the point on direct was to say that Travis hurt her finger in Jan 2008, not to discuss all injuries to that finger. It wasn't relevant at that point whether she had ever hurt the finger at work. But then JM challenged her testimony that Travis hurt her finger in Jan 2008 by producing evidence of a June 2008 finger injury that happened during the killing, at which point any alternative explanations for the June 2008 injury became relevant.

it was at the end of may (and she is conveniently trying to say that Burns didn't know what finger she cut re: lt vs rt)

I just wondered why they wouldn't introduce it during her direct to refute burns vs wait for re-direct??

thanks for your answer!:rocker:

 

[nursebeeme]

another question: do you think that this method of re-direct is effective or will lose the jury?

 

[AZlawyer]

Does JA have access to all of her journals and texts, etc. (an obvious aid to her story telling!)?

Yes, she could have copies of these things.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

For our attorney's:

Has it been proven JA was invited to visit TA? Especially at 4am?
Was her car seen outside and if no to these 2 questions--the felony would come in with illegal entry, right? I may have missed proof that JA was allowed in at 4Am by Travis. I still think he thought she left, but she came back or he never knew she was there. What did the neighbors have to say.

 

[AZWatcher]

Was photo evidence presented today depicting JA with her hands tied? TIA.

 

[Sleuths4Me]

can JM bring up the time on the photos on his rebuttal..if he doesn't get a recross? I missed the first few days of the trial and never heard him talk about the litlle over 2min between the last photo of alive TA and the "accidental" photos.

 

[Nova]

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.

Got it. Thank you. I got tied up in the semantics, but I think I understand now: evidence is evidence even if it is eventually dismissed as unreliable by the trier of fact.

 

[Nali87]

I practically ran to this thread.

AzLawyer, how common is it to get more than 100 questions from the jury!?

 

[kscornfed]

LAWYER!!!!!!

how long could it take to argue which questions, out of 100, she'll actually get? what kinds of questions won't they allow her to answer?

 

[KBisMe]

Will the DT get to go over the questions with JA prior to her having to answer?

Please say no!!! That wouldn't seem fair.

 

[josie1986]

Will the DT get to go over the questions with JA prior to her having to answer?

Please say no!!! That wouldn't seem fair.

you beat me to it :seeya:

 

[Midnight Meddler]

Previous witnesses did NOT get to 'rehearse' their answers!!!!!! Yaaaaaaaah!

 

[Deebest49]

On the jury questions. After Jodi answers each one, will Pr and Df both get to address Jodi's answers? I am assuming that Martinez is done questioning Jodi as there is no recross. Is this correct? In your opinion what does the fact that there are 100 or more questions say about the Juries leaning towards guilty or??? If anything.

 

[AZlawyer]

can JM bring up the time on the photos on his rebuttal..if he doesn't get a recross? I missed the first few days of the trial and never heard him talk about the litlle over 2min between the last photo of alive TA and the "accidental" photos.

Oh, definitely.

 

[AZlawyer]

I practically ran to this thread.

AzLawyer, how common is it to get more than 100 questions from the jury!?

LAWYER!!!!!!

how long could it take to argue which questions, out of 100, she'll actually get? what kinds of questions won't they allow her to answer?

Will the DT get to go over the questions with JA prior to her having to answer?

Please say no!!! That wouldn't seem fair.

you beat me to it :seeya:

On the jury questions. After Jodi answers each one, will Pr and Df both get to address Jodi's answers? I am assuming that Martinez is done questioning Jodi as there is no recross. Is this correct? In your opinion what does the fact that there are 100 or more questions say about the Juries leaning towards guilty or??? If anything.

Wow! I have been swamped with work today and had no time to check the threads. To answer your questions:

100 jury questions is unheard of! :what:

IMO it will take quite a while to argue these. Judges normally allow every one they possibly can, because they don't want the jurors to feel like they're being ignored. The ones that aren't asked will be for the same reasons as the attorneys' questions are sometimes rejected (irrelevance, etc). But the judge will go out of her way to "work with" the jury questions--e.g., if there is no foundation, she will ask the lawyers if they could establish foundation with additional questions; or if it has been asked & answered, she will probably just ask it again.

The witness does not get to preview the questions.

There will be additional recross/redirect if the jury questions bring up any new material.

IMO there is no way to guess which way the jurors are leaning without hearing the questions.

 

[Nali87]

Wow! I have been swamped with work today and had no time to check the threads. To answer your questions:

100 jury questions is unheard of! :what:

IMO it will take quite a while to argue these. Judges normally allow every one they possibly can, because they don't want the jurors to feel like they're being ignored. The ones that aren't asked will be for the same reasons as the attorneys' questions are sometimes rejected (irrelevance, etc). But the judge will go out of her way to "work with" the jury questions--e.g., if there is no foundation, she will ask the lawyers if they could establish foundation with additional questions; or if it has been asked & answered, she will probably just ask it again.

The witness does not get to preview the questions.

There will be additional recross/redirect if the jury questions bring up any new material.

IMO there is no way to guess which way the jurors are leaning without hearing the questions.

So Jodi will be hearing the questions at the same time we do? But her lawyers before then? :waitasec:

Thank you!

 

[Deebest49]

Wow! I have been swamped with work today and had no time to check the threads. To answer your questions:

100 jury questions is unheard of! :what:

IMO it will take quite a while to argue these. Judges normally allow every one they possibly can, because they don't want the jurors to feel like they're being ignored. The ones that aren't asked will be for the same reasons as the attorneys' questions are sometimes rejected (irrelevance, etc). But the judge will go out of her way to "work with" the jury questions--e.g., if there is no foundation, she will ask the lawyers if they could establish foundation with additional questions; or if it has been asked & answered, she will probably just ask it again.

The witness does not get to preview the questions.

There will be additional recross/redirect if the jury questions bring up any new material.

IMO there is no way to guess which way the jurors are leaning without hearing the questions.

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all of our questions. I hope you know how much we all appreciate you!!!