Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

If Matt M. was caught lying for Jodi will he face charges for perjury?
If so, would he still be allowed to testify since he was involved in the witness tampering scandal with Jodi?
If he is called by the defense, can Juan tell the jury on cross that he willingly provided false information at the hearings?
If he testifies for the state is he given immunity if he agrees to tell the truth about Jodi?
After being caught in such a scandal would he be allowed to testify?
How much can Juan tell the Jury about the hearing/contradicted stories Matt told them when lying for Jodi?
If he testifies and admits that he helped stage the letters at Jodi's request can the letters come in because someone "opened the door"

I don't think anyone has suggested that Matt has lied under oath. He can't face perjury charges just for saying that he would be willing to commit perjury.

Even if someone has been convicted of perjury, they can still testify in a court of law. No sane attorney would call that person as a witness, though.

I don't think we know that Matt was involved in any witness tampering.

I don't think anyone has accused Matt of providing false information at a hearing.

If the defense calls Matt, Juan can certainly point out that Matt said he was willing to lie for Jodi.

He COULD be given immunity from [whatever] if he agreed to testify for the state, but then the defense could point out that the immunity deal gives him a motive to lie for the state.

I'm not sure what scandal you think Matt was caught in, but yes, people caught in scandals can still testify in court.

I am not even sure if Matt testified in any hearings, so I can't answer whether or not whatever supposedly happened in those hearings would be relevant or admissible.

If the State is allowed to call Matt to testify that he faked evidence for Jodi at her request, IMO the judge would not allow the jury to see or hear details about the fake evidence. There would be no "door opened" to show the letters to the jury.

 

[Novice Seeker]

I don't think anyone has suggested that Matt has lied under oath. He can't face perjury charges just for saying that he would be willing to commit perjury.

Even if someone has been convicted of perjury, they can still testify in a court of law. No sane attorney would call that person as a witness, though.

I don't think we know that Matt was involved in any witness tampering.

I don't think anyone has accused Matt of providing false information at a hearing.

If the defense calls Matt, Juan can certainly point out that Matt said he was willing to lie for Jodi.

He COULD be given immunity from [whatever] if he agreed to testify for the state, but then the defense could point out that the immunity deal gives him a motive to lie for the state.

I'm not sure what scandal you think Matt was caught in, but yes, people caught in scandals can still testify in court.

I am not even sure if Matt testified in any hearings, so I can't answer whether or not whatever supposedly happened in those hearings would be relevant or admissible.

If the State is allowed to call Matt to testify that he faked evidence for Jodi at her request, IMO the judge would not allow the jury to see or hear details about the fake evidence. There would be no "door opened" to show the letters to the jury.

I think the "scandal" is about the incidence of when Jodi tried to sneak those magazines out of jail that were meant for MM. So, although MM's version of the *advertiser censored* was incorrect He did lie to the State.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

When Juan is done with Arias (discounting the extra juror questions at this time), does Nurmi get another shot at her?
I guess I'm talking about re-direct?

 

[JusticeJunkie]

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

No, she just spoke of it.
BTW, Thanks SO much for taking the time to answer our questions.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I keep hearing about the jury instruction that she had the mindset of a battered woman. Does the judge make the decision weather or not this instruction is included based on the witnesses, or does it just get instructed weather the DT proves it or not?

 

[AZlawyer]

When Juan is done with Arias (discounting the extra juror questions at this time), does Nurmi get another shot at her?
I guess I'm talking about re-direct?

Not normally. Both attorneys are just supposed to be clarifying/challenging her answers to the jury right now. It is not direct or cross. It is all part of "jury questions."

 

[AZlawyer]

I keep hearing about the jury instruction that she had the mindset of a battered woman. Does the judge make the decision weather or not this instruction is included based on the witnesses, or does it just get instructed weather the DT proves it or not?

There will not be a jury instruction saying that she had the mindset of a battered woman. There will be a jury instruction saying that IF the jury finds she was a victim of acts of domestic violence (which will be defined), then they shall determine whether she reasonably believed deadly force was necessary from the perspective of a reasonable person who had been a victim of such acts.

So it is up to the jury to decide if she has proved domestic violence.

And, of course, she has not testified that she EVER believed deadly force was necessary... she said she thought the gun was unloaded and didn't mean to shoot him, and then the fog descended so for all she knows she went into an unjustified murderous rage.... :waitasec:

 

[bobkat]

please please answer this legal question...
1. Is a record kept of what materials JA has accessed during her incarceration
2. If so can Juan bring those records in to show she has studied up on the behaviors/symptoms of battered women and ptsd?

3. What means, if any will he have to show the jury, though I'm quite certain now they ain't buying her state of mind defense, that she rehearsed her interview with these experts prior to meeting with them

4. Also, is he allowed to say they are being paid by the defense to testify?

 

[bobkat]

please please answer this legal question...
1. Is a record kept of what materials JA has accessed during her incarceration
2. If so can Juan bring those records in to show she has studied up on the behaviors/symptoms of battered women and ptsd?

3. What means, if any will he have to show the jury, though I'm quite certain now they ain't buying her state of mind defense, that she rehearsed her interview with these experts prior to meeting with them

4. Also, is he allowed to say they are being paid by the defense to testify?

...by materials I mean books, websites etc.

 

[ClosArgs]

Thanks in advance, you lawyers are making this case much easier to follow.


Why would the defense call a witness to the stand who has acknowledged he/she would lie for the defendant? If same defense witness initially denies in an police interview an incident as described by the defendant, but takes the stand now and corroborates. It would seem the PA would have no trouble impeaching the witness' testimony. Given the defendant's own difficulty with the truth couldn't it actually hurt the defense? Guess I'm asking you guys to arm chair quarterback here, but what would you do?

I saw the defense witness list had been released prior to presenting their case, has the witness list for PA's rebuttal been released?

 

[Colt46]

please please answer this legal question...
1. Is a record kept of what materials JA has accessed during her incarceration
2. If so can Juan bring those records in to show she has studied up on the behaviors/symptoms of battered women and ptsd?

3. What means, if any will he have to show the jury, though I'm quite certain now they ain't buying her state of mind defense, that she rehearsed her interview with these experts prior to meeting with them

4. Also, is he allowed to say they are being paid by the defense to testify?

I remember reading an article a few months ago re the EBay website that was selling her 'art' works. It also mentioned that there was an Amazon acct. under her mother's name whereby jodi was obtaining a virtual library filled with legal and medical tomes - brought to the jail by her mother. She was most likely preparing her own defense at the time. Hopefully, JM has checked with Sheriff Joe to obtain a list of the books.

It's obvious from her phony 'battered woman' defense that she has patterned her entire case around this sham of a defense. Her story doesn't pass the smell test - there was NO 'accidental' dropping of the camera'; no body-slam' no hallway/closet chase; no 'lunging'; no attack whatsoever by TA. She premeditated his murder and carried it thru when she couldn't get him to cancel his plans with Marie...simple as that. He was dead in less than 3 minutes - a herculean feat if you ask me. Hell hath no fury......Case closed!

Lethal injection is too good for her - she is a psycho predator/stalker and poor Travis was her prey! Pure evil!

 

[CuriousCharley]

Hello everyone, I have a question- Why was the jury not sequestered???

 

[gitana1]

please please answer this legal question...
1. Is a record kept of what materials JA has accessed during her incarceration
2. If so can Juan bring those records in to show she has studied up on the behaviors/symptoms of battered women and ptsd?

3. What means, if any will he have to show the jury, though I'm quite certain now they ain't buying her state of mind defense, that she rehearsed her interview with these experts prior to meeting with them

4. Also, is he allowed to say they are being paid by the defense to testify?

...by materials I mean books, websites etc.

1. There may be a record of what library books JA accesses at jail or what books she receives in the mail. But how she learned about battered women PTSD symptoms is highly unlikely to be from that. It's from hours and hours and hours of "being evaluated" by defense experts, i.e., being taught/studying with them. Other records that her counsel may have on PTSD, etc., she may access, I believe, during attorney visits and that's not recorded as it is attorney client privileged info.
2. he could if there was a record. But I doubt there is.
3. He already did this during his very effective examination of her yesterday.
4. Yes and he will when they testify.

Hello everyone, I have a question- Why was the jury not sequestered???

Just what the judge decided. They make the call based on arguments for and against by the two sides and their knowledge of how newsworthy the case is. Thank God this jury was not sequestered, though. IMO, the prison-like sequestration of the Anthony jury was part of the reason they voted not guilty. They didn't want to spend another 7 weeks during a penalty phase.

 

[Donnareit]

I remember reading an article a few months ago re the EBay website that was selling her 'art' works. It also mentioned that there was an Amazon acct. under her mother's name whereby jodi was obtaining a virtual library filled with legal and medical tomes - brought to the jail by her mother. She was most likely preparing her own defense at the time. Hopefully, JM has checked with Sheriff Joe to obtain a list of the books.

It's obvious from her phony 'battered woman' defense that she has patterned her entire case around this sham of a defense. Her story doesn't pass the smell test - there was NO 'accidental' dropping of the camera'; no body-slam' no hallway/closet chase; no 'lunging'; no attack whatsoever by TA. She premeditated his murder and carried it thru when she couldn't get him to cancel his plans with Marie...simple as that. He was dead in less than 3 minutes - a herculean feat if you ask me. Hell hath no fury......Case closed!

Lethal injection is too good for her - she is a psycho predator/stalker and poor Travis was her prey! Pure evil!

More importantly there is no solid evidence of continually and escalating violence used for the purpose of obtaining power and control over her. At least I can't see it, and I've counseled survivors for more than 30 years.

 

[Nali87]

Hi lawyers. I have a question: I keep reading that the jurors have been writing more questions while Jodi has been clarifiying her answers to the jury questions asked by the judge. Will Jodi have to answer the new questions as well or will they be ignored? If so will Nurmi and JM get another go at her?

 

[gitana1]

Hi lawyers. I have a question: I keep reading that the jurors have been writing more questions while Jodi has been clarifiying her answers to the jury questions asked by the judge. Will Jodi have to answer the new questions as well or will they be ignored? If so will Nurmi and JM get another go at her?

AZ Lawyer will know better because we don;t have jury questions in my state. But my feeling is they will continue to allow more questions from the jury until they have no more.

 

[meanddblj]

does the state have a list the witnesses they plan to call on rebuttal and if so is it public knowledge?

 

[AZlawyer]

does the state have a list the witnesses they plan to call on rebuttal and if so is it public knowledge?

Yes, I think those are filed with the clerk. It would have been filed quite a while ago, though.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi lawyers. I have a question: I keep reading that the jurors have been writing more questions while Jodi has been clarifiying her answers to the jury questions asked by the judge. Will Jodi have to answer the new questions as well or will they be ignored? If so will Nurmi and JM get another go at her?

AZ Lawyer will know better because we don;t have jury questions in my state. But my feeling is they will continue to allow more questions from the jury until they have no more.

The judge has discretion when to say "enough is enough" and call a halt to jury questions. But in the case of such an important witness, IMO she will be very lenient. Nurmi and JM will get to follow each round of jury questions.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks in advance, you lawyers are making this case much easier to follow.


Why would the defense call a witness to the stand who has acknowledged he/she would lie for the defendant? If same defense witness initially denies in an police interview an incident as described by the defendant, but takes the stand now and corroborates. It would seem the PA would have no trouble impeaching the witness' testimony. Given the defendant's own difficulty with the truth couldn't it actually hurt the defense? Guess I'm asking you guys to arm chair quarterback here, but what would you do?

I saw the defense witness list had been released prior to presenting their case, has the witness list for PA's rebuttal been released?

I doubt the defense will call MM, for the very reason you mention.