Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[minor4th]

No one should be marking on an exhibit except if they are on the stand and instructed to do so with approval of the court. I don't think it would be "illegal" unless the defendant actually changed something substantive about the exhibit with the intent of altering the evidence seen by the jury, but it would be a big deal and the judge would have to attempt to fix the situation. If an attorney were involved in tampering with evidence, the judge would likely turn the attorney in to the state bar.

I'm not sure what the second part of your question means.

I don't think she would have the opportunity to change anything on an exhibit that has been entered. Even the attorneys have to log evidence in and out, and none of the admitted exhibits would ever be in Jodi's possession.

Yes, if an attorney altered evidence after it was admitted, they would be in big trouble with the state bar and possibly even the criminal justice system.

 

[minor4th]

This seems so backward, evidence given only by defendant's word (lies) of bad character is admissible. Can Juan include comments from friends, etc., about Travis' character in his closing argument?

During the penalty phase, there will be victim impact statements that will talk about what a great guy Travis was and how devastating it is to lose him.

The reason "good character" evidence is not admissible is because whether Travis is a good guy or a lowlife, it does not make it any more likely or not that that Jodi murdered him.

Likewise, good character evidence about Jodi would not be admissible either -- just because she may have done good things on other occasions in the past has no bearing on whether she committed this criminal act on June 4.

Sometimes "habit" evidence can be admissible to show that someone acted in conformity with their habit, and sometimes a definitive pattern of past behavior is admissible for certain limited purposes -- like in a battered woman defense, admissible of past abusive actions by the victim against the perpetrator would be admissible.

IMO the evidentiary rules of a pattern of past conduct is being stretched very thin in this case, and ordinarily much of Jodi's testimony about Travis' past conduct would not be admissible, but the judge is allowing it in this case because apparently the DV expert has specifically said all of this is relevant to Jodi's state of mind at the time of the killing

 

[Myvice]

A couple weeks ago I was trying to find info on the pedo letters and ran across some stuff about Nurmi and his withdrawing from the case. I could swear I saw that Jodi had an attorney to fight to get him back on the case. I don't remember where I saw this info. In trying to get into the Maricopa County website to see what has been filed regarding the trial it asks for Case # and ID # plus judicial officer. Is that information available somewhere?

Not sure why this is driving me crazy but I guess I'm worried she could appeal on incompetant representation. If she fought to keep Nurmi would that negate the possibilty of this happening? TIA

Oops...just read a couple pages back and it seems like a moot point anyway. Thanks for all you do!

 

[Ladylub]

wrong thread sorry

 

[Doester]

Is the DT team allowed to review the jurors' questions with their Dr. witness tonight before testimony tomorrow morning?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is the DT team allowed to review the jurors' questions with their Dr. witness tonight before testimony tomorrow morning?

Well, if no one told them not to, I guess so. But I hope Juan thought of this issue and requested an instruction that the questions not be disclosed to the witness. I'm not aware of any rule that prevents disclosing juror questions to the witness but so far (except in Jodi's case as a testifying defendant, which made sense for constitutional reasons) I have never seen a judge allow a witness to review the questions.

 

[LaneGirl]

Does the jury have to be unanimous for guilty verdict? Also for the DP?

 

[AZlawyer]

So...would the point of this be to prevent so many side bars?

The point of speaking objections? No, normally the point is to coach the witness (improper), or to influence the jury ( improper), or because the lawyer can't think of the right legal objection (common but not great lawyering lol), or because the lawyer gets excited and forgets there's a jury sitting there.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Well, if no one told them not to, I guess so. But I hope Juan thought of this issue and requested an instruction that the questions not be disclosed to the witness. I'm not aware of any rule that prevents disclosing juror questions to the witness but so far (except in Jodi's case as a testifying defendant, which made sense for constitutional reasons) I have never seen a judge allow a witness to review the questions.

But it seems to me, once the defense attorneys know what the exact questions are they can still meet with their client and go over points of testimony they want fresh in her mind, without exactly going over the questions. I don't see how that can be stopped. Can the judge mandate that they do not meet with the defendant between recess on Wednesday and reinstatement of court on Thursday?

 

[RadarLuv]

Requested to ask on this thread;

What happens if a juror cannot handle the financial strain this lengthy trial might be causing them? I need to check my company's policy. Although I have never been called to JD.

 

[minor4th]

Requested to ask on this thread;

What happens if a juror cannot handle the financial strain this lengthy trial might be causing them? I need to check my company's policy. Although I have never been called to JD.

Thats something that has to be addresses during voire dire

 

[RadarLuv]

Thats something that has to be addresses during voire dire

Ok, can you dumb that down for me Minor, lol. All I know about voire dire is that the opposite council can ask questions during trial when opposed to certain evidence. That is all I have learned about that during this trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

But it seems to me, once the defense attorneys know what the exact questions are they can still meet with their client and go over points of testimony they want fresh in her mind, without exactly going over the questions. I don't see how that can be stopped. Can the judge mandate that they do not meet with the defendant between recess on Wednesday and reinstatement of court on Thursday?

Well, we're not talking about Jodi any more. She was allowed to review questions because she has a constitutional right to know everything that's going on and to assist her counsel with her defense.

As for other witnesses, the judge could order that the questions not be reviewed with them.

 

[Ricki]

What happens if a juror is caught mouthing words to the defendant?

 

[AZlawyer]

Ok, can you dumb that down for me Minor, lol. All I know about voire dire is that the opposite council can ask questions during trial when opposed to certain evidence. That is all I have learned about that during this trial.

Minor is talking about the other kind of voir dire, when the jurors are questioned before being selected for the trial. If there will be serious financial concerns, the prospective jurors have to bring those up during voir dire.

 

[AZlawyer]

What happens if a juror is caught mouthing words to the defendant?

First of all, I think that's a rumor that developed in the last few minutes. Someone said that the defense team mouthed words to EACH OTHER while LOOKING toward a juror, not that a juror mouthed words to Jodi.

Obviously if in an alternate universe this did happen, the juror could be dismissed.

 

[RadarLuv]

Minor is talking about the other kind of voir dire, when the jurors are questioned before being selected for the trial. If there will be serious financial concerns, the prospective jurors have to bring those up during voir dire.

That is so weird to me. HLN just said that they are making $12/day. How could ANYONE survive on that, unless they are all very well off. Crazy. I hope their company does provide them with pay. In that case, I would love to do it.

 

[RadarLuv]

Do you think that, if requested by the DT, that ribbons be taken off, the family should oblige? Is it really factor when it comes to an appeal?

Not being a lawyer, but reading on other trials where there were appeals due to that sort of thing (ribbons, pictures, buttons), would you just urge the family to take them off and not let emotions cloud the final result?

 

[ohiogirl]

That is so weird to me. HLN just said that they are making $12/day. How could ANYONE survive on that, unless they are all very well off. Crazy. I hope their company does provide them with pay. In that case, I would love to do it.

The company I work for will continue my pay if I have to do jury duty. But, with all of the off days this court has, I would be able to go to work a lot!
jmo

 

[Cracka*Jaxx]

That is so weird to me. HLN just said that they are making $12/day. How could ANYONE survive on that, unless they are all very well off. Crazy. I hope their company does provide them with pay. In that case, I would love to do it.

I'm thinking that HLN misspoke. I was on Jury Duty only once, and for only a few days before the litigants settled. I was paid way more than $12 per day. I remember being paid hourly, and it being above minimum wage.