Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[fuzzybutter]

Related to closingargs questions above, are the contents of sealed hearings ever released to the public?

 

[AZlawyer]

Are evidentiary hearings normally open to the public?

JM's brief regarding Motion to Preclude letters Purportedly Written by Travis Alexander to Defendant has been made public, however the Defendant's responses have been sealed by the court. Is this because of potential appeals?

Also I read there was a Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Demarte’s Conclusions Pursuant to "SARA”. I see it was discussed on 12-07-12, and they set a hearing for 02-08-13 that was rescheduled for 02-07-13, but I haven't been able to find a decision. Are all decisions published even if the hearings are closed?

TIA

How do you know the responses were sealed? It doesn't say so on the docket.

Sealing documents is not an appeal issue, generally. It has to do with interests that might outweigh the "public's right to know." E.g., the "pedo letters from Travis" might have been (and I assume were) sealed if there were serious questions regarding their authenticity, pending a determination of that issue. Perhaps, if the defendant's responses to the state's motion were sealed, it was because they discussed specific contents of the "letters."

Related to closingargs questions above, are the contents of sealed hearings ever released to the public?

Sometimes. If the reason for closing the hearing has passed, then someone (media, often) can file a motion to unseal the proceeding.

 

[ClosArgs]

How do you know the responses were sealed? It doesn't say so on the docket.

Sealing documents is not an appeal issue, generally. It has to do with interests that might outweigh the "public's right to know." E.g., the "pedo letters from Travis" might have been (and I assume were) sealed if there were serious questions regarding their authenticity, pending a determination of that issue. Perhaps, if the defendant's responses to the state's motion were sealed, it was because they discussed specific contents of the "letters."



Sometimes. If the reason for closing the hearing has passed, then someone (media, often) can file a motion to unseal the proceeding.

\

My belief that they were sealed was due to the only minute entry I could find about the defense's response which was:

Minute entry from 01-13-2011 It is ordered directing the Clerk of the court to seal Supplement to Defendant's Response; Motion to Preclude Letters Purportedly Written by Travis Alexander to Defendant filed on December 22, 2010, not to be opened with further order of the court.

 

[AZlawyer]

\

My belief that they were sealed was due to the only minute entry I could find about the defense's response which was:

Minute entry from 01-13-2011 It is ordered directing the Clerk of the court to seal Supplement to Defendant's Response; Motion to Preclude Letters Purportedly Written by Travis Alexander to Defendant filed on December 22, 2010, not to be opened with further order of the court.

So the main response (and I think there was also a second supplement to the response) may not be sealed.

 

[Renee110]

2. Well, they don't have to live in a closet, but they are supposed to walk out of the room, put their hands over their ears, etc. "Hear no Jodi, see no Jodi, speak no Jodi." :floorlaugh: But this is all on the honor system--there's no way to know what happens behind closed doors. But I have to say, I don't watch the local news or the crime shows on cable, and I never see a single thing about Jodi Arias, so it isn't that hard to arrange.

It would be hard for me to not go home and google global transient amnesia, or find out proper procedures for those tests Dr. Quack administered and stuff like that. If someone tells me something that I'm not familiar with, I google the crap out of it! I'm in TN, and there isn't ANYTHING on our news about this. A friend of mine is a Mormon, and that is how I heard about this case. But I would think in AZ all of the newspapers and newsstands would be chock full of daily articles. Not to mention every local morning news shows etc... Is this case not a big "news" story there? I would have thought that it would be nearly impossible to avoid seeing and hearing it.

 

[cosmos]

Based on your trial experience, do you think the presence of TV cameras is causing witnesses to be more combative on cross examination than they would otherwise be? Normally, if the opposing lawyer asks a yes/no question of the witness that he is reluctant to answer with a yes or no, at least the witness is reassured by knowing he can take all the time he needs on re-direct to answer the same questions the way he wants to answer and the jury hears every single word in proper context. But doesn't the knowledge that Nancy Grace and much of the media in general will show clips from your cross-examination with outrageous headlines that you are being absolutely destroyed make you feel the need for instant rehabilitation rather than waiting days for re-direct? That's how it looks to me. Especially for police and expert witnesses, on both sides, who have a valuable reputation to maintain outside the court, but for others as well who know they are being judged so critically by the public based on snippets of viral video.

 

[AZlawyer]

It would be hard for me to not go home and google global transient amnesia, or find out proper procedures for those tests Dr. Quack administered and stuff like that. If someone tells me something that I'm not familiar with, I google the crap out of it! I'm in TN, and there isn't ANYTHING on our news about this. A friend of mine is a Mormon, and that is how I heard about this case. But I would think in AZ all of the newspapers and newsstands would be chock full of daily articles. Not to mention every local morning news shows etc... Is this case not a big "news" story there? I would have thought that it would be nearly impossible to avoid seeing and hearing it.

You're probably right for most people. I don't read the paper (just Google news, and you can control what you click on for that), don't watch local news, and don't watch the cable crime shows, so if I turned off my radio on the hour and the half-hour while driving I think I'd be completely "safe" lol.

But I agree--it would take all my will power to do that if I were on the jury!

 

[AZlawyer]

Based on your trial experience, do you think the presence of TV cameras is causing witnesses to be more combative on cross examination than they would otherwise be? Normally, if the opposing lawyer asks a yes/no question of the witness that he is reluctant to answer with a yes or no, at least the witness is reassured by knowing he can take all the time he needs on re-direct to answer the same questions the way he wants to answer and the jury hears every single word in proper context. But doesn't the knowledge that Nancy Grace and much of the media in general will show clips from your cross-examination with outrageous headlines that you are being absolutely destroyed make you feel the need for instant rehabilitation rather than waiting days for re-direct? That's how it looks to me. Especially for police and expert witnesses, on both sides, who have a valuable reputation to maintain outside the court, but for others as well who know they are being judged so critically by the public based on snippets of viral video.

It seems like pretty normal cross-examination behavior to me. Lots of witnesses think they can "fix" things without waiting for their attorneys to do it on redirect.

In particular, people who have narcissism and control problems--and we've had at least 2 of those--will act this way regardless of whether there are cameras.

 

[cosmos]

Today I read a detailed article about when lawyers are permitted to ask leading questions and when they are not, and it was all fascinating stuff that I had never known before. That makes me think there might be some jurors who don't know these rather elementary basics of criminal justice. Can I assume it would be okay for them to look up articles like this during the trial to answer their own questions?

 

[K_Z]

When potential expert witnesses are approached about testifying at trial, what are they given/told to enable them to make the decision whether to participate? And are they paid for the time spent making the decision, even if they decline? If so, release of billing records showing an elephant's graveyard of defense expert declinees would be hugely embarrassing, which may be why Nurmi went straight to Doc "I'll say whatever you want" Samuels.

I'm not an attorney, but I have been an expert witness for civil med/ mal litigation a few times. I can share a couple of my experiences. (Not criminal cases-- civil!)

Two of the times I was not retained further than the initial "look see" at the chart, by the defendant's attorneys. Multiple phone calls, and emails initially, followed by one face to face meeting with the attorneys, before I received the chart. Then I rendered a long written report for them, with an extensive bibliography. I was thanked and paid for my time (according to what we agreed upon before I was given the patient records), and never heard from the attorneys again. (Presumably because my report and opinions didn't support their ideas.) When these attorneys initially approached me, they asked about my background and education in relation to the details of the case (I was referred to them from a colleague at one of the universities I teach for).

AFAIK, there is no way to compel a defense atty (civil or criminal) to disclose who, or how many, individuals they approached as potential experts.

I would like to think that my professional opinion is my opinion, no matter whether I'm approached by a defendant's attorney, or a plaintiff. It shouldn't matter which "side" approaches me. My profession has a code of ethics for expert witnesses-- and one of the most compelling items is that an expert should set their fees prior to any significant participation in the case, and that fees should never be tied to any monetary damages recovered by a plaintiff. I have an hourly fee for research, consultation, and writing reports, and another fee for "court days". I'm certainly not getting rich on any of my previous experiences as an expert, and I don't hang out my shingle advertising my services. In each case I participated in, I was referred by a colleague. It is just something "extra" I've done on the side, when the opportunity presented. Not something I ever sought out. I'm a clinician and educator first. The safety and health of the patient come first, and that guides me in my opinions. Did the practitioner follow accepted standards of care? Is the care provided and documented by the practitioner solidly supported and defensible in the literature?

In one of the cases I was certified as an expert for, I received the expert reports of the defendant's experts to review, after being involved for more than 2 years. (I was working for the plaintiff that time.) I pointed out what I thought was a number of issues and errors in that individual's report, in a written report for the attorney I was working with. (That, again, included a pretty thorough list of references.)

Subsequently, the attorney I worked for told me that expert was going to be quite restricted in what he was allowed to testify to, going forward. I am assuming the attorney I worked for filed some kind of complaint, but I never asked him, and he never shared going forward what happened other than that the opposing side expert was now very restricted in what he could testify to. (ie, he was not permitted to opine about Nurse Anesthesia practice, as that was not his specialty.)

This was kind of an invisible, silent "victory" for my profession. It is one of the really satisfying parts I personally take away from that experience. Almost no one will ever know what happened (the expert was fairly prominent, and I am a nobody!), but I consider the situation as an incidence where truth prevailed, and the "underdog" won!

 

[katiecoolady]

Can the jury see that "say cheese" outtake? They've not seen it yet have they? Can that come in? That to me is THE most bizarre thing she's ever said on tape.

 

[AZlawyer]

Today I read a detailed article about when lawyers are permitted to ask leading questions and when they are not, and it was all fascinating stuff that I had never known before. That makes me think there might be some jurors who don't know these rather elementary basics of criminal justice. Can I assume it would be okay for them to look up articles like this during the trial to answer their own questions?

Hmmmm. I suppose that sort of procedural question would be OK to look up, but it's kind of borderline. Really they shouldn't be looking up anything whatsoever to do with the trial or Jodi or law at all.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the jury see that "say cheese" outtake? They've not seen it yet have they? Can that come in? That to me is THE most bizarre thing she's ever said on tape.

I don't know what was played for them so far. But if the defense made the argument that the "say cheese" part was irrelevant and should be edited out, IMO the judge would probably agree.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The jury saw the say cheese clip.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/jodi-arias-trial-subpoena-god_n_2762121.html#75_smile

 

[RadarLuv]

Can the jury see that "say cheese" outtake? They've not seen it yet have they? Can that come in? That to me is THE most bizarre thing she's ever said on tape.

The most bizarre think she has ever said on tape? Or, the most bizarre thing she has ever said on THAT tape? Because I am just shocked with the new video which came out last week.

I really didn't think it could get worse....then it did.


Now, wonder when they will release every minute of the interrogation tapes.

 

[RadarLuv]

Does the DT push for delay's?

Does any type of delay help them? IE, Jodi has a headache, etc.

Seems like here, and in the past, they enjoy drawing things out, but I am not sure if/how it benefits them. Do they think about the jury? Or are they only thinking about what is best for the DT (getting more time)?

Is there ever a sense of urgency to get things finished? (I understand that someones life is on the line, but....)

 

[gitana1]

The jury saw the say cheese clip.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/jodi-arias-trial-subpoena-god_n_2762121.html#75_smile

I don't see in your link where it says the jury saw the say cheese clip. They were shown various clips but I don't remember that being one of them. The entire interview was not shown in court.

 

[RadarLuv]

I don't see in your link where it says the jury saw the say cheese clip. They were shown various clips but I don't remember that being one of them. The entire interview was not shown in court.

I remember, at some point, someone saying that they had access to the whole interview. Was the entire interview entered into evidence? Does the jury have access to all the evidence if they feel like they want to review something?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't see in your link where it says the jury saw the say cheese clip. They were shown various clips but I don't remember that being one of them. The entire interview was not shown in court.

It says "Martinez showed the court Arias' smiling mugshot and then played a clip from the "48 Hours" interview, where she said she was smiling because Travis would have found the situation funny."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXlgvVxgFlE#t=207m21s

 

[AZlawyer]

Does the DT push for delay's?

Does any type of delay help them? IE, Jodi has a headache, etc.

Seems like here, and in the past, they enjoy drawing things out, but I am not sure if/how it benefits them. Do they think about the jury? Or are they only thinking about what is best for the DT (getting more time)?

Is there ever a sense of urgency to get things finished? (I understand that someones life is on the line, but....)

The defense doesn't normally push for minor delays (like an extra four or so weeks of trial)--more for major delays (like an extra appeal process that might buy a defendant on death row another 3 years of life).

Frankly, I'm quite sure Jodi DID have a headache after being questioned by Juan, messing up all her lie testimony, and not eating lunch. I would have a headache in that situation too.

As far as Nurmi goes, I think he's just naturally a slow talker.