Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Sleuths4Me]

If the jury finds JA guilty and gives her the DP can the judge overrule that and give her LWOP, or does the judge have to give what the jury recommends? Not sure how I feel yet about the judge being able to hand down the DP

 

[Thracian]

I have a quiestion.

Sometimes the witness is asked to read something (like the diary or texts) for himself.
Not out laud.
Yesterday Samuels was reading, then all of a sudden he said 3 words that he was reading, JM immediately stopped him.

Why is that?

TIA.

My question is a spin off of this one. So far the "dildo with a heartbeat" sequence of texts/e-mails has been shown to Detective Flores and Dr. Samuels. I assume Martinez brings that up to explain why Travis called her the things he did. My question is why hasn't this sequence been entered into evidence? It seems to be quite important to the defense's position that Travis called her such bad things. I'm confused about why the defense can use phrases from it ("three-hole wonder") without it being admitted.

Also, as long as it is not entered into evidence, it will not go back to the jury room, correct? So they won't be able to read it. Which again confuses me about why it's brought up if the jury can't review it.

Thank you!

 

[gcharlie]

What is your take on the DT not calling a forensic pathologist as an expert witness to testify that the gunshot wound came first, counter to the ME's opinion?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the jury finds JA guilty and gives her the DP can the judge overrule that and give her LWOP, or does the judge have to give what the jury recommends? Not sure how I feel yet about the judge being able to hand down the DP

The jury's decision is final.

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is a spin off of this one. So far the "dildo with a heartbeat" sequence of texts/e-mails has been shown to Detective Flores and Dr. Samuels. I assume Martinez brings that up to explain why Travis called her the things he did. My question is why hasn't this sequence been entered into evidence? It seems to be quite important to the defense's position that Travis called her such bad things. I'm confused about why the defense can use phrases from it ("three-hole wonder") without it being admitted.

Also, as long as it is not entered into evidence, it will not go back to the jury room, correct? So they won't be able to read it. Which again confuses me about why it's brought up if the jury can't review it.

Thank you!

I haven't been watching the trial in great detail, but are you sure it hasn't been entered into evidence? I could have sworn I saw a screen shot once.

I think the "three-hole wonder" phrase was brought in through Jodi's testimony. ("Did he call you names? How did that make you feel?" etc.) If so, the defense wouldn't need to use the text itself unless they wanted to prove that Jodi didn't just make that up lol.

Only items entered into evidence will go to the jury room. But again, I'm pretty sure these texts were entered into evidence.

 

[AZlawyer]

What is your take on the DT not calling a forensic pathologist as an expert witness to testify that the gunshot wound came first, counter to the ME's opinion?

Well, keep in mind that the DT thought for a very long time that "gunshot first" WAS the ME's opinion. And certainly it was the state's theory, set forth in several briefs in great detail. Frankly, the DT might have thought that the ME would easily admit that the gunshot might have been first, since (as far as the DT was aware) that had been his original opinion, the prosecutor's original opinion, the detective's original opinion, the easiest explanation for the shot trajectory matching the positions of the parties at the end of the shower pics, the easiest explanation for Jodi being able to escape without a scratch, etc.

Nevertheless, I'm assuming that the DT must have learned before trial that "gunshot first" was no longer the state's theory, and the judge would have given them more time to get an expert if they had asked. Personally, I wouldn't have bothered with a forensic pathologist on this issue--maybe a trauma neurosurgeon to explain how the range of possible trajectories was consistent with some ability to move around afterward? I think they could have found an expert to say that.

:waitasec:

Wait--I think I've got it!!

Maybe the REAL problem was that they needed an expert who would not only give the potentially REASONABLE opinion that Travis might have been able to stumble around helplessly and maybe scream for about 5 seconds, then fall to his knees and desperately try to crawl away from his attacker for 5 feet before being slaughtered, but who would also give the patently UNREASONABLE opinion that Travis could have run, lunged like a linebacker, yelled in complete sentences, and been a threat to someone else's life after the gunshot.

Yeah...I don't think they could have found anyone to give that testimony.

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

:newhere: (Moved this question out of "General Questions" thread.)

Just joined Websleuths last night... super excited! :great:
I have so many questions about this case, and am eager to get some answers... I'll start with this one: It's documented that Jodi was scheduled to have the week of the Cancun trip off from work... Is there black & white evidence that Jodi was originally on the list for the Cancun trip? If so, then she lied on the stand (shocker) when she said she wasn't upset that she wasn't going on the trip, and her possible attendance on the trip was never discussed. And there's only one reason she would lie about this... to cover up her state of mind/motive on the day she murdered Travis! So this information is completely relevant, and if it can be substantiated, then the jury should hear it.

There's so much evidence of Jodi's jealous/stalking behavior that hasn't been allowed into the trial for one reason or another, and I'm seriously concerned that without it, the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous Murder 1 conviction. Can ANY of the evidence of Jodi's outrageous behavior be brought in without risking damage to the state's case, both now and in the event of an appeal?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

AZLawyer - just heard JC say she overheard JW telling the guard to make sure jodi takes her medicine as she left the morning hearing. If she is on a tranquillizer or other mood altering drug, should that have been documented for her testimony? IE- could that be used as a reason for appeal later that her testimony was tainted due to the medicine she was taking? I know I was in a depo once and the the attorney refused to take the depo because she suspected the person being deposed as being on something and despite his claim he was not, she cancelled the depo.

 

[AZlawyer]

:newhere: (Moved this question out of "General Questions" thread.)

Just joined Websleuths last night... super excited! :great:
I have so many questions about this case, and am eager to get some answers... I'll start with this one: It's documented that Jodi was scheduled to have the week of the Cancun trip off from work... Is there black & white evidence that Jodi was originally on the list for the Cancun trip? If so, then she lied on the stand (shocker) when she said she wasn't upset that she wasn't going on the trip, and her possible attendance on the trip was never discussed. And there's only one reason she would lie about this... to cover up her state of mind/motive on the day she murdered Travis! So this information is completely relevant, and if it can be substantiated, then the jury should hear it.

There's so much evidence of Jodi's jealous/stalking behavior that hasn't been allowed into the trial for one reason or another, and I'm seriously concerned that without it, the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous Murder 1 conviction. Can ANY of the evidence of Jodi's outrageous behavior be brought in without risking damage to the state's case, both now and in the event of an appeal?

BBM
:what: Wow. I wasn't aware of that.

AFAIK, all we have about Jodi originally being on the list for the trip is that an unknown person with an unknown connection to PPL said this to a reporter. I sure as heck hope the prosecution either knew about this already or is on it now. I'm sure the evidence would have been on paper at some point, but who knows if PPL keeps that kind of thing after the tickets are bought and the trip is over.

I said a page or two back that I didn't think the prosecution could use this evidence unless there was something to suggest that Jodi KNEW she was on that list--but if, e.g., Juan could lay his hands on (1) Travis's notification that she would be his companion, dated X date, then (2) Jodi's request for vacation to her employer, dated X+2 days, then that would be awesome.

Some outrageous behavior has certainly come in. I think one of Travis's girlfriends talked about slashed tires and something else. And then Jodi herself explained how she peeped in his windows, "confronted" him about kissing another girl, kept track in her diary of how many dates and HALF-dates he'd had with Mimi, and FGS drove 1,000 miles to mur-- I mean to see him when she was supposedly interested in this other guy.... Combine this with the Bianca story, etc., and I think the jury is getting the stalker theme.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer - just heard JC say she overheard JW telling the guard to make sure jodi takes her medicine as she left the morning hearing. If she is on a tranquillizer or other mood altering drug, should that have been documented for her testimony? IE- could that be used as a reason for appeal later that her testimony was tainted due to the medicine she was taking? I know I was in a depo once and the the attorney refused to take the depo because she suspected the person being deposed as being on something and despite his claim he was not, she cancelled the depo.

I've done that at depos too. Here, though, we have stunningly good video (not the usual crappy court video) of her testimony, and it is perfectly clear that she is not tranquilized to any significant degree. She was able to notice and point out, for example, every single tiny mistake of the prosecutor for days and days at a time.

I think this is a non-issue.

 

[noor]

I haven't been watching the trial in great detail, but are you sure it hasn't been entered into evidence? I could have sworn I saw a screen shot once.

I think the "three-hole wonder" phrase was brought in through Jodi's testimony. ("Did he call you names? How did that make you feel?" etc.) If so, the defense wouldn't need to use the text itself unless they wanted to prove that Jodi didn't just make that up lol.

Only items entered into evidence will go to the jury room. But again, I'm pretty sure these texts were entered into evidence.

Yes AZlawyer, they were entered into evidence.
That's why I was so surprised that Juan told Samuels to read it to himself.
Then Samuels said: "I'm at the three-hole-wonder".
That's when Juan stopped him, and told him to read it to himself.

After Samuels was done reading, Juan read some of the texts out laud and asked Samuels questions about it.

That was the reason for my original question.

Sorry if I'm confusing.....

 

[Deebest49]

The thing that I just can't figure out about all of this PTSD nonsense is - why is Dr. Samuels diagnosis of Jodi having PTSD after she murdered Travis so important? Why is the defense trying so hard to convince the jury of this diagnosis?

IMO 1. Who wouldn't have PTSD after they killed someone so brutally, no matter the instigating factor might be??? and 2. Who cares if she did?

How would it be helpful to her case even if it were true? It just seems like one big smoke screen/fluffy filler so they could use their key words that they've scripted throughout the trial. (the fog, blunted affect, disassociated amnesia or whatever)

ETA: I don't believe PTSD is nonsense...I just don't think or care, whether or not Jodi has it.

What I am not getting is this. Jodi has PTSD from Killing Travis. Ok, I'm sure some can believe that, although I don't believe it. But what does her Post condition have to do with the actual murder? How does this help to prove self defense? Can any Attorneys explain this to me?

 

[kscornfed]

i have a legal question and it may be a little involved. ALV has done interviews with JA. we know that because JM referred to the discrepancy between laptop *advertiser censored* and a *advertiser censored* photo in the hearing they had about the pedophilia. i understand that after that hearing, the judge said ALV could NOT talk about TA specifically as an abuser or a pedophile and had to stay general.

but she must have talked to JA to know that piece of info, and i would think the PA got a report. if there is NO testimony from ALV from her talks with JA, then does JM just have to disregard any report he got from her?

can he even ask ALV about what she said in that hearing about the laptop picture if it never comes up on direct? is there ANYthing, other than his question to JA where she claimed ALV was wrong about what she told her,
he can do to get that in?

i just think it's so important and i don't want it not to come in via this witness.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Well, keep in mind that the DT thought for a very long time that "gunshot first" WAS the ME's opinion. And certainly it was the state's theory, set forth in several briefs in great detail. Frankly, the DT might have thought that the ME would easily admit that the gunshot might have been first, since (as far as the DT was aware) that had been his original opinion, the prosecutor's original opinion, the detective's original opinion, the easiest explanation for the shot trajectory matching the positions of the parties at the end of the shower pics, the easiest explanation for Jodi being able to escape without a scratch, etc.

Nevertheless, I'm assuming that the DT must have learned before trial that "gunshot first" was no longer the state's theory, and the judge would have given them more time to get an expert if they had asked. Personally, I wouldn't have bothered with a forensic pathologist on this issue--maybe a trauma neurosurgeon to explain how the range of possible trajectories was consistent with some ability to move around afterward? I think they could have found an expert to say that.

:waitasec:

Wait--I think I've got it!!

Maybe the REAL problem was that they needed an expert who would not only give the potentially REASONABLE opinion that Travis might have been able to stumble around helplessly and maybe scream for about 5 seconds, then fall to his knees and desperately try to crawl away from his attacker for 5 feet before being slaughtered, but who would also give the patently UNREASONABLE opinion that Travis could have run, lunged like a linebacker, yelled in complete sentences, and been a threat to someone else's life after the gunshot.

Yeah...I don't think they could have found anyone to give that testimony.

AWESOME, AWESOME post!!! :great::great:

 

[wishinuall]

What I am not getting is this. Jodi has PTSD from Killing Travis. Ok, I'm sure some can believe that, although I don't believe it. But what does her Post condition have to do with the actual murder? How does this help to prove self defense? Can any Attorneys explain this to me?

I'm no attorney, but I think this was the DT efforts to explain why poor JA has no memory of the actual murd...er, slaughter, of her victim. Several great things came of his testimony tho, IMO, such as violence toward her own mother! Not to mention her ever changing story, he grabbed her by the sweater, in the closet??? none the less! Anyway, that's my understanding of his days long 'expert' testimony'!

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes AZlawyer, they were entered into evidence.
That's why I was so surprised that Juan told Samuels to read it to himself.
Then Samuels said: "I'm at the three-hole-wonder".
That's when Juan stopped him, and told him to read it to himself.

After Samuels was done reading, Juan read some of the texts out laud and asked Samuels questions about it.

That was the reason for my original question.

Sorry if I'm confusing.....

OK, I get it now.

I said earlier that one reason for having the witness read to himself rather than out loud is if the exhibit hasn't been admitted.

Another reason is if you think your witness is a drama queen and control freak who will use the reading opportunity to try to wrest control of your cross away from you.

 

[AZlawyer]

What I am not getting is this. Jodi has PTSD from Killing Travis. Ok, I'm sure some can believe that, although I don't believe it. But what does her Post condition have to do with the actual murder? How does this help to prove self defense? Can any Attorneys explain this to me?

It doesn't help prove self-defense. It helps (in theory anyway) to prove Jodi is not lying about her "fog."

 

[AZlawyer]

i have a legal question and it may be a little involved. ALV has done interviews with JA. we know that because JM referred to the discrepancy between laptop *advertiser censored* and a *advertiser censored* photo in the hearing they had about the pedophilia. i understand that after that hearing, the judge said ALV could NOT talk about TA specifically as an abuser or a pedophile and had to stay general.

but she must have talked to JA to know that piece of info, and i would think the PA got a report. if there is NO testimony from ALV from her talks with JA, then does JM just have to disregard any report he got from her?

can he even ask ALV about what she said in that hearing about the laptop picture if it never comes up on direct? is there ANYthing, other than his question to JA where she claimed ALV was wrong about what she told her,
he can do to get that in?

i just think it's so important and i don't want it not to come in via this witness.

If ALV never testifies that she relied on ANYTHING Jodi told her, then JM probably can't bring up the laptop comment on cross. But if ALV is just going to testify in generalities and hypotheticals, then JM (IMO) will tear her up on cross with his own hypotheticals about abusive stalker girlfriends with guns and knives to equalize the balance of power.

 

[AZlawyer]

AWESOME, AWESOME post!!! :great::great:

Thanks. I'm a "gunshot first" person myself, but it took the poster's question to make me realize why the defense has no expert to say that. Because it does no good to prove that the gunshot could have been first and then have the expert admit on cross that, of course, EVEN WITH the medical miracle that Travis was still able to move around to some extent after the gunshot, there is NO WAY he was any threat whatsoever to Jodi, who could at that point have calmly collected her belongings and walked out the front door. So everything she did after that point was unnecessary to say the least.

IMO the defense couldn't find a doctor willing to go with "gunshot first" AND "post-gunshot yelling, sentences, tackling, running activity."

 

[Nezumi]

AZLawyer, do you have any sense (given where we are now in the trial) how much longer this could go on until we actually get to jury deliberations? Thanks much.