Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[wishinuall]

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.

SO glad you asked this question! It's the main reason I came to this page today, & wouldn't have been able to word it as well as you! I'm so anxious to get our wonderful attorney's words of wisdom on this! I think Az has abandoned us this afternoon for his/her PAID job?! JK of course, I so appreciate their input & dedication to us! Another question I have is; IIRC, wasn't it alluded to JA telling Matt McMartney, among other things, 'catching TA' looking at those supposed pics on the laptop? So could MM be called as a rebuttal witness, albeit, perhaps, a hostile one? JM got in those magazine/secret code (lmao at that!) in, so if it was meant for MM, he's the one that had obviously lied for her in that hearing. Again, I want to express my many thanks to our faithful legal eagles for so graciously putting in their time to help us understand the many complexities this trial has us lay people puzzling over! :tyou:

 

[cosmos]

Some outrageous behavior has certainly come in. I think one of Travis's girlfriends talked about slashed tires and something else.

Actually it was Willmott who identified Jodi as Travis' stalker during her opening statement: "You'll hear that he often referred to her as a stalker, or claimed that she was crazy." Later that same day, a witness for the state rattled off a list of things that the stalker supposedly did.

This is bewildering to me. Why would the defense name her as the stalker, thereby allowing the state to plant that list of hearsay accusations in the jurors' in minds without them actually having to make that allegation? (Martinez pointed out to the judge during a hearing that he had no intention of naming her as the stalker but he said the defense had already done so.)

 

[MeeBee]

Actually it was Willmott who identified Jodi as Travis' stalker during her opening statement: "You'll hear that he often referred to her as a stalker, or claimed that she was crazy." Later that same day, a witness for the state rattled off a list of things that the stalker supposedly did.

This is bewildering to me. Why would the defense name her as the stalker, thereby allowing the state to plant that list of hearsay accusations in the jurors' in minds without them actually having to make that allegation? (Martinez pointed out to the judge during a hearing that he had no intention of naming her as the stalker but he said the defense had already done so.)

This is kind of one reason why I feel this DT, particularly Wilmott, are out of their league. They are constantly doing stuff like this, bringing in witnesses that set them back, Wilmott asking questions she doesn't know the answer to and looking like a fool. Referring to their own defendant as a stalker. Trying to bring in a video of Travis shooting a gun and opening the door for Martinez to bring in a friend to testify that Travis didn't own a gun. I know sometimes defense attorneys try to beat Martinez to the punch so it lessens the impact of his questioning, they just aren't very good at it, like having Samuels talk about his own discretions. Sure, Juan would have gone there, but I don't imagine he would have gotten into it as far as Wilmott did. And now ALV talking about stalking behaviors that plainly apply more to Jodi than to Travis. They just opened up the door to Martinez and said come right in.

MOO.

 

[cosmos]

There is also this: During the many days of cross-examination of Arias, there was one time where Martinez used the word "murder" three times in about a minute. (Without a transcript I can't be 100% certain, but that's how I remember it.) I watched the defense lawyers closely and they did not move a muscle to object. But, most surprising of all, Jodi showed no reaction to the word "murder" and answered the questions with no hesitation. You can see why that is odd, after all the many previous times she had refused to answer any question that contained a word she did not like.

So I wonder, was that part of a prearranged strategy for them all to be silent? Why they might do it, I have no idea.

(I do realize, of course, it's a murder trial, but even still I expect some objection due to the fact that she only admitted killing but not murdering Travis.)

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

I would guess 3 1/2 weeks or so.

 

[AZlawyer]

SO glad you asked this question! It's the main reason I came to this page today, & wouldn't have been able to word it as well as you! I'm so anxious to get our wonderful attorney's words of wisdom on this! I think Az has abandoned us this afternoon for his/her PAID job?! JK of course, I so appreciate their input & dedication to us! Another question I have is; IIRC, wasn't it alluded to JA telling Matt McMartney, among other things, 'catching TA' looking at those supposed pics on the laptop? So could MM be called as a rebuttal witness, albeit, perhaps, a hostile one? JM got in those magazine/secret code (lmao at that!) in, so if it was meant for MM, he's the one that had obviously lied for her in that hearing. Again, I want to express my many thanks to our faithful legal eagles for so graciously putting in their time to help us understand the many complexities this trial has us lay people puzzling over! :tyou:

See post #804 for my answer to kscornfed's question.

MM could be called as a rebuttal witness for sure, hostile or...maybe not. Who knows. The defense will, of course, say that he's testifying to avoid being prosecuted for obstruction of justice or forgery or whatever (involving the pedo letters). JM will then point out that the only person MM said he would lie for was Jodi, so if he's testifying for the prosecution it's a pretty big deal....

I don't think MM testified at that hearing. I think Jodi's prior lawyer told the judge there was a "problem" about him and he never testified. IMO the problem was probably that the lawyer (Victoria Washington, who has an excellent reputation for ethical behavior) found out he was planning to lie.

 

[AZlawyer]

Actually it was Willmott who identified Jodi as Travis' stalker during her opening statement: "You'll hear that he often referred to her as a stalker, or claimed that she was crazy." Later that same day, a witness for the state rattled off a list of things that the stalker supposedly did.

This is bewildering to me. Why would the defense name her as the stalker, thereby allowing the state to plant that list of hearsay accusations in the jurors' in minds without them actually having to make that allegation? (Martinez pointed out to the judge during a hearing that he had no intention of naming her as the stalker but he said the defense had already done so.)

BBM

I can't answer this one.

 

[AZlawyer]

There is also this: During the many days of cross-examination of Arias, there was one time where Martinez used the word "murder" three times in about a minute. (Without a transcript I can't be 100% certain, but that's how I remember it.) I watched the defense lawyers closely and they did not move a muscle to object. But, most surprising of all, Jodi showed no reaction to the word "murder" and answered the questions with no hesitation. You can see why that is odd, after all the many previous times she had refused to answer any question that contained a word she did not like.

So I wonder, was that part of a prearranged strategy for them all to be silent? Why they might do it, I have no idea.

(I do realize, of course, it's a murder trial, but even still I expect some objection due to the fact that she only admitted killing but not murdering Travis.)

IMO they were all just in a fog.

 

[K_Z]

Do you think there is any chance the defense has sort of privately resigned themselves that self defense won't work, and they are structuring their defense hoping for 2nd degree/ heat of passion?

I guess the first question I should have asked is will the jury be allowed to consider lesser forms of murder than first degree?

 

[katiewonders]

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'!

Wish, you're posting in the legal thread where only a few verified attorneys are supposed to answer, according to the moderator. Just so you know. :seeya:

 

[Love Never Fails]

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."

You are the first person to make sense of the gun shot first theory to me. I know it sounds logical. But Jodi isn't logical. I really believe as he was showering with water in his face that she stabbed him in the chest. I believe he stumbled, gasping for air to the sink. I have never believed he struggled with her. I believe he only struggled to live while she stabbed him in the back. I believe she is that mean. I believe she enjoyed slicing his throat and that she shot him in the head at the end just for fun. It is all too gory for me sometimes but I liken her to serial killers that I have only read about. He may not have been her first victim. And i am convinced he was not supposed to be the last.

 

[Renee110]

:floorlaugh:

IMO they were all just in a fog.

Thanks for the giggle with my morning coffee! :great:

 

[noor]

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.

Yes, a drama queen and control freak.
Also it was not by accident (IMO) that he wanted to remind the jurors of those three words, of all the words, he had to say those.
I think now, after your explanation, Juan only wanted to bring up certain things from the texts, and not what the control freak wanted, that's why Juan stopped him.

Thank you!

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think there is any chance the defense has sort of privately resigned themselves that self defense won't work, and they are structuring their defense hoping for 2nd degree/ heat of passion?

I guess the first question I should have asked is will the jury be allowed to consider lesser forms of murder than first degree?

Yes, I think that's exactly what's happened.

I think the jury will get LIO instructions on both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. I gave a longer answer about this a few pages back.

 

[ynotdivein]

Hi AZ and thank you soooo much for lending us your expertise! You are :great:

Question I have been wondering about since learning that this is Judge S's first death penalty rodeo, and hearing the (IMO natural and reasonable) doubts that some WSers have regarding her abilities & knowledge of the statutes etc.:

Are there any places that allow judges to have a "mentor" judge shadow and coach them through their first DP trial or two? It must be scary for any judge to take on that responsibility for the first time, and it just seems like it might make sense to give them someone experienced to be "second chair"--maybe a retired judge. Like judicial training wheels.

TIA (and LTNS :blowkiss: )

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This may have been answered, but it is again relevant today. Why have so many of the emails or texts not been allowed as exhibits? And since they've not been allowed in, how can they even be reading from them, even to themselves? It seems contradictory. (Let all the evidence in and let the chips fall where they may, is my wish!)

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Why would ALV be permitted to comment on the content and meaning of emails between the Hughes and Travis, when the Hughes' are alive and well? The email wasn't to or from Jodi, so how can Ms Laviolette comment on the Hughes' meaning without it being hearsay?
Thanks very much!

 

[minor4th]

Why would ALV be permitted to comment on the content and meaning of emails between the Hughes and Travis, when the Hughes' are alive and well? The email wasn't to or from Jodi, so how can Ms Laviolette comment on the Hughes' meaning without it being hearsay?
Thanks very much!

I only caught a small portion of today's testimony, and I do believe Laviolette was giving hearsay testimony that should have been inadmissible. There were many sidebars, and I believe the judge was instructing Wilmott to only elicit testimony about the nature and general subject of the emails - and anything beyond that would be hearsay. I think Wilmott attempted to skirt the judge's instruction by having the witness "summarize" and "paraphrase" the emails, and IMO the way she testified was still hearsay but Wilmott was again being sneaky.

 

[Midnight Meddler]

Now that the judge let the 'paraphrasing' of the email between Sky H and Nurmi in, does that lay the foundation for Juan on cross to explain that Sky was mislead by Nurmi which in turn provoked her in writing what she did?

Thanks so much for your time!!!!

 

[minor4th]

Now that the judge let the 'paraphrasing' of the email between Sky H and Nurmi in, does that lay the foundation for Juan on cross to explain that Sky was mislead by Nurmi which in turn provoked her in writing what she did?

Thanks so much for your time!!!!

Yes I would think so. Or he could call Sky as a rebuttal witness.