Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[minor4th]

Thinking about this further, there is a hearsay exception that has to do with the information and data that an expert reviews and relies on to formulate their opinion. It's possible Wilmott is able to get in some of this testimony that would otherwise be hearsay, except for the fact that the witness is an expert who relied on the information in formulating her opinion.

I'm not sure what AZ law is on hearsay exceptions and whether the rules are the same in criminal proceedings (I am a civil trial lawyer and the rules can be quite different)

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

minor, someone posted this today. http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/e803.htm

 

[Nova]

Is it true that the verdict will not be broadcast via the courtroom camera? Thanks.

I think that rumor arose mistakenly from comments made by Vinnie Politan. He has been hyping his twitter account and promising to tweet as soon as word comes down that a verdict has been reached.

His point isn't that the announced verdict won't be televised, but that people who are at work or otherwise busy can get advance notice that the verdict is about to be announced via Politan's twitter feed.

So they can rush to their TV sets to see the actual verdict read.

 

[Nova]

Confidential to AZlawyer: if I'm ever arrested in Arizona, how can I reach you?

 

[gitana1]

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.)

My guess is as a preemptive strike but also to try to show that Travis was emotionally abusive.

ETA: Abusers often use the "you're crazy" ploy as a tactic.

 

[gitana1]

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

Oops!! I only looked at the text, not the live blog below the article. You are right!!!! Very glad to hear that they saw this.

JM did, but why would that be admitted in a killing/murder case? or used as a diagnosis of PTSD in the first place? That's my question.

If this is this case then anyone can go out and kill/murder someone and claim PTSD because they have been hedl up in jail until the trial???

Makes no sense and I don't see the legalities involved.

See below:

I was/am under the impression the main PTSD issue is related to Arias' fognesia. Juan and most of us believe she's lying about her fog. Dr. Samuels is excusing her fog as PTSD created by the "event on June 4th." Juan has to prove Samuels is biased and fudged the results in order to prove Arias a liar.

If the jury believes Samuels, then it means they believe the demon can't remember what happened after she shot Travis in the head. Which could mean her testimony was truthful ...

Precisely.

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.....

He was refreshing his recollection so he could answer JM's questions. So he was not to read anything into the record. Witnesses do not read out loud when refreshing their recollection.

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.)

I think they missed it because all three know it to be true. It's in their subconscious so they don't always register it as a word to object to! I think if any one of them truly believed this was a self-defense case they would jump all over that word each and every time it was uttered.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Phoenix abc15 is reporting the defense has spent over 1.4 million dollars defending JA. Over 15,000 billable hours. Arizona taxpayers paying for this.
"How does that make you feel?"

 

[ChinaBlue]

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.

It's been said on this board that both Chris and Sky have been listed as defense witnesses - with the intent that defense will NOT call them. If so, can JM still call them as rebuttal witnesseses?

 

[gitana1]

It's been said on this board that both Chris and Sky have been listed as defense witnesses - with the intent that defense will NOT call them. If so, can JM still call them as rebuttal witnesseses?

The state can call anyone and present any evidence that tends to rebut the defenses of jodi arias, even if such witnesses were not addressed or presented during the defense case.

 

[Renee110]

Phoenix abc15 is reporting the defense has spent over 1.4 million dollars defending JA. Over 15,000 billable hours. Arizona taxpayers paying for this.
"How does that make you feel?"

Seems like every defendant that can't afford their own council and is appointed state council will be demanding this kind of assistance. I would.

 

[Hammy]

Hello!

I have a couple of questions regarding the trial and was wondering if the attorneys here would be able to help me with those. Sorry these are kind of long :iamashamed:

First question is - what are the rules about defense attorneys and false testimony? It is my understanding that they cannot ask a question to elicit testimony that they know for 100% to be false, but yet it seems to me that in this trial this rule seems to be broken all the time. I suppose something like that would be very hard to prove? It's very hard to believe that Jodi came up with everything herself and fooled everyone around her, so Nurmi and Wilmott must have participated and even came up with some of these lies - in this case even if they don't face sanctions, do they lose the respect of the attorneys/judges watching this trial?

Second question - what are the rules about prosecution's closing arguments as far as summarizing/interpreting what occurred in court? Can JM say something along the lines of "you all saw her lie in court" or "she wasn't even able to come up with a story that is physically possible" or "she made up stories about Travis" or are there rules against that, since defense can argue that she never admitted that she lied in court. The reason I'm asking is that she was so slippery during her testimony that it was very hard to nail down the facts, so that it could be later used against her...

Thank you very much in advance and I very much appreciate what you guys are doing here. :gthanks:

 

[gitana1]

Hello!

I have a couple of questions regarding the trial and was wondering if the attorneys here would be able to help me with those. Sorry these are kind of long :iamashamed:

First question is - what are the rules about defense attorneys and false testimony? It is my understanding that they cannot ask a question to elicit testimony that they know for 100% to be false, but yet it seems to me that in this trial this rule seems to be broken all the time. I suppose something like that would be very hard to prove? It's very hard to believe that Jodi came up with everything herself and fooled everyone around her, so Nurmi and Wilmott must have participated and even came up with some of these lies - in this case even if they don't face sanctions, do they lose the respect of the attorneys/judges watching this trial?

Second question - what are the rules about prosecution's closing arguments as far as summarizing/interpreting what occurred in court? Can JM say something along the lines of "you all saw her lie in court" or "she wasn't even able to come up with a story that is physically possible" or "she made up stories about Travis" or are there rules against that, since defense can argue that she never admitted that she lied in court. The reason I'm asking is that she was so slippery during her testimony that it was very hard to nail down the facts, so that it could be later used against her...

Thank you very much in advance and I very much appreciate what you guys are doing here. :gthanks:

It is very hard to tell and I've never heard of an attorney being busted for it.
I beliEve it happens more than we would think in high profile cases. Attorneys can get a reputation for dirty pool playing.

Juan can certainly use the facts, the evidence and Jodi's inconsistencies and demeanor to come to such conclusions as you have listed, in closing.

 

[GoodGurl]

I thought I remembered the lawyers not being allowed to mention that JA is in jail, because it is prejudicial.

Then JA mentioned it (re: size of closet vs her cell) everybody got a little antsy. But LV mentioned it over and over on the stand and nobody complained. So did it change once JA mentioned it? Is it no longer considered prejudicial?

 

[womblek]

I was blindsided by the testimony about emails between the Hughes and Travis suggesting a history of Travis mistreating women. I only started following the case when the trial started. Were others aware of the information before ALV's time on the witness stand?
One thing that stands out to me is that JA said repeatedly that she kept information about violence and sexual deviances secret to protect Travis's reputation. That's a lie of course, but it's what she said. Now we hear that the Hughes "knew" about Travis's mistreatment of other women and that Skye shared those concerns with JA. How do we know that Skye Hughes told JA about that? At the very least it indicates that the issue had been raised and therefore Jodi wasn't truthful about living under the shroud of secrecy so often associated with intimate partner abuse. Are we going to be able to learn more about these email exchanges, or will we only hear how ALV interpreted them? That seems a little hinky to me.
It seems like we were able to view more documents and evidence in the CA trial than what I can access on line regarding this case. Is that just a difference between FL and NM, or am I missing something? We can access horrifying crime scene photos and sexually explicit photos, but only snippets of text messages. I haven't found any of the email evidence on line.
Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
:hero:

 

[CIFL]

I've been searching for the actual emails also-not having any luck. A few articles have snippets of them, but I would like to read them for myself, not just snippets.
I'll really appreciate hearing if someone has located these.
TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

I was blindsided by the testimony about emails between the Hughes and Travis suggesting a history of Travis mistreating women. I only started following the case when the trial started. Were others aware of the information before ALV's time on the witness stand?
One thing that stands out to me is that JA said repeatedly that she kept information about violence and sexual deviances secret to protect Travis's reputation. That's a lie of course, but it's what she said. Now we hear that the Hughes "knew" about Travis's mistreatment of other women and that Skye shared those concerns with JA. How do we know that Skye Hughes told JA about that? At the very least it indicates that the issue had been raised and therefore Jodi wasn't truthful about living under the shroud of secrecy so often associated with intimate partner abuse. Are we going to be able to learn more about these email exchanges, or will we only hear how ALV interpreted them? That seems a little hinky to me.
It seems like we were able to view more documents and evidence in the CA trial than what I can access on line regarding this case. Is that just a difference between FL and NM, or am I missing something? We can access horrifying crime scene photos and sexually explicit photos, but only snippets of text messages. I haven't found any of the email evidence on line.
Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
:hero:

Not NM...AZ.

What evidence you can find online depends on what public records the media or others decide to request and pay for (assuming there's no exception at issue). In the case of admitted trial exhibits, the media (or anyone) ought to be able to get and release copies. In the case of unadmitted exhibits, requests might be denied for now because the jury is not sequestered.

I would assume Sky Hughes can come on in rebuttal and rebut the idea that TA was an abuser, if that isn't what she meant.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I was blindsided by the testimony about emails between the Hughes and Travis suggesting a history of Travis mistreating women. I only started following the case when the trial started. Were others aware of the information before ALV's time on the witness stand?
One thing that stands out to me is that JA said repeatedly that she kept information about violence and sexual deviances secret to protect Travis's reputation. That's a lie of course, but it's what she said. Now we hear that the Hughes "knew" about Travis's mistreatment of other women and that Skye shared those concerns with JA. How do we know that Skye Hughes told JA about that? At the very least it indicates that the issue had been raised and therefore Jodi wasn't truthful about living under the shroud of secrecy so often associated with intimate partner abuse. Are we going to be able to learn more about these email exchanges, or will we only hear how ALV interpreted them? That seems a little hinky to me.
It seems like we were able to view more documents and evidence in the CA trial than what I can access on line regarding this case. Is that just a difference between FL and NM, or am I missing something? We can access horrifying crime scene photos and sexually explicit photos, but only snippets of text messages. I haven't found any of the email evidence on line.
Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
:hero:

I am NOT an attorney. But if you will wait for rebuttal you will see this is just not true and the Hughes and the emails will prove it.

 

[Hammy]

It is very hard to tell and I've never heard of an attorney being busted for it.
I beliEve it happens more than we would think in high profile cases. Attorneys can get a reputation for dirty pool playing.

Juan can certainly use the facts, the evidence and Jodi's inconsistencies and demeanor to come to such conclusions as you have listed, in closing.

Thank you very much for your response. JM doesn't seem to get too much leeway in this trial (at least IMHO) so I'm glad he will at least have the leeway in the closing arguments! :rocker:

 

[MeeBee]

So since the email didn't come into evidence, Sky Hughes can still be called to testify about it?

At least she can testify she never saw Travis hit another woman or anything?

Also, I have been reading the snippets and I never read anything about abuse. They saw Travis uses women and treats them bad but no mention of abuse. This seems to be LaVi's interpretation. I could be wrong, though. Can Juan point that out without pointing out the worst parts of the email?

 

[womblek]

Not NM...AZ.

My apologies to the great people and state of Arizona:blushing: