Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[katiecoolady]

Since JA testified in the defense case, can Juan recall her in the rebuttal? Tia!

 

[AZlawyer]

Since JA testified in the defense case, can Juan recall her in the rebuttal? Tia!

Sure.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

It hasn't come into evidence YET. If Sky testifies, it could come in then.

Sky Hughes could come in IMO and testify that the email on which ALV relied was misleading for reasons X, Y, Z. Perhaps that she was not talking about abuse but something more like "leading a woman on when you have no plans to marry her"? Or "not treating a woman like a princess"?

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

JM wasn't allowed to mention it because it was irrelevant. JA decided to let the cat out of the bag, and perhaps the defense wisely thought that any further cutesy references to "the place where you live now" would just make them look silly.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

I don't do criminal law work at the trial court level, so that might be a waste of your one phone call.

 

[AZlawyer]

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)

Experts can rely on hearsay, but that doesn't mean it gets admitted. They can just generally describe what they relied on. Then the opposing counsel gets up and tells them how foolish it is to rely on hearsay.

 

[AZlawyer]

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: )

What a great idea! Unfortunately there is no possible way that this could be done right now in the Maricopa County criminal court system--too much work and too few judges to spare 2 in a single courtroom at one time.

I don't think I've read anything about Judge SS being unknowledgeable about legal issues, though.

 

[cosmos]

Sometimes a witness will answer a question and then the judge sustains an objection to the question. Should jurors disregard the answer? One time Martinez objected to something but then asked the judge to let the answer stand. Another time he objected and asked the judge to have the answer stricken. Usually the lawyer who asked the question gets to rephrase if an objection is sustained, so that clarifies it for the jury, but sometimes they leave it hanging.

Related question: I know that some witnesses are coached to wait for two seconds before answering in case of objection, but does that run the risk of making them look hesitant or evasive or look as if they are having memory problems?

 

[MeeBee]

Do you expect there to be any character witnesses for Travis in rebuttal?

 

[ChinaBlue]

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.

I'm thinking that one thing that might come out of this televised trial is the idea that one must be very, very careful about what one writes in an email, text, twitter or post on a social media board. It can always come back to haunt you (obviously) and people can interpolate what you thought you were saying into something that was not really meant (although written and sent).

Another thought I have had is the fact that men across the world must be looking at women, and potential bed mates, in a totally understandable state of paranoia. Of course, that goes both ways.

 

[ChinaBlue]

Since JA testified in the defense case, can Juan recall her in the rebuttal? Tia!

That is a totally mind-blowing thought. I hope it comes fruition. We will see one meltdown way before the other due when the ultimate verdict is delivered.

 

[gitana1]

Sometimes a witness will answer a question and then the judge sustains an objection to the question. Should jurors disregard the answer? One time Martinez objected to something but then asked the judge to let the answer stand. Another time he objected and asked the judge to have the answer stricken. Usually the lawyer who asked the question gets to rephrase if an objection is sustained, so that clarifies it for the jury, but sometimes they leave it hanging.

Related question: I know that some witnesses are coached to wait for two seconds before answering in case of objection, but does that run the risk of making them look hesitant or evasive or look as if they are having memory problems?

They are supposed to ask that the answer be stricken each time the objection is sustained. My guess is they don't because they know they can't unring the bell so what's the point? But I'm not sure. It could be laziness.

Do you expect there to be any character witnesses for Travis in rebuttal?

I certainly do. The law allows the prosecution to present witnesses to rebut the allegation that Travis was abusive.

 

[MeeBee]

I certainly do. The law allows the prosecution to present witnesses to rebut the allegation that Travis was abusive.

Thank you for answering!

Another question: this email, Martinez would have known that she was going to talk about this already and prepared for it, I assume? This isn't new to him?

Sly way to get around the whole no talking about Travis thing.

 

[pinkie60]

after conviction, i'm sure she will be convicted, can she petition to serve her sentence in california to be closer to her family?

 

[minor4th]

Sometimes a witness will answer a question and then the judge sustains an objection to the question. Should jurors disregard the answer? One time Martinez objected to something but then asked the judge to let the answer stand. Another time he objected and asked the judge to have the answer stricken. Usually the lawyer who asked the question gets to rephrase if an objection is sustained, so that clarifies it for the jury, but sometimes they leave it hanging.

Related question: I know that some witnesses are coached to wait for two seconds before answering in case of objection, but does that run the risk of making them look hesitant or evasive or look as if they are having memory problems?

If an objection is sustained but the witness has already given an answer or partial answer, whoever made the objection can ask that the answer be disregarded -- at times the judge has given this instruction when requested. If that request is not made, it's probably because it's not something too important.

I instruct witnesses to quit talking if either lawyer stands to make an objection and wait for a ruling. There's no reason to wait 2 seconds before answering, but it's important to zip it when one of the attorneys stands to make an objection and then wait for a ruling before answering.

 

[minor4th]

Thank you for answering!

Another question: this email, Martinez would have known that she was going to talk about this already and prepared for it, I assume? This isn't new to him?

Sly way to get around the whole no talking about Travis thing.

Certainly Juan is aware of the email because it was already marked and was discussed in a hearing away from the jury. However, Juan made numerous objections when the witness was basically giving hearsay evidence about the email that was not admitted for trial purposes (for the jury to see). I think Wilmott was eliciting or trying to elicit testimony that was beyond what the court had allowed.

I noticed the witness said that the whole email chain was not included, so I expect Juan to rebut her testimony through cross examination by talking about the context and perhaps related emails that the witness has not yet seen.

 

[minor4th]

after conviction, i'm sure she will be convicted, can she petition to serve her sentence in california to be closer to her family?

I don't believe so. She committed the crime in Arizona, and Arizona will be responsible for her. I cannot imagine California accepting responsibility, and I don't even know if California has the death penalty (if that is what her sentence is).

 

[MeeBee]

Certainly Juan is aware of the email because it was already marked and was discussed in a hearing away from the jury. However, Juan made numerous objections when the witness was basically giving hearsay evidence about the email that was not admitted for trial purposes (for the jury to see). I think Wilmott was eliciting or trying to elicit testimony that was beyond what the court had allowed.

I noticed the witness said that the whole email chain was not included, so I expect Juan to rebut her testimony through cross examination by talking about the context and perhaps related emails that the witness has not yet seen.

Do you feel the judge should have stepped in? It also seems like she was interpreting the context as Travis had been abusive to other women, but exceprts I have read make no such mention of that word, just that Jodi would become his next victim (he was a known player). So, I expect Juan to point this out, that the word abusive was never used and that she's just projecting?

 

[atthelake]

I would guess 3 1/2 weeks or so.

If the verdict watch tweets say 30 minutes to verdict whle I am sktting at the Acura stage at the New Orleans jazz festival after partying all day and not having access to my mIRC WS chatroom or threads,, I am gonna ....well, lightening cannot nit twice as I was at an island at a waterpark when I was nified of verdict watch alert with the FCA trial! Lol, and we had set up a pnone call chain for our Aussie friend and I could not call her on the lake to wake SammieJam up! Luckily, during the trial I had shared phone numbers with another that called Australia to wake her up as texts or tweets don't wake up our worldwide friends! Thank goodness Skype was so well used in those days and we could call landlines for free back then!

On nook, so lots of mispells, sorry

Uh oh, just recalled this is the legal q&a thread...so...lemme ask legal ?, If guily, no, when guilty, what are next timings? Think I have the nist of what happens next, but what is timing for each stage and who do you think may be character witnesses for her. MM lol! Gus, lol, . And for victim impact, can it ONLY be family?

 

[Softail]

I haven't seen any comment about the whole misconduct hearing on Thursday. Here is my take on it:

I think the point is that nobody wants there to be even a hint of impropriety. The defense will jump on anything that even hints of misconduct. There has already been several accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. Why give them ammunition?

The bottom line is that this trial is about the brutal murder of Travis Alexander. The side shows, groupies, fans, .... whatever you want to call them, need to back off and let him finish his job. Looky loos wanting their fifteen minutes of fame via a picture or whatever need to wait until it is over! Then have at it for all I care. I just don't want to see it jeopardize the case in any way.

If I were Travis' family I would be pissed that this is going on. I mean, imagine how they feel? People who have no business injecting themselves into this case causing problems. It is their brother! This trial has been going on for a long time. Day in and day out they have to sit there and listen to the BS going on inside the courtroom. They shouldn't have to be subjected to the BS going on outside of the courtroom. People need to have some respect for this family, and just knock it off!

I do not blame JM at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these ignorant people chasing him around should be ashamed of themselves. He is doing the right thing by avoiding the circus at all costs.


My question to the legal experts,,,,, What is your opinion?