Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[nells]

Side Bars:

Will we ever learn what was discussed during the many side bars in this trial? Are side bar transcripts ever released? Thanks in advance!

 

[bparsons]

what is this DEDEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO ELICITING TESTIMONY OR MAKING ARGUMENT RELATED TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH PROBABLE CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND and this MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: JUROR MISCONDUCT?

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

 

[AZlawyer]

As an attorney what are your thoughts about the methods such this female detective used? Could her interview tactics damage or hinder the judicial process?

After watching those interviews I believe that after Det. Flores had set the foundation based on all the evidence that she was the killer he directed his interview with her in a manner that was forcing Jodi to admit to what really happened during the murder.

After watching the interviews I've thought about how this case would have played out if that female detective had not provided a scenario for Jodi to utilize.

I've only watched little snippets of the interrogations, so I don't feel qualified to comment on the overall approach.

 

[AZlawyer]

Side Bars:

Will we ever learn what was discussed during the many side bars in this trial? Are side bar transcripts ever released? Thanks in advance!

Unless the minute entry for the day says that the side bar is sealed (and most of them aren't), you can call the clerk's office and pay $20 for each day that you want, and get the video & audio for that day, including side bars. You can do this anytime--no need to wait for the end of trial.

 

[minor4th]

Unless the minute entry for the day says that the side bar is sealed (and most of them aren't), you can call the clerk's office and pay $20 for each day that you want, and get the video & audio for that day, including side bars. You can do this anytime--no need to wait for the end of trial.

There's now an order sealing all of the sidebars and a ruling that they will remain sealed until after the trial is concluded.

 

[fran]

My apology if this has already been asked and answered. But,....

In one of the later videos where Jodi gets to the point of explaining the cut on her left hand, damaging her ring finger, she tells Det. Flores one of the ninjas cut her and she showed the place where it sliced. Det. Flores looked at it closely and said something about the cut. He said something to the effect that he's seen that before and it was cut deeply. or something like that.

Anyway, can the pros bring this in, in the rebuttal? This completely contradicts her claim of TA breaking her finger after the alleged pedophile confrontation.

TIA
fran

 

[AZlawyer]

what is this DEDEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO ELICITING TESTIMONY OR MAKING ARGUMENT RELATED TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH PROBABLE CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND and this MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: JUROR MISCONDUCT?

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

Without seeing the document, all I can tell is:

1) The defense team is complaining that JM is trying to get in evidence/argument of some aggravating circumstance that isn't "on the table." The only one "on the table" is cruelty. (The factor is actually "heinous, cruel or depraved," but a prior judge already ruled there was no probable cause for heinousness or depravity.) I have no idea which one the defense thinks JM is trying to bring in.

2) Apparently the defense team thinks that a juror has committed misconduct. Who knows why. Perhaps they have some evidence that the jury has been deliberating early, or that they are watching media reports, or that they are commenting on the case on Facebook...there are lots of possibilities.

 

[AZlawyer]

There's now an order sealing all of the sidebars and a ruling that they will remain sealed until after the trial is concluded.

Well, that seems completely inappropriate, but OK. :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

My apology if this has already been asked and answered. But,....

In one of the later videos where Jodi gets to the point of explaining the cut on her left hand, damaging her ring finger, she tells Det. Flores one of the ninjas cut her and she showed the place where it sliced. Det. Flores looked at it closely and said something about the cut. He said something to the effect that he's seen that before and it was cut deeply. or something like that.

Anyway, can the pros bring this in, in the rebuttal? This completely contradicts her claim of TA breaking her finger after the alleged pedophile confrontation.

TIA
fran

I thought they had already admitted that video? If not, though, then yes, they can bring it up on rebuttal.

 

[minor4th]

I thought they had already admitted that video? If not, though, then yes, they can bring it up on rebuttal.

It has already been shown to the jury during the State's case and again during Jodi's cross-examination

 

[minor4th]

Well, that seems completely inappropriate, but OK. :waitasec:

I agree - I was surprised. I remember the judge in the Westerfield case did the same thing and then refused to unseal the transcripts after the trial. He was eventually ordered by the court of appeals to unseal them.

ETA: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032013/m5695661.pdf

 

[miss.krissy]

Forgive me if I am late on this, but who is Juror #5? Is that tricolor?
http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/AriasJuror.pdf

 

[Love Never Fails]

Forgive me if I am late on this, but who is Juror #5? Is that tricolor?
http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/AriasJuror.pdf

Yes juror five is tri color. whew. If I had sat on a jury for months and they had me removed, I would be livid. Especially when we know JA has already admitted slaughtering TA.

 

[Donnareit]

Without seeing the document, all I can tell is:

1) The defense team is complaining that JM is trying to get in evidence/argument of some aggravating circumstance that isn't "on the table." The only one "on the table" is cruelty. (The factor is actually "heinous, cruel or depraved," but a prior judge already ruled there was no probable cause for heinousness or depravity.) I have no idea which one the defense thinks JM is trying to bring in.

2) Apparently the defense team thinks that a juror has committed misconduct. Who knows why. Perhaps they have some evidence that the jury has been deliberating early, or that they are watching media reports, or that they are commenting on the case on Facebook...there are lots of possibilities.

What if AZ would/could apply the State v Kleypas ruling? I am now going to take something completely out of context (Kansas passed legislation to cover stalking as an aggravating factor in DP), but it does give one reason to pause:

"It is well established in Kansas that evidence of a fact is relevant if it renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence or if it has any tendency in reason to prove any material fact. See K.S.A. 60-401(a), (b); State v. Wimbley, 271 Kan. 843, 853, 26 P.3d 657 (2001). We have held that a murder is committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner for purposes of the death penalty aggravating factor where the victim suffers "serious physical abuse or mental anguish before death." Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 1025-28. Mental anguish includes a victim's uncertainty as to his or her ultimate fate. 272 Kan. at 1026. Accordingly, evidence that a defendant stalked the victim and the victim was aware of the possibility of the violence which awaited him or her can be relevant to the determination of whether the capital murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner for purposes of the death penalty."

I mean even if AZ has no such statutory language, could this be what the DP are trying to head off since Juan could probably flip ALV?

 

[MeeBee]

So legal eagles, will this juror be dismissed regardless of what she really said or did just to appease the DT? Could the judge say she'd done nothing wrong and let her stay? Or will she find she did nothing wrong but make her leave anyway to avoid conflict?

 

[cosmos]

When a juror asks a question to a witness, the other jurors aren't supposed to know, at least in theory, the reason why it is being asked. But when the judge allows questions that are clearly sarcastic to be read in front of the jury isn't that essentially the same as allowing one juror to influence the others by making a statement? Why does that not taint the jury?

 

[AZlawyer]

What if AZ would/could apply the State v Kleypas ruling? I am now going to take something completely out of context (Kansas passed legislation to cover stalking as an aggravating factor in DP), but it does give one reason to pause:

"It is well established in Kansas that evidence of a fact is relevant if it renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence or if it has any tendency in reason to prove any material fact. See K.S.A. 60-401(a), (b); State v. Wimbley, 271 Kan. 843, 853, 26 P.3d 657 (2001). We have held that a murder is committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner for purposes of the death penalty aggravating factor where the victim suffers "serious physical abuse or mental anguish before death." Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 1025-28. Mental anguish includes a victim's uncertainty as to his or her ultimate fate. 272 Kan. at 1026. Accordingly, evidence that a defendant stalked the victim and the victim was aware of the possibility of the violence which awaited him or her can be relevant to the determination of whether the capital murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner for purposes of the death penalty."

I mean even if AZ has no such statutory language, could this be what the DP are trying to head off since Juan could probably flip ALV?

I don't think there's any AZ case law linking up stalking to cruelty. But even if JM had brought up stalking--and I don't think he did, I think the defense did--I would think it would go to motive and intent, not to any aggravating factor.

 

[AZlawyer]

So legal eagles, will this juror be dismissed regardless of what she really said or did just to appease the DT? Could the judge say she'd done nothing wrong and let her stay? Or will she find she did nothing wrong but make her leave anyway to avoid conflict?

No, she won't be dismissed unless there is a serious issue. And there won't be a mistrial unless she "infected" the other jurors with her serious issue.

 

[AZlawyer]

When a juror asks a question to a witness, the other jurors aren't supposed to know, at least in theory, the reason why it is being asked. But when the judge allows questions that are clearly sarcastic to be read in front of the jury isn't that essentially the same as allowing one juror to influence the others by making a statement? Why does that not taint the jury?

The juror questions definitely give the jurors a glimpse into the thought process of the other jurors. This is fine, though, because juror questions are allowed under AZ law. So this limited extent of "tainting" other jurors is not prohibited. Personally, if I were the judge, I wouldn't ask the sarcastic questions, but I don't think it was that tough to figure out the thought process behind most of the other questions either.

FYI in civil cases in AZ, jurors are now allowed to deliberate whenever they are all in the jury room, from the beginning of the trial. There was serious discussion about expanding this rule to criminal trials, but that proposal didn't go through.

 

[InTheGarden]

Hypothetical question:
When a mistrial is declared and a new trial starts, if the person on trial has different answers to critical questions (version 4.0) asked in the orginal trial, can the prosecutor point this out in the new prosecution? Is the first trial completely wiped out as it never happened? Will the new jurors hear anything about the first trial?