Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[katiecoolady]

What would happen if laviolette just refused to continue testimony from this point on?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Ok AZ--I am going to the expert because I am tired of people complaining about the judge and the judge still being "the JUDGE".

Should or Could this Judge be replaced--I am no expert, but agree with the majority that this judge just seems to be "held Hostage" by the thought of a mistrial. 30 days seems like it is getting a little out of hand.

What does it take to get a Judge removed mid trial?

P.S. Humor me--I know you must have answered this a million times nowlease:

As always thank you for your answers and patience

 

[4Jacy]

I've thought of doing this before, but it always seems like they sneak them in when you're not looking. But this could, in theory, be done. The defense team would then have to take into account the ones that are not asked, of course (due to irrelevance, etc.). They could use handwriting similarities in the notes as a double-check that their list is correct.

Why does it have to be done this way? Once the judge receives these questions, why doesn't she just shuffle them. End of problem.

 

[gitana1]

I was surprised that the Judge mentioned that the witness is sick. Couldn't this be prejudicial to the defense since this is their witness? When JA was sick the Judge didn't tell the jurors that she was sick.

Being sick is not a thing that would make the jury think badly of the defense so it would not be prejudicial.

What would happen if laviolette just refused to continue testimony from this point on?

I believe that would cause a mistrial. Can I ask why you thought about that possibility? I missed today.

Ok AZ--I am going to the expert because I am tired of people complaining about the judge and the judge still being "the JUDGE".

Should or Could this Judge be replaced--I am no expert, but agree with the majority that this judge just seems to be "held Hostage" by the thought of a mistrial. 30 days seems like it is getting a little out of hand.

What does it take to get a Judge removed mid trial?

P.S. Humor me--I know you must have answered this a million times nowlease:

As always thank you for your answers and patience

No, the judge cannot be replaced mid-trial. If there was a big problem with the judge there would be a mistrial.

BTW, although I don't always agree with the judge's decision, (as if I know more than a judge!!!), I really don't see anything that horrible about this judge. I don't agree with the sealings and in-chambers motions. I think that poses some first amendment issues.

But other than that, I don't find her to be doing anything too objectionable.
I mean, a judge really has to kind of be shown to have a connection with a juror or a witness or a party or attorney, some kind of connection to the case, or be drunk, or call someone the N word or something to be taken off a trial like this.

Our irritation with delays or bad rulings to objections (or no rulings to no objections, since I have seen repeated posts asking why she is "allowing" a certain line of questioning, regardless as to whether the state is objecting or not), does not translate to anything remotely close to justifying removal of the judge.

 

[gitana1]

Why does it have to be done this way? Once the judge receives these questions, why doesn't she just shuffle them. End of problem.

I'm not sure what problem there was, but generally they want to take the questions in order because the questions and answers will follow a logical, chronological pattern that mirrors what was originally asked during testimony. It makes it easier to follow than jumping around out of sequence.

 

[Donnareit]

Being sick is not a thing that would make the jury think badly of the defense so it would not be prejudicial.



I believe that would cause a mistrial. Can I ask why you thought about that possibility? I missed today.



No, the judge cannot be replaced mid-trial. If there was a big problem with the judge there would be a mistrial.

BTW, although I don't always agree with the judge's decision, (as if I know more than a judge!!!), I really don't see anything that horrible about this judge. I don't agree with the sealings and in-chambers motions. I think that poses some first amendment issues.

But other than that, I don't find her to be doing anything too objectionable.
I mean, a judge really has to kind of be shown to have a connection with a juror or a witness or a party or attorney, some kind of connection to the case, or be drunk, or call someone the N word or something to be taken off a trial like this.

Our irritation with delays or bad rulings to objections (or no rulings to no objections, since I have seen repeated posts asking why she is "allowing" a certain line of questioning, regardless as to whether the state is objecting or not), does not translate to anything remotely close to justifying removal of the judge.

I find it kind of concerning that someone is going on one of these TV shows to complain about the judge. Should I be worried?

 

[cosmos]

We have answered this one a few times. Experts can rely on hearsay, and can generally describe what they relied on.

In this case Jodi has testified and been cross-examined. Is that a factor in allowing the experts to repeat what she had told them or would they have been given that same latitude regardless of her testifying? Specifically, if Jodi had not testified, would Samuels have been permitted to describe her version of events on the day she killed him?

 

[gitana1]

I find it kind of concerning that someone is going on one of these TV shows to complain about the judge. Should I be worried?

No, you shouldn't be worried. But what do you mean? Who is complaining and what are they saying?

(just copying my notes as usual)

How does this expert get to testify how JA FELT? As if it's fact vs her report to her or her interpretation?

Trump face red, chin in hand, rocking fast in seat.

CPA swiveling, chin in hand.

Can't see Poquito Mas or Barb

She knows too much about importan details that pertain to this trial to not have been coached on what's impt or to be following it. I vote the latter.

Artist mouth in hand, swiveling. CEO looking down or forward, not at ALV when she speaks.

CEO looks down spinning pen on notebook while she speaks.

All this Travis bashing is not landing well on the male jurors.

Poquito Mas swiveling.

CEO looks, to me, bored and disgusted with this Travis bashing.

Frankly it's creepy she's memorized all of Travis' prior women/dates. It's like she's here less to support jodi and more to trash Travis. She comes across as a man-hater.

This man was SLAUGHTERED you *****!

Again how can she testify how JA felt-why she did things?

Male jurors snap heads at juan martinez direction when he states an objection

CEO keeps adjusting in his seat, he seems frustrated to me.

JW using this witness to regurgitate prior testimony

As they leave on 5 min break, Jodi stares at jurors walking out (all facing forward) like they are watching her, THEY ARE NOT.

BBM.

I saw these questions in the insider thread and thought they applied here. This has really bothered me too. But the the only objections I can think of that would apply probably wouldn't work.

For example, "objection, assumes facts not in evidence", would not work because jodi has already testified to the things Laviolette is testifying to as if she herself was present. So even though most of us know jodi was lying, the nonsense Laviolette is regurgitating is a "fact" in evidence, I believe.

Also, "hearsay", well, jodi already testified to how she felt so I don't think that objection would work either, or speculation.

But although it is infuriating, I;m not too worried because JM is going to show that this woman absolutely destroyed her credibility as an expert by regurgitating statements from a proven liar, as if they were the precise truth. I saw an expert talk about this on Dr. Drew and I agree. She's testifying as if she was there, never prefacing anything with, "according to jodi", or 'assuming everything she told me is 100% true", or even, "her statements show she was feeling..."

Martinez will fix this on cross.

 

[gitana1]

I don't think it looked bad when JM tried to get JA or RS to answer yes or no.

Well, I will say that I do do this myself. For two reasons. One, to control a rambling and evasive witness or opposing party. Two, to allow the judge (I don't do jury trials), to see the picture that I am painting which shows what I want to convey to the judge. In such a scenario it almost doesn't matter to me what the person answers.

However, I am sure to explain/repeat that they will get a chance to explain further on redirect.

 

[AZlawyer]

In this case Jodi has testified and been cross-examined. Is that a factor in allowing the experts to repeat what she had told them or would they have been given that same latitude regardless of her testifying? Specifically, if Jodi had not testified, would Samuels have been permitted to describe her version of events on the day she killed him?

Yes, it makes a difference that Jodi has testified. The experts would not be allowed to get into that level of detail IMO if she had not testified.

 

[mikeysmommom]

Arizona's Victims' Bill of Rights:

Section 2.1. (A) To preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process, a victim of crime has a right:

1. To be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

11. To have all rules governing criminal procedure and the admissibility of evidence in all criminal proceedings protect victims' rights and to have these rules be subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature to ensure the protection of these rights.

12.(C) "Victim" means a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed or, if the person is killed or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative, except if the person is in custody for an offense or is the accused.

This judge should be removed from the bench after this trial for not enforcing the Arizona Victims Bill of Rights. Is there any thing that can be done to have them enforce this now or is it to late or because the victim is dead does that mean his rights are gone?Travis 's rights as a victim are being violated daily! It makes me sick what they are doing.

 

[Nezumi]

So...I know that in civil litigation the process beings with a Complaint - detailing the nature of the dispute and the authority for the bringing it to a particular court of law - and then there is an Answer that responds to the Complaint in a variety of possible ways. In criminal law, the equivalent of the Complaint is the Indictment, yes? And the equivalent of the Answer is the defendant's Plea at arraignment, yes? In this case, JA formal plea was 'self defense.' Yes? And the testimony she's presenting is attempting to present with respect to domestic violence and 'battered women's syndrome is an effort to circumvent the reasonable responsive force requirement for self defense. Is that right?

Okay, this is my question: I'm seeing a lot of testimony and evidence from the defense crew that seems to be more consistent with a 'heat of passion' defense. Since that's not what JA pleaded to, can the DT in it's closing also argue 'heat of passion' in tandem with their 'self defense' theory? If so, will they also be allowed to ask for a lesser included offense instruction to the jury on that basis? I mean, will they be able to ask for a jury instruction to the effect that "well, I did it in self defense but if you think that I'm full of crap and used way more force that I faced, then I claim that I did it in the heat of passion so find me guilty of that." Okay. That was way wordy. Shorter version: can she start adding 'pleas' to (and get jury instructions for) lesser or different charges at this late date when it's clear that her original claim is going over like a lead balloon? TIA!

 

[Miss Chevious]

Did I read earlier (I'm only on page 23 of this thread) that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous on 1st degree premeditated or felony murder? If 10 are for first degree, and the other two can agree on the felony murder count, the verdict would be guilty of first degree, period?

And tons of gratitude to the lawyers helping give a concrete grasp of what we're seeing. I'm very tired of all the speculation and armchair quarterbacking.

 

[Miss Chevious]

I have another question. I'm not sure it is appropriate here, but I couldn't find a better place, so sorry....

In your professional experiences, does the fact that JA uses only one specific descriptor for certain events or feelings, instead of being able to describe the event/feeling in another way, indicate she has only memorized a "script" instead of actually experiencing it?

ie: linebacker, body slammed, fog, etc.

 

[gitana1]

Arizona's Victims' Bill of Rights:

Section 2.1. (A) To preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process, a victim of crime has a right:

1. To be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

11. To have all rules governing criminal procedure and the admissibility of evidence in all criminal proceedings protect victims' rights and to have these rules be subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature to ensure the protection of these rights.

12.(C) "Victim" means a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed or, if the person is killed or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative, except if the person is in custody for an offense or is the accused.

This judge should be removed from the bench after this trial for not enforcing the Arizona Victims Bill of Rights. Is there any thing that can be done to have them enforce this now or is it to late or because the victim is dead does that mean his rights are gone?Travis 's rights as a victim are being violated daily! It makes me sick what they are doing.

Sadly, the defense is allowed to accuse Travis of all sorts of things in order to defend against murder. That is not a violation of the victims bill of rights.
I can't see anything else, procedurely or otherwise that is a violation either. Travis' family was allowed in chambers over the juror issue, a highly unusual move, precisely to adhere to the bill of rights, I believe.

But the defense takes the risk, when attempting to destroy Travis' memory, of making the jurors at least as disgusted and appalled as you are. I don't think they will get away with this.

Did I read earlier (I'm only on page 23 of this thread) that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous on 1st degree premeditated or felony murder? If 10 are for first degree, and the other two can agree on the felony murder count, the verdict would be guilty of first degree, period?

And tons of gratitude to the lawyers helping give a concrete grasp of what we're seeing. I'm very tired of all the speculation and armchair quarterbacking.

Apparently yes. Btw, felony murder is first degree murder. But if some find her culpable of premeditated murder and the rest of felony murder, she will be found guilty of first degree, unanimously.

 

[beach]

Mod Note:

This is a NO DISCUSSION thread. ONLY verified lawyers need to be commenting and answering questions.

Ask a legal question and wait for a verified attorney to respond.

The verified attorneys donate their expertise and time selflessly here. We are very fortunate to have them help us and are grateful they volunteer. They shouldn't have to wade through discussion posts to locate the legal questions.

Thanks

 

[katiewonders]

Can a judge call counsel up to the bench and order that the (in this case) defense attorney to 'wrap it up'?

 

[meanddblj]

can anything be done about Donovan Bering (felon) being able to attend this trial? her and JA communicate w/their sneaky little looks....I believe she is JAs eyes and ears on the outside and I think they are drumming up trouble in hopes of a mistrial.....her behavior in the courtroom is astonishing and she is very intimidating towards jury and TAs family.

 

[cosmos]

Do jurors generally know that it is perfectly fair to test a witness's demeanor during cross-examination? I ask because today we saw an expert witness, who should know better, challenge the demeanor of the prosecutor by inquiring as to whether he was angry, which suggests to me that this witness might be counting on the jurors not to know basic rules of evidence in the hope that she can distract them from the actual evidence, which includes her demeanor, and not his. Will there be an instruction to the jury at some point to tell them that the demeanor of the prosecutor is not an issue for them to consider?

 

[Iz?s#1Mom]

"You read journals aside from the one's presented here in court?" JM
"Yes I did." ALV
"As a result of reading those journals you've said here......." JM

Does this now open the door for all the new journals that are being released to be admitted? ie would like to duck tape the light switch....shut off the life force.....dreams etc...

Is it normal for the mitigation specialist to break out in laughter in court? Will she get fined or reprimanded somehow? I would think this would not be professional, especially after the note slipping incident. Is there any teeth that she should not have slipped the note to JA's mom or is she a go between for ja and her mother?

What are the ramifications of Juror #5 being in the court room? Mistrial? Is this a good idea?


Thanks in advance for the opinions!