Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Even though your work might not be in criminal court, I ask our four verified lawyers, would you still like to cross examine AL?

Sounds like fun to me.

 

[AZlawyer]

Has anyone explained what Juan is trying to accomplish with this Snow White testimony?

I have never seen anything like this, and I just don't get it.

Is it that ALV could determine that anyone was abusive and/or abused; that it is subjective, not objective?

There are two points, I think. First, that ALV sees battered women everywhere. Second, that she feels free to diagnose DV situations based upon fictional accounts--like Jodi's fantasy-land stories.

 

[AZlawyer]

Was it illegal for ALV to walk from the witness stand, straight up to Samantha Alexander and confront her; or, just a dumb move?

Can the defense team be sequestered, along with their witnesses, through the remainder of the trial? (J/K)

Okay, okay..serious question:
Can the defense team be held accountable for the actions of their witnesses, during the duration of the witness's testimony? Or, can this be brought up to the jury, to help impeach the witness's credibility and/or professionalism?

I don't know what happened between ALV and Samantha A., but assuming this "confrontation" didn't involve, e.g., a threat to harm her or a physical attack, then there would be nothing illegal about her walking up to a family member and speaking to her.

I also don't know what actions of a witness you're talking about. Do you mean this same "confrontation"? The defense team would not be "held responsible" for a witness speaking to a victim's family member because, for one thing, there's nothing wrong with it. The defense team also is not generally responsible for the actions of its witnesses. Certainly the jury cannot and will not be told that ALV spoke to the victim's family member, since it is totally irrelevant and doesn't provide any information regarding her credibility (truthfulness) at all. Her professionalism, of course, is irrelevant as well.

ETA: Let me just add that I'm assuming ALV did not approach Samantha as an agent of the defense team to attempt to ask her any questions. That would not be OK based on the victim's rights statutes. But frankly if the defense team were inclined to violate those statutes I have to assume they would not do so in open court in front of TV cameras.

ETA2: If Travis's family were to ask the judge to instruct defense witnesses not to speak to them on the way out, the judge IMO would give that order. I think ALV is the last defense witness though? But they can certainly ask the judge to give that instruction to ALV for her remaining days on the stand.

 

[AZlawyer]

Could someone explain this to me? Why was ALV not allowed to read directly from the emails in front of her, but only give her interrpretation of them?
Why is some of the written evidence (texts, emails) shown to the jury and some hidden from them? Why have them as evidence in the first place, if the jury is not allowed to see them?
Sorry for being such a thicko.

If the emails she was looking at had not been admitted into evidence, then she could not read from them.

Once something is admitted into evidence, it is not hidden from the jury. I think you are confusing having something marked as an exhibit vs. having it admitted as evidence. Before you can admit something as evidence, you have to (1) get it marked as an exhibit (this is the easy part lol), and then also (2) successfully move to admit it as evidence (this is where the objections come in). The jury doesn't get to see all the exhibits--only the ones admitted as evidence.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the state use the videotaped interviews of her parents, more specifically the statement her mom made about Jodi telling her she had gas receipts that prove she didn't go to Arizona? Or would they have to call them to the stand as witnesses to use it (which they don't want to do) ? How does this work?
TIA!~

I can't imagine why they would bother. The jury already saw Jodi's interrogation tape insisting she never went to Arizona, so they know that was her story. And now Jodi has admitted on the stand that she was there.

The tapes of the parents are hearsay. (There's an exception for statements of the defendant, which is why the tapes of Jodi are not hearsay.) So to use anything from those tapes, JM would have to call the parents to the stand. Then, if they say something inconsistent with their statements on the tapes, he could use the tapes to impeach them.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Attorneys,
Are any of you willing to sate how you believe this trial will turn out?
1. Guilty?
2. First degree with premeditation? Second degree? Acquittal?
3. If guilty of murder one, death penalty?

Thanks.

 

[Goodanuff]

How does the Judge differentiate between evidence and prejudicial/incriminating evidence that's allowed into the trial?Much obliged.

 

[nells]

How does a lawyer prepare for closing arguments? Do most lawyers write everything out or do most lawyers feel it is better to talk from just a few notes?

Can either side make an objection during closing arguments?

Is there a time limit to closing arguments?

Which, in your professional opinion, is more "important": a good opening statement or a good closing argument?

Thanks!

 

[weeeva]

If the emails she was looking at had not been admitted into evidence, then she could not read from them.

Once something is admitted into evidence, it is not hidden from the jury. I think you are confusing having something marked as an exhibit vs. having it admitted as evidence. Before you can admit something as evidence, you have to (1) get it marked as an exhibit (this is the easy part lol), and then also (2) successfully move to admit it as evidence (this is where the objections come in). The jury doesn't get to see all the exhibits--only the ones admitted as evidence.

Thanks AZ.

 

[Novice Seeker]

During the trial JW has consistently challenged the judges' rulings (sustained/overruled motions) to the point that lately JW has started arguing with the judge in front of the jurors and courtroom. And, the witness's have been allowed to mock the prosecutor, question the prosecutor rather than answer his questions and overall behave disrespectfully in the courtroom.

This judge allowed ALV to continue reading from the journal for her answers although JSS had just sustained Martinez's objection which he had requested that ALV close the journals to refrain from reading directly from them and told JW and ALV to stop it.

This judge has allowed the DT to continue snickering, roll their eyes, mock the prosecutor when he is speaking and other condescending behaviors toward him in front of the jury and witness.

Although I've only been able to follow a few trials up to this point, I have never witnessed any other judge allow these sorts of behaviors in the courtroom. Watching this judge is like watching a dysfunctional parent whose child is being allowed to run the show. This sort of behavior is damaging in so many ways bc it destroys any credibility and respect for the parent.

Are there any remedies to address these issues when they continue to be allowed during a trial?

 

[khaki]

First, I want to thank all of the attorneys here for answering all of our questions. It is so appreciated. Your perspectives and expertise are so informative and helpful. I have a "what if" type of question. What if MM were to suddenly admit that he was involved in some way? For example, what if he admitted he was there and involved with the actual killing? Would that cause a mistrial? Would they have two new trials, with each of them as defendants? Or, what if he just admitted to the before and after stuff, like stealing the gun, helping dispose of evidence, etc? What would that do to the current trial, if anything?

 

[cosmos]

Before ending on Thursday, the judge asked if the jurors had any questions. If I were on a jury, I would not be shy about asking questions in front of the other jurors or the lawyers, but I would definitely be inhibited in front of courtroom spectators. Is there ever a time when jurors can ask questions of the judge when they are not being scrutinized by the public at the same time?

(This is similar to a previous question I asked, but asking for more detail this time.)

 

[AZlawyer]

Before ending on Thursday, the judge asked if the jurors had any questions. If I were on a jury, I would not be shy about asking questions in front of the other jurors or the lawyers, but I would definitely be inhibited in front of courtroom spectators. Is there ever a time when jurors can ask questions of the judge when they are not being scrutinized by the public at the same time?

(This is similar to a previous question I asked, but asking for more detail this time.)

Yes, they could send a note through the bailiff. The judge would review the note with the attorneys and answer it if appropriate.

 

[AZlawyer]

First, I want to thank all of the attorneys here for answering all of our questions. It is so appreciated. Your perspectives and expertise are so informative and helpful. I have a "what if" type of question. What if MM were to suddenly admit that he was involved in some way? For example, what if he admitted he was there and involved with the actual killing? Would that cause a mistrial? Would they have two new trials, with each of them as defendants? Or, what if he just admitted to the before and after stuff, like stealing the gun, helping dispose of evidence, etc? What would that do to the current trial, if anything?

That's a big "what if." If he admitted actual involvement, it would be tough to deal with it except through a mistrial and retrial, which might be one joint trial or two separate trials. There would be arguments about whether or not it would prejudice either of them to be tried jointly with the other.

Now, for the before and after stuff, there is some possibility this trial could still be "saved," depending on how much new investigation his information would trigger. If he can provide testimony linking Jodi to the gun theft, for example (e.g., "Jodi told me she stole the gun"), perhaps the defense would be given an opportunity to interview him about the new info and then he would go on as a rebuttal witness without much of a blip in the trial process.

 

[AZlawyer]

During the trial JW has consistently challenged the judges' rulings (sustained/overruled motions) to the point that lately JW has started arguing with the judge in front of the jurors and courtroom. And, the witness's have been allowed to mock the prosecutor, question the prosecutor rather than answer his questions and overall behave disrespectfully in the courtroom.

This judge allowed ALV to continue reading from the journal for her answers although JSS had just sustained Martinez's objection which he had requested that ALV close the journals to refrain from reading directly from them and told JW and ALV to stop it.

This judge has allowed the DT to continue snickering, roll their eyes, mock the prosecutor when he is speaking and other condescending behaviors toward him in front of the jury and witness.

Although I've only been able to follow a few trials up to this point, I have never witnessed any other judge allow these sorts of behaviors in the courtroom. Watching this judge is like watching a dysfunctional parent whose child is being allowed to run the show. This sort of behavior is damaging in so many ways bc it destroys any credibility and respect for the parent.

Are there any remedies to address these issues when they continue to be allowed during a trial?

Yes, JM should object to them if he is concerned. It is not the judge's job to object for him. It's possible he doesn't want to look like a whiny brat who needs to have his mommy fight his battles for him.

ETA: In my experience, BTW, jurors are perfectly capable of noticing and considering poor behavior in the courtroom without having it pointed out to them.

 

[AZlawyer]

How does a lawyer prepare for closing arguments? Do most lawyers write everything out or do most lawyers feel it is better to talk from just a few notes?

Can either side make an objection during closing arguments?

Is there a time limit to closing arguments?

Which, in your professional opinion, is more "important": a good opening statement or a good closing argument?

Thanks!

There is no "most lawyers" answer. Personally, I have a note card with a couple of reminder words on a nearby desk just in case, but I find that anything more than that interferes with my delivery of the argument.

Yes, objections can be made during arguments, but should be limited to major issues.

There will be time limits on closing, but they will likely be quite generous in this case.

Both opening and closing are really important. I suppose I would pick closings as most important, because at that point the jury gets to see whether or not you delivered on your extravagant promises in opening.

 

[AZlawyer]

How does the Judge differentiate between evidence and prejudicial/incriminating evidence that's allowed into the trial?Much obliged.

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. Prejudicial and incriminating are not the same. Incriminating evidence is definitely allowed--in fact, it is the whole point of the prosecution's case. "Prejudicial" evidence means that the evidence is NOT particularly incriminating at all, but might make the jury make a decision based on something that has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That kind of evidence obviously is not allowed.

Is there something in particular you were thinking of?

 

[AZlawyer]

Attorneys,
Are any of you willing to sate how you believe this trial will turn out?
1. Guilty?
2. First degree with premeditation? Second degree? Acquittal?
3. If guilty of murder one, death penalty?

Thanks.

Nope.

For one thing, we haven't seen the rebuttal case yet!

 

[jayarohh]

Re: closing arguments:
Which side normally presents last?
Thanks in advance.

 

[a/k/a me]

Twice, I have heard this judge ask counsel to meet with her out in the hallway. The latest was Thursday, when Mr. Martinez reminded JSS of a matter (which we think involved ALV approaching Sam). How can she conduct the court's business outside of the court, without it being preserved for the record by the court reporter?