When and how are the jury instructions decided?
Thanks!:seeya:
There were likely one or more briefs/conferences about this before trial, resulting in a draft set of jury instructions. There will be a final conference between the lawyers and the judge just before deliberations to make sure that the jury instructions make sense in light of the evidence that was actually presented.
Thank you to all the lawyers. I have been reading here for a long time before taking the plunge and joining in. I have a lot of respect for you guys and this thread is always the first one I go to!
My question is this. If ALV has had to cancel speaking engagements because of public outcry, and she were to get on the stand and do a 180, would that be grounds for the DT to argue for a mistrial since public outcry therefore influenced her testimony? Especially if ALV said that it did have an impact on her thoughts?
She will not do a 180 on the stand (unless you count being "flipped" by JM in cross!). First of all, that would be career suicide for a professional expert witness. IMO her speaking gigs are just a side job and not as important to her as the expert witness gigs. Second, if she were to decide not to continue, she would tell the DT and yes, there would be a mistrial IMO. As I said, not gonna happen. She will see this through.
Can you please clarify what exactly Jodi is charged with? I've heard there is a difference between 1st degree felony murder and 1st degree premeditated murder.
I've been assuming this is one/same charge but the jury can find her guilty either way. Is this allowed up front? Does this come with the instructions?
Thanks very much!!
It is one charge. The jury can find her guilty using either "path," and will be told this in the instructions.
In the last two days of trial there were several episodes, seemed like 10+ minutes each, with Willmott before Judge Stephens getting "schooled" imo on rules re questioning a witness. Willmott returned to the podium obviously frustrated, flipping her notes back and forth as if hoping to find Plan B since Plan A wasn't allowed. She stammered as she made several false starts trying to formulate questions that would pass muster. I wondered what lesson the watching jurors may have taken from her "behavior," because it certainly spoke to me.
This happens very, very often in court. Lawyers come up with a plan for questioning, fail to see the flaw, and have no plan B. I'm sure the jurors notice these things, but I hope they would not take them into consideration when trying to decide, e.g., whether or not Jodi premeditated her killing of Travis.
Thank you kindly to all the lawyers who take the time to answer questions. You guys/gals are the greatest.
My question is about rebuttal. I have read that JM is not allowed to just bolster or retell his case in chief. Since they must disclose evidence, I assume that the DT would have already tried to cover ,in advance, all points they think JM will raise in rebuttal. I also assume JM is not allowed to suddenly present new evidence, so the rebuttal is just to clarify some points? Is his rebuttal restricted to answering just what the defense presented?
Rebuttal is restricted to responding to evidence presented by the defense. That doesn't mean it can't include "new evidence," though. For example, if Jodi told some lie on the stand, JM can present evidence to show that it was a lie. He couldn't present that evidence in his case in chief, because she hadn't lied yet.
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered!
As the DT has put forth that JA has PTSD and during the murder had some sort of fognesia, does that open the door for the prosecution to delve into her overal mental health before her arrest? TIA
No, unless her "overall mental health" can somehow be made relevant to the case. And, frankly, I can't imagine why the prosecution would want to do this. Juries tend not to convict people of 1st-degree murder if they think they have some kind of mental disorder.
What is the significance of the ME's testimony that the shot was last? The Defense did not bring in a ME of their own to dispute the state's ME claim on the shot so how can they counter that testimony. They have only the testimony of the accused. Is there anything they can do to mitigate the seemingly slam dunk that their client is lying based on the forensic evidence?
The significance of the testimony that the gunshot was last is, IMO, primarily that this testimony conflicts with Jodi's testimony. As you said, this conflict makes her whole story suspect.
The testimony of the accused is evidence, so they have already countered the ME's testimony in that regard. One is eyewitness testimony (but of a liar), the other is second-hand testimony impaired by decomposition of the evidence (but of a non-liar). The jury will have to balance those things.
IMO, other than making Jodi look like even more of a liar, the "gunshot last" vs. "gunshot first" debate is not too important. If the gunshot had been first
and had completely incapacitated Travis, then there would be no way to argue for the death penalty. But the blood evidence and defensive wounds on Travis's hands show that, even if he was shot first, he was still moving around and fighting for his life after that.
I used to wonder why the defense team hadn't found someone to argue "gunshot first." I recently had the opportunity to speak with a neurosurgeon who respectfully disagreed with the ME's opinion in that regard, for example. Why couldn't the defense team have found someone like that? :waitasec: Then I realized that the problem would have been when that person was cross-examined by JM: "OK, so let's assume you're right and Travis could have maintained or regained consciousness for a short time after the gunshot. Would he have been able to curse at Jodi in complete sentences? Would he have been able to lunge at her like a linebacker? Would he have been any kind of threat to her at all? Or are you just talking about the kind of consciousness where he might be able to moan and crawl around on his hands and knees for a few seconds?" IMO any expert competent to present the "gunshot first" theory would also have to admit that there would have been no linebacker-lunges or kill-you-b****-curses going on after that.
