Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Thanks, Az!

So then each time Wilmont jumps up and objects, the reason they approach is she is arguing that the line of questioning by the state may bring in prejudicial evidence that might cause a mistrial if the jury were to hear it?

>>>>>>and is the reason there are so many is because the DT is just aching to get that mistrial--therefore Judge has to put up with the "Jack-in-a-Box" responses by Wilmont?

There must be an abundance of info that has to be kept out--I have never see anything like this--You?

Personally, I doubt it. I think the defense is overusing the sidebars at this point. That's just a guess, of course, since we don't know what's being said at the sidebars, but there do seem to be an awful lot of them, and not just when super-sensitive issues arise.

IMO the attorneys should be required to state the evidentiary objection first--i.e., "relevance" or "foundation." Then if the judge thinks the objection makes no sense, she should deny it without any "approach." Then only if the attorney has the cojones to push it should the attorney request a sidebar. IMO this trial would speed up quite a bit if the judge told counsel that there would be no more sidebars unless and until she hears an evidentiary rule cited and feels unable to rule without more info.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it unusual for the lead Detective to attend every/all day for a murder trial? T.I.A.

Apparently not, since none of my criminal lawyer friends are surprised by this. Personally, I think his testimony would have seemed far more independent (and therefore credible) if he wasn't sitting there at the prosecution table.

In this particular case, of course, the defense witnesses are so lacking in independence that it hardly matters.

 

[dbranam]

A very significant development today was the motion to deny the admittance of the closet evidence. If this testimony and pictures gets in then it is over for Ms. Arias. She can't claim self defense if she doesn't get a gun from the closet and she can't get the gun if the shelf can't bear her weight. So what are the chances it come in?

 

[AZlawyer]

A very significant development today was the motion to deny the admittance of the closet evidence. If this testimony and pictures gets in then it is over for Ms. Arias. She can't claim self defense if she doesn't get a gun from the closet and she can't get the gun if the shelf can't bear her weight. So what are the chances it come in?

The state will need to provide some proof that the closet shelves are still in the same condition as on 6/4/08. If they can do it, the evidence should come in.

 

[osabung]

In today's trial video, what's with Arias nod at 38:15??? Possibly a buddy juror??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkuytrIXE4

 

[AZlawyer]

In today's trial video, what's with Arias nod at 38:15??? Possibly a buddy juror??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkuytrIXE4

That's about the last thing I would guess. But that wasn't really a legal question anyway, so I have no more expertise than anyone else on this subject.

 

[BunnyHop]

@AZlawyer

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - PTSD sufferers - please post here

What say you?

I need legal help. :seeya:

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Personally, I doubt it. I think the defense is overusing the sidebars at this point. That's just a guess, of course, since we don't know what's being said at the sidebars, but there do seem to be an awful lot of them, and not just when super-sensitive issues arise.

IMO the attorneys should be required to state the evidentiary objection first--i.e., "relevance" or "foundation." Then if the judge thinks the objection makes no sense, she should deny it without any "approach." Then only if the attorney has the cojones to push it should the attorney request a sidebar. IMO this trial would speed up quite a bit if the judge told counsel that there would be no more sidebars unless and until she hears an evidentiary rule cited and feels unable to rule without more info.

Thank you so much AZLawyer,

I know some of these questions become redundant, but I really appreciate your patience and legal knowledge. Your answer has given me a whole new outlook on the proceedings--in a good way:what:

At least I know the abundance of sidebars are not the norm and quite frivolous on the defenses part. Wish The Judge was a reader here--could you just give her a call??? LOL

I lived in Scottsdale until 3 years ago .It seems so weird to see all of this action in a place I am so familiar with. In 2008 I believed JA was guilty and have never wavered on premeditation.


Thanks again

 

[minor4th]

There are a few possibilities. Knowing the context of when this happened would help. But a couple are: defense counsel having an ethical dilemma that can't be disclosed to the state without revealing client confidences, and the judge wanting to talk to defense counsel privately about an issue of behavior of defense counsel, client or witnesses. (In either situation, the judge would probably have informed JM that she planned to do that, asked if that was OK with him, and had a court reporter present to record the private meeting.)

I have wondered about this a lot. There have been many ex parte proceedings with the defense attorneys and they are all sealed. I have wondered if all or most of these are the defense attorneys fulfilling their professional responsibility to report to the judge false testimony or evidence that was elicited from their witnesses or client - perhaps without any prior knowledge by the defense attorneys that the witnesses or client would give the false testimony

I really cannot think of other reasons that these kinds of ex parte proceedings would happen so regularly and without objections from Juan. their witness (or client)

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Lawyers, what do you think of the latest motion for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct (JM's yelling LOL) filed yesterday?

 

[Imprint]

Quite a few trial days ago, Martinez objected to Wilmont's "speaking objections", and I assumed it was because she was coaching her witness via the objections. The judge granted Martinez's request, and I assumed that was why there were so many sidebars, since Wilmont repeatedly was unable to state the reason for the objection in open court. Is that a fair assumption?

Does Martinez's objection to speaking objections have to be reapplied every court day during the cross examination of ALV, or is it continually in effect?

 

[My3Sons]

There are a few possibilities. Knowing the context of when this happened would help. But a couple are: defense counsel having an ethical dilemma that can't be disclosed to the state without revealing client confidences, and the judge wanting to talk to defense counsel privately about an issue of behavior of defense counsel, client or witnesses. (In either situation, the judge would probably have informed JM that she planned to do that, asked if that was OK with him, and had a court reporter present to record the private meeting.)

It happened twice yesterday--once during the over hour long delay before court started (it was reported that DT and JA were in chambers while Juan and Flores were in the gallery), and again later in the day...I think after the afternoon recess? It was also reported that LaViolette went into chambers for a period of time on both occasions, as well as the mitigation specialist...which leads to my question--under what circumstances would the witness be included in chambers meetings? TIA.

 

[Isabelle]

So far we have seen 2 expert witnesses for the Defense. The consensus seems to be that neither was very effective or credible. Could this be seen as a part of ineffective counsel for an appeal? Thanks.

 

[Donnareit]

There are a few possibilities. Knowing the context of when this happened would help. But a couple are: defense counsel having an ethical dilemma that can't be disclosed to the state without revealing client confidences, and the judge wanting to talk to defense counsel privately about an issue of behavior of defense counsel, client or witnesses. (In either situation, the judge would probably have informed JM that she planned to do that, asked if that was OK with him, and had a court reporter present to record the private meeting.)

How do you think a plea bargain at this stage would be handled? (Thanks again for all your time used answering these questions. Much appreciated.)

 

[Donnareit]

I have wondered about this a lot. There have been many ex parte proceedings with the defense attorneys and they are all sealed. I have wondered if all or most of these are the defense attorneys fulfilling their professional responsibility to report to the judge false testimony or evidence that was elicited from their witnesses or client - perhaps without any prior knowledge by the defense attorneys that the witnesses or client would give the false testimony

I really cannot think of other reasons that these kinds of ex parte proceedings would happen so regularly and without objections from Juan. their witness (or client)

Wow. There's a thought.

 

[bparsons]

Please explain this ex parte

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Despite several admonitions by Judge Stephens yesterday, defense witness Alyce LaViolette continued to evade answering Mr. Martinez' questions as instructed. What, if anything, can be done to insist that the witness answer questions with an appropriate response?

 

[Miss Chevious]

Legal Eagles, is it typical for the defense to request this number of sidebars in a criminal case? This really seems excessive. I also notice that prosecution doesn't request many at all.

 

[Kel2000]

I know it's been a while and my mind is a bit foggy, but I think I remember a time when Jodi was on the stand answering juror questions where the issue of her lying came up and she said something to the effect that she would never say she never told a lie before the murder, but that she mainly has lied related to "edifying" Travis and for the murder, implying that she normally tells the truth. In that regard, why is it that the dad's interview with Flores wasn't introduced to impeach her credibility at that time during the re-cross of Jodi vs. now with ALV?

 

[AZlawyer]

@AZlawyer

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - PTSD sufferers - please post here

What say you?

I need legal help. :seeya:

I'm not licensed to practice in NY, and can't respond to legal questions here about members' actual personal legal problems anyway. Sorry.

Lawyers, what do you think of the latest motion for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct (JM's yelling LOL) filed yesterday?

I haven't seen the actual document. If that's what it's really about, I think it's ridiculous.

Quite a few trial days ago, Martinez objected to Wilmont's "speaking objections", and I assumed it was because she was coaching her witness via the objections. The judge granted Martinez's request, and I assumed that was why there were so many sidebars, since Wilmont repeatedly was unable to state the reason for the objection in open court. Is that a fair assumption?

Does Martinez's objection to speaking objections have to be reapplied every court day during the cross examination of ALV, or is it continually in effect?

He shouldn't have to object to speaking objections at all. They are always not OK. And JW ought to be able to state legal reasons for objections without making speaking objections (e.g., "relevance," "foundation," "assumes facts not in evidence"). Then the judge could decide if she needed more information in sidebar.

It happened twice yesterday--once during the over hour long delay before court started (it was reported that DT and JA were in chambers while Juan and Flores were in the gallery), and again later in the day...I think after the afternoon recess? It was also reported that LaViolette went into chambers for a period of time on both occasions, as well as the mitigation specialist...which leads to my question--under what circumstances would the witness be included in chambers meetings? TIA.

She would be included if the meeting had something to do with her. E.g., if the judge wanted to tell her to steer clear of the victim's family, or to answer the GD questions already.

So far we have seen 2 expert witnesses for the Defense. The consensus seems to be that neither was very effective or credible. Could this be seen as a part of ineffective counsel for an appeal? Thanks.

No. The reason the experts are ineffective is because the facts they're working with are unhelpful. It has nothing to do with the lawyers.

How do you think a plea bargain at this stage would be handled? (Thanks again for all your time used answering these questions. Much appreciated.)

One side or the other would bring it up to the other side, and then they would talk about it, and if they agreed they would jointly approach the judge and state the agreement for the record.

Please explain this ex parte

Scroll back through the last couple of pages.

Despite several admonitions by Judge Stephens yesterday, defense witness Alyce LaViolette continued to evade answering Mr. Martinez' questions as instructed. What, if anything, can be done to insist that the witness answer questions with an appropriate response?

She can be admonished by the judge--that's about it. Frankly, that's enough for most people.

Legal Eagles, is it typical for the defense to request this number of sidebars in a criminal case? This really seems excessive. I also notice that prosecution doesn't request many at all.

Scroll back through the last couple of pages.