Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[minor4th]

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.

That is what I kept saying at the beginning of the trial and I got jumped on from here to kingdom come -- as though I was saying Flores was biased or not credible (and he is biased, it's his job to put bad guys in jail). I was only talking about how jurors might see it and how it might impact the weight and credibility they give to Flores' testimony. As it turns out, I do not think it matters for the same reason you stated.

 

[Miss Chevious]

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

Thanks, AZLawyer. This answered my question. Your help an expertise are so appreciated here!

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

I didn't watch his interview. What did he say? That she's always been a lying liar who lies? That wouldn't be admissible.

Oooh I'm just reading through wenwe's transcripts and it looks like it maybe did come in?

And then I read back through Rule 608 and realized this is OK after all.

ETA: Posted on the other thread that the tape itself would be hearsay--but dad's testimony about this would be OK, and then the tape could be used to impeach him if he doesn't say the same thing on the stand.

 

[moonshyne]

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?

I think they should put a stun belt on her and let JM use it whenever ALV decides to evade a question..or borrow a wooden spoon from Jodi's mom and smack her with it when she goes on on a tangent instead of answering the **** question!

Jmo

Eta: sorry I'm a noob and just realized this is just a q and a thread. Mod pls delete and again sorry bout that!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

AZ you may have already read this by now. It is simply.....crazy.

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL;
INABILITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/ariasmotion2.pdf

 

[Sulamith]

Mr. Martinez wants ALV to hear his hypothetical scenarios and answer his hypothetical questions. Is is common for attorneys to ask the witness to imagine a hypothetical scenario?

I don't like it. Hypothetically speaking, if I were on this jury, I would feel as if Mr. Martinez is trying to confuse me.

Thank you.

 

[Words2Serve]

Hi, I may have missed it, has there been any resolution to the juan picture/mistrial for pen throwing issues? Also, what is the reference to juror 3 about?

Thank you

 

[AZlawyer]

Mr. Martinez wants ALV to hear his hypothetical scenarios and answer his hypothetical questions. Is is common for attorneys to ask the witness to imagine a hypothetical scenario?

I don't like it. Hypothetically speaking, if I were on this jury, I would feel as if Mr. Martinez is trying to confuse me.

Thank you.

Yes, if the witness is an expert, it is normal and fine to ask hypothetical questions.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ you may have already read this by now. It is simply.....crazy.

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL;
INABILITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/ariasmotion2.pdf

Hi, I may have missed it, has there been any resolution to the juan picture/mistrial for pen throwing issues? Also, what is the reference to juror 3 about?

Thank you

I think the motion regarding the pictures with "fans" is still pending. Who knows about the pen-throwing.

Some people think they saw Jodi say something about juror 3. Could be anything or nothing.

The motion posted by Totally Obsessed (above) is not a winning motion IMO. I was just skimming through what I thought was the overblown "intro" chit-chat when I suddenly stumbled upon the "conclusion"...no meat in between...:waitasec:

 

[a/k/a me]

I was shocked and appalled that ALV suggested to Mr. Martinez to "take a time out". Complete disrepect for the court. How can a witness be allowed to address counsel that way? Any meaningful consequences in store for her?

 

[minor4th]

I was shocked and appalled that ALV suggested to Mr. Martinez to "take a time out". Complete disrepect for the court. How can a witness be allowed to address counsel that way? Any meaningful consequences in store for her?

She wasn't allowed to, she just did it, and no one knew it was coming so it couldnt have been prevented by Juan or the judge.

After she said it she was warned by the judge and instructed the jury to ignore the comment -- that's not something that the defense wants the jury to see, but of course it has to be dealt with and it has to be dealt with directly to the jury. I don't think she will make that error again in this court, but if she does she could be held in contempt or fined -- and that might take place outside the presence of the jury.

 

[gitana1]

Please explain this ex parte

Ex parte generally means without the other side being there or without notice to the other side.

In my business, we can ask for emergency orders, by passing the regular notice requirements and sometimes without giving any notice at all (like in a domestic violence context), and those are called ex parte applications. The hearing on that would be an ex parte hearing and it is not an evidentiary hearing where either side presents evidence.

I'm not really aware of what the defense? is doing on an ex parte basis in this trial. But it appears they may be asking the judge for certain orders without notice to the other side and apart from the regularly set motion procedure.

Frankly I don't know enough about criminal procedure to know how or why they would be able to do this here, but there could be several reasons.

 

[cosmos]

.. After she said it she was warned by the judge and instructed the jury to ignore the comment --

But why exactly would the judge give that instruction? The expert witness is supposed to be very familiar with trial rules and procedures, and the fact that she knowingly broke a rule is evidence against her credibility, ability to answer questions and communicate facts. Doesn't her demeanor counts as evidence? And this was not her first violation of procedure by any means. So why did she get a free pass?

ETA: I withdraw the question! After listening again to that part of the trial, it was Martinez who asked the judge to instruct the jury to disregard the outburst. I missed that the first time. Hence, I can certainly not second guess the judge in that situation because the request came from the prosecution.

 

[nells]

Hostile Witness

Can JM have AL called a "hostile witness"? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?

Thank you SO MUCH for your legal viewpoints.

 

[womblek]

AZ you may have already read this by now. It is simply.....crazy.

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL;
INABILITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/ariasmotion2.pdf

Puh leeze....
Silly motions smack of "we don't want to play anymore because our opponent is winning". OTOH if the defense did something that is grounds for a mistrial would the State have to file a motion for such in order for it to be addressed? Since it does seem very, very clear to me that the State has proven its case beyond even an unreasonable doubt, what's to stop the DT from doing really crazy things in order to force a mistrial? The State doesn't want to stop and do this all over again at this point. Are there other ways such craziness might be addressed? Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and wisdom.:rocker:

 

[gitana1]

Hostile Witness

Can JM have AL called a "hostile witness"? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?

Thank you SO MUCH for your legal viewpoints.

A hostile witness really just means you can use cross examination questioning technique with one of your own witnesses, so you can ask leading questions. Juan Martinez is already able to do that with this witness though because she is not his witness. He's crossing her.

Puh leeze....
Silly motions smack of "we don't want to play anymore because our opponent is winning". OTOH if the defense did something that is grounds for a mistrial would the State have to file a motion for such in order for it to be addressed? Since it does seem very, very clear to me that the State has proven its case beyond even an unreasonable doubt, what's to stop the DT from doing really crazy things in order to force a mistrial? The State doesn't want to stop and do this all over again at this point. Are there other ways such craziness might be addressed? Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and wisdom.:rocker:

I think it's rare for defense attorneys to purposefully cause a mistrial. They could get in a ton of trouble for that. They just want to scream and yell about everyone else but not cause it themselves.

What's to prevent the defense team from doing really crazy things is their reputation in the legal community, contempt, ethics violations, etc.

Listen, the defense is used to losing. They have not acted out of control to me at all in this trial. They use sneaky tactics at times and I dislike and disrespect that. I also fully believe they have coached their client to an incredible degree behind bars, to conform her testimony to a hypothesis they themselves artfully suggested to her as a more plausible defense theory and have also coached their experts, which disgusts me. But sadly, it's not that far out of the ordinary. This is as bad as it gets and it's nothing thus far that could get them into trouble (can't prove much of it) and I highly doubt they will do anything worse.

 

[gitana1]

This was posted on the "view from the inside" page. If JW used her cellphone to call JA, and then handed that cellphone to AL, would that be illegal or a call for admonishment?

Thanks (again)!

I don't think so. Just possibly improper. But how the heck do you prove such a thing?

Anyhow, the picture shows something else that may be improper. Take a gander:

Witnesses are typically permitted to meet and communicate with lawyers before and after they testify. But a difficult situation may arise when a witness talks with a lawyer at some point during his or her testimony, that is, before all direct and cross examination has been completed. To many people inside and outside of the legal profession, this seems suspect or just plain wrong. Old fashioned common sense suggests that witness testimony is subject to being colored, coached, or even deliberately changed as a result of consultation with a lawyer, thereby impeding the search for truth.

http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/F361C04FC87E0EF2852575D600654478

But again, how can you prove what they are talking about? They're just going to lie if asked.

 

[jayarohh]

I don't think so. Just possibly improper. But how the heck do you prove such a thing?

Anyhow, the picture shows something else that may be improper. Take a gander:

<snipped for focus>

Could the impropriety be that there are possible media sources (ie - TV's) in that restaurant visible to ALV?

 

[gitana1]

<snipped for focus>

Could the impropriety be that there are possible media sources (ie - TV's) in that restaurant visible to ALV?

No. It's that a witness isn't supposed to be coached by the attorneys that called them, during testimony. And I doubt they are talking about the NY Knick's division championship.

 

[jayarohh]

No. It's that a witness isn't supposed to be coached by the attorneys that called them, during testimony. And I doubt they are talking about the NY Knick's division championship.

Ahh, yes! Thank you so much.