Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Hally]

How is a witness who has testified under oath on the stand, but NOT in front of the jury such as Chris Hughes did - limited to what the PT and DT can say in regards to him as a witness in front of the jury if he takes that stand again?

Is it different that a witness testified without the jury present v those on the stand in the presence of the jury? Are there restrictions that the PT/DT can ask, say, include?

Thank you very mucho

 

[AZlawyer]

How is a witness who has testified under oath on the stand, but NOT in front of the jury such as Chris Hughes did - limited to what the PT and DT can say in regards to him as a witness in front of the jury if he takes that stand again?

Is it different that a witness testified without the jury present v those on the stand in the presence of the jury? Are there restrictions that the PT/DT can ask, say, include?

Thank you very mucho

I'm not sure I understand the question, sorry.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you know of any 1 degree murder trials in Arizona where the jury did not get instructions for lesser charges?

No, but on the other hand I haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to this issue.

 

[AZlawyer]

This morning, when JM was questioning ALV about the conversation where TA mentions he is "exceedingly afraid" of JA because of the stalking behaviours, there were several sidebars. JM said something to the effect of "Judge, I'd like to ask that question we discussed". Then the DT took ALV out during a short recess, and after questioning resumed ALV grudgingly conceded TA was exceedingly afraid of JA's stalking behaviours. What is this all about? What was JM's question? Why did the DT take ALV out during the short recess?

Hmmm. I got to watch the video this time for a change (home sick) and I don't remember her conceding that Travis was actually afraid. So I'm not sure how to answer--sorry.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, and thank you to all that has helped clarify important issues-- it is very much appreciated.

My question is: I understand that the lawyers are forbidden to use the word, "Premeditation" -- Why? Is not Premeditation the very Crux of the State's belief and in theory, could not seek the DP without it? Does anyone know why that came about?

The word premeditation has a specialized legal meaning on which the jury will be instructed. I'm sure they can use words like "plan" that have meanings understandable by jurors without instruction.

 

[AZlawyer]

Can anyone tell me when the State/Prosecutor took possession
of all of Jodi Arias' journals?

From the latest docket entry, it sounds like some were taken from her jail cell on April 1, 2013. I assume the rest were taken from her home when she was arrested.

Hi, are you able to tell me if JW or KN will be the one to do closing arguments, or will they both have a part?

Also, can an attorney in closing arguments ask or encourage a jury to look at 'specific' items when deliberating, i.e. look at all testimony of where the gun was shot, or count how many different accounts of XYZ, etc.

Thank you.

Closing argument will be done by one attorney, not both, but I can't tell you which one.

Yes, the attorneys can and will definitely point the jurors to specific evidence in closing argument.

Is there no limit to the duration of a testimony?

Nope. The judge can place time limits in her discretion, but in a death penalty case you have to be careful about that.

When JM said JA was the worst thing that happened to TA this afternoon, and Nurmi stormed up to the judge for approach can he ask again for a mistrial and could he get one? Thx

He can ask for a mistrial every day if he wants. He's not going to get one for that question.

When JM is questioning ALV and she is being combative, he says "Judge, non responsive" and the judge says "sustained". So that means that she is upholding his objection, right? So what does it mean in regards to the testimony? Also, if he impeaches the witness does that just mean he can say in closing arguments that she was impeached and therefore not credible?

It means she is being non-responsive and needs to respond to the question.

If JM wants to, he can say that all the defense witnesses were impeached and their testimony should therefore be disregarded. That would not be a smart way to go, though, and I don't think he'll do it.

4/10/2013 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/10/2013 NOTE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL; JOURNALS SEIZED FROM MS. ARIAS’ JAIL CELL ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 2013

can you explain what this means and who's requesting the defendant to compel the journals..can these journals be used against her in court.?

It sounds like the defense team wants the prosecutor to give them copies of some journals seized from JA's cell on 4/1/13. Presumably this is because they are afraid JM intends to use the journals as evidence.

My question relates specifically to Dr. Samuels and ALV. Since these experts have been, for lack of a better term, THROTTLED on the stand, if there IS a penalty phase, would the DT bring them back? Or would they look for a new set of experts since their credibility is shot?

They will not have time to get new experts. Presumably they will recycle these experts.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

To the lawyers in this thread: have you ever worked a jury trial? If so, I'd read that selecting 'educated' jurors is frowned upon. Is there any truth to that?

 

[gitana1]

To the lawyers in this thread: have you ever worked a jury trial? If so, I'd read that selecting 'educated' jurors is frowned upon. Is there any truth to that?

I have not- my trials are before a judge. But I have helped in voir dire a couple times with my law partner. I have heard that criminal defense attorneys prefer uneducated jurors. But what I experienced and what my law partner discusses doesn't touch on that. Instead it's about background, and just a sense you get. I'm good at reading people so that's why I've been asked to help a couple times.

 

[mollyf]

And didn't the defense hypothetically speak about Travis as a child???

When JM referenced hypotheticals, there was supposed eye-witness or first hand testimony behind those hypotheticals that the jury had heard that the witness had not heard, since she was not privy to that testimony during the trial.

Nobody on the stand to date has eye-witness or firsthand testimony about Travis as a child.

 

[trucrimefest]

First, I would like to thank all of you for your answers. You are all amazing! My question is, (I apologize if it's been asked already) if Jodi stands, flips out on a witness, juror or prosecutor, like screaming, raging fit. Could this cause a mistrial? What would possibly happen?

 

[dbmoody25]

Hmmm. I got to watch the video this time for a change (home sick) and I don't remember her conceding that Travis was actually afraid. So I'm not sure how to answer--sorry.

Well, it appeared to me that the recess was called specifically so that the defense team could go talk briefly with ALV. Is that normal?

 

[walkdmc]

Can footage of the trial-such as a screen grab-be used to show the killers fingers perfectly straight? Someone here posted a couple photos of her on the stand and her fingers were perfectly straight. I am hoping that at least the jurors have seen this many times, as she does use her hands quite a bit when testifying. I have seen it and hope they do too, but what about using actual trial footage in rebuttal?

 

[Kel2000]

As an expert witness, ALV appears to be very rough around the edges and unfamiliar with how she should comport herself on the stand. To the attorneys on this board, from your perspective would you guess that she is "playing dumb" and is actually quite savvy about her role as an expert witness, or is she really not getting it?

 

[PPKik]

A question I have may have been asked and answered many times, but I have not been able to find it. I apologize if this had been answered.

My question is about discovery in Arizona. JM knew answers that DB gave previously about JA's trip to Mesa, for example. DB originally denied knowing, but admitted knowing under rigorous questioning by JM.

Do you know under what circumstances JM knew what DB had previously stated? Was it a deposition by JM? There have been other times when JM knows what DT witnesses have previously said. What notes, interviews, statements, etc., is he able to get from the DT? Could JM depose any DT witness, or only "experts"? Thank you in advance.

 

[Pink Panther]

I'm confused by the one question that JM asked LAV repeatedly yesterday. She avoided answering so many questions over his entire cross but did not avoid answering that it was true that "Travis was extremely afraid of Jodi because of her stalking behaviours". How is it that she answered just "yes" when she never did it with any other questions? There were a LOT of sidebars back and forth while JM tried to ask that one question. Could JM have told the DA he would perjure her or something? I just don't understand it. It seems like they made a deal and she would have to answer that one question clearly???

Could he have threatened to impeach her?

 

[katiewonders]

Referencing the posts previously posted (below), my question has to do with discovery: Why would the defense have to compel the new journals. If the prosecutor wants to use it as evidence, wouldn't he have had to give them to the defense as new discovery anyway?



Originally Posted by tinkabella View Post
4/10/2013 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/10/2013 NOTE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL; JOURNALS SEIZED FROM MS. ARIAS’ JAIL CELL ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 2013

can you explain what this means and who's requesting the defendant to compel the journals..can these journals be used against her in court.?

It sounds like the defense team wants the prosecutor to give them copies of some journals seized from JA's cell on 4/1/13. Presumably this is because they are afraid JM intends to use the journals as evidence.

 

[katiewonders]

I realize that the attorneys for both sides are adversarial in court, but do you think Martinez, Willmott and Nurmi are buds outside the courtroom? Or, AZLawyer, is your colleague, the defense attorney, good friends outside the courtroom with the prosecutors? Always wondered.

 

[AZlawyer]

I realize that the attorneys for both sides are adversarial in court, but do you think Martinez, Willmott and Nurmi are buds outside the courtroom? Or, AZLawyer, is your colleague, the defense attorney, good friends outside the courtroom with the prosecutors? Always wondered.

Many lawyers who are adversaries in the courtroom can maintain friendships outside the courtroom. In my experience, this is less true with criminal law attorneys. And specifically regarding Juan Martinez, my defense attorney friends are very negative about him.

 

[AZlawyer]

Referencing the posts previously posted (below), my question has to do with discovery: Why would the defense have to compel the new journals. If the prosecutor wants to use it as evidence, wouldn't he have had to give them to the defense as new discovery anyway?

....

Yes. Perhaps the prosecutor has not indicated any intent to use the journals as evidence, but the defense wants copies in case the defense can somehow use them as evidence? I can't think how the defense could get them in, though.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm confused by the one question that JM asked LAV repeatedly yesterday. She avoided answering so many questions over his entire cross but did not avoid answering that it was true that "Travis was extremely afraid of Jodi because of her stalking behaviours". How is it that she answered just "yes" when she never did it with any other questions? There were a LOT of sidebars back and forth while JM tried to ask that one question. Could JM have told the DA he would perjure her or something? I just don't understand it. It seems like they made a deal and she would have to answer that one question clearly???

Could he have threatened to impeach her?

I'm going to have to skip this question again, because despite being able to watch the video for a change, I just don't remember her admitting that Travis was actually afraid. Maybe if someone can link that part of the video (including the multiple sidebars connected with this question)? I did miss a few minutes at one point, so I'm not saying it didn't happen.

The whole point of cross-examination is to impeach the witness, so I am 100% sure he didn't threaten to impeach her. He had already been impeaching her, and he would certainly continue to do so regardless of her answer to that one question.