Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

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.

JM could have taken DB's deposition. The defense also would have been required to turn over any written or recorded statements provided by DB. In addition, if DB had spoken to a defense expert, his statements might have been reflected in their notes or reports.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

I agree with your assessment. From my perspective, and I'm sure others might disagree, she seems to be allowing her personal biases and apparent disapproval of JM's manner to interfere with her professional presentation.

 

[twomanywords]

I agree with your assessment. From my perspective, and I'm sure others might disagree, she seems to be allowing her personal biases and apparent disapproval of JM's manner to interfere with her professional presentation.

On that note, is is ok for a witness to ask that they be spoken to by the prosecutor in the manner that they are speaking? In other words can she ask JM to speak to her differently? It seems improper that she ask that. Thanks!

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

I don't think the judge would allow trial footage as evidence. However, if JM wanted to use a "screen grab" in closing as a demonstrative exhibit, he could probably get away with that.

Keep in mind, though, that JM's position is NOT that Jodi's finger is perfectly fine. His position is that her finger was sliced by the knife when she was stabbing Travis.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

Maybe. It is a lot harder for the defendant to cause a mistrial than for the prosecutor to cause a mistrial. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, but is not entitled to purposely sabotage his or her trial to make it unfair. More likely, the judge would instruct the jury to disregard the outburst. It would depend, though, on what she said, if anything, during this hypothetical fit.

 

[AZlawyer]

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 handled quite a few jury trials. Keep in mind that the attorneys absolutely don't get to "select" jurors at all. They only get to exclude a limited number of jurors. In my experience, there are normally plenty of other reasons to exclude jurors before you ever get around to considering general education/intelligence.

However, if there are remaining strikes available to an attorney who happens to be on what educated persons are likely to pick as the losing side, obviously that attorney is going to strike any educated persons from the panel. The attorney who is on what educated persons are likely to pick as the winning side will not want to strike those people.

 

[dbmoody25]

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.

This is the same issue I asked about. It happens right at the start of Day 44. See the clip on youtube (Jodi Arias Trial - Day 44 - Part 1 - YouTube). JM immediately starts asking if it's true TA was "extremely afraid" of JA based on her stalking behaviour. ALV says no. JM asks for a sidebar. At 2:00, JM asks her again, and she waffles, saying "I don't see any behaviour that confirms that...". At 2:50, JM asks the judge if he can ask the question they've been talking about. There is a sidebar. At 3:59, the judge calls for a 5 minute recess. The defense team goes off with ALV at 4:45. They return, there is a sidebar, and 10:25 JM asks again the same question. At 11:00, ALV finally admits that yes, TA was afraid. JM follows up with "because of her stalking behavior". ALV admits yes.

Can you explain this? Why did the defense team take ALV out to get her to say yes to JM's question?

 

[slanda]

Are attorneys allowed to "consult" with their witness during the days when the witness is on the stand? (It seems like Willmott and ALV have discussed the Cross at length with eachother) and there was a picture of Willmott & ALV having lunch, and the picture implies it was taken this week, or possibly last... Is that normal?

 

[AZlawyer]

This is the same issue I asked about. It happens right at the start of Day 44. See the clip on youtube (Jodi Arias Trial - Day 44 - Part 1 - YouTube). JM immediately starts asking if it's true TA was "extremely afraid" of JA based on her stalking behaviour. ALV says no. JM asks for a sidebar. At 2:00, JM asks her again, and she waffles, saying "I don't see any behaviour that confirms that...". At 2:50, JM asks the judge if he can ask the question they've been talking about. There is a sidebar. At 3:59, the judge calls for a 5 minute recess. The defense team goes off with ALV at 4:45. They return, there is a sidebar, and 10:25 JM asks again the same question. At 11:00, ALV finally admits that yes, TA was afraid. JM follows up with "because of her stalking behavior". ALV admits yes.

Can you explain this? Why did the defense team take ALV out to get her to say yes to JM's question?

Thanks for the video!!

OK, he asked if TA expressed in the instant message that he was "extremely fearful" etc. She said no, he didn't say that. JM requested a sidebar--not sure why he didn't just show her the IM to "refresh her recollection." :waitasec: But OK.

JM came back and changed the wording to "extremely afraid." She skirted the question, saying she didn't see any BEHAVIORS supporting his fear.

JM then asked if he could ask "the question we've been talking about." We know that was NOT the same question he'd just asked--whether Travis expressed in the message that he was extremely afraid--because why would he need permission when he'd already asked that question??

Then there is a sidebar, a break, another sidebar, and JM asks a DIFFERENT question--whether Travis actually WAS afraid of Jodi based on her stalking behavior. She tried to say "he said" but then finally said yes. :what: I'm not sure why. This is a mystery to me. Maybe some other attorney on here can understand what happened.

 

[AZlawyer]

Are attorneys allowed to "consult" with their witness during the days when the witness is on the stand? (It seems like Willmott and ALV have discussed the Cross at length with eachother) and there was a picture of Willmott & ALV having lunch, and the picture implies it was taken this week, or possibly last... Is that normal?

I've always understood that it's OK with an expert witness but not a fact witness.

 

[Words2Serve]

Do you know if in selecting jurors did they dismiss anyone who may have been a victim of domestic violence? if Yes, is that to be fair to Travis b/c in 'theory' a DV victim would be a 'jury of her 'peers'.

If not, and a juror asks a questions that states "if a DV victim did call the police, etc. is that abnormal?" and they were asking because their personal experience was they called the police and their therapist said that was a normal response. Could the DT inquire about who wrote a particular question and be able to have that juror removed based on 'prejudice'?

Thank you.

 

[Paintr]

when they are in chambers, does jodi get to speak? Ask/answer questions?


Does TA's family?

TYK in advance

 

[minor4th]

Do you know if in selecting jurors did they dismiss anyone who may have been a victim of domestic violence? if Yes, is that to be fair to Travis b/c in 'theory' a DV victim would be a 'jury of her 'peers'.

If not, and a juror asks a questions that states "if a DV victim did call the police, etc. is that abnormal?" and they were asking because their personal experience was they called the police and their therapist said that was a normal response. Could the DT inquire about who wrote a particular question and be able to have that juror removed based on 'prejudice'?

Thank you.

No. Their opportunity to discover juror bias or prejudice was during jury selection. They cannot ask that a juror be removed at this point unless there is some evidence of misconduct -- that would include evidence that a juror had formed a conclusion about guilt prior to the conclusion of evidence.

Jurors are not required to abandon common sense or disregard their life experience when deliberating.

 

[minor4th]

when they are in chambers, does jodi get to speak? Ask/answer questions?


Does TA's family?

TYK in advance

I guess it would depend on what the issue is that they are discussing in chambers -- but short answer is "Probably not". Usually what goes on in chambers is attorney argument and not taking testimony or presenting evidence. Jodi and Travis' family speak through their attorneys and through the State prosecutor.

 

[womblek]

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.

I'm not a lawyer, so I hope it's ok for me to jump in here. What I heard is JM finally getting ALV to admit that the text message between Travis and Hannah (?) did include the "verbiage" that Travis was "extremely afraid" of JA. She never relented on her stance about "no behavioral indicators blah, blah, blah" of stalking behavior.

 

[francie]

I'm wondering if both sides are under a gag order; high profile defense teams are usually out blabbering to media but not in this case (thank the heavens!). And if there is a gag, should it also include the defendant, who is commenting publicly via Twitter through someone else? It was supposedly confirmed by the sheriff's office per NG show. Thank you~

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm wondering if both sides are under a gag order; high profile defense teams are usually out blabbering to media but not in this case (thank the heavens!). And if there is a gag, should it also include the defendant, who is commenting publicly via Twitter through someone else? It was supposedly confirmed by the sheriff's office per NG show. Thank you~

If there were a gag order, I would assume that the media would have reported on that. I don't believe there is any such order in place. But in Arizona, I haven't noticed defense attorneys blabbering to media very much anyway.

There is nothing legally wrong with JA getting her little snide comments out through her friend, although I'm sure it's against her attorneys' advice.

 

[noZme]

When an objection was made & sustained during the jurors' questions today, the judge immediately went to the next question. At the times LaV's response had been inappropriate, why didn't the judge say "disregard that last statement"?

 

[slanda]

For the Lawyers: What was the most telling and or compelling question(s) the jurors asked today and why? Also, if you were on the defense team (hypothetically, Ha ) is there a specific question that would really cause you to worry about the outcome?

Thanks again

 

[gitana1]

When an objection was made & sustained during the jurors' questions today, the judge immediately went to the next question. At the times LaV's response had been inappropriate, why didn't the judge say "disregard that last statement"?

I think she's just being "nice" to the defense and doesn't want to appear to prejudice their case in any way by coming across as too punitive with the defense witness.

I think the courtroom and the attorneys are kind of fast and loose with this. There should be a motion to strike after each sustained, objected to answer and those answers should be stricken.

But I;m not a judge and I've never come close to a death penalty case like this so it's easy for me to say!!!!!

For the Lawyers: What was the most telling and or compelling question(s) the jurors asked today and why? Also, if you were on the defense team (hypothetically, Ha ) is there a specific question that would really cause you to worry about the outcome?

Thanks again

Eeesh. There were several telling questions IMO. If i were the defense, I would have a pretty good indication of the outcome. But really, they knew that from the beginning. They knew they had a losing case. The most they can hope for is a miraculous hung jury and i doubt that will happen.