Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[tinkabella]

Gus was on tv telling the world that Jodi called him the night Travis was killed at 3:05 am. If this is indeed true (which I know its not) Could Gus be charged as an accessory to murder for not reporting this to the police?

 

[minor4th]

Gus was on tv telling the world that Jodi called him the night Travis was killed at 3:05 am. If this is indeed true (which I know its not) Could Gus be charged as an accessory to murder for not reporting this to the police?

No. He didn't say that Jodi told him she killed him, only that he was dead. He has no duty to report a death. Plus, I doubt this happened.

 

[minor4th]

I have so many questions...but here are a few:

(1) Why can't the forged letters be introduced? Why have they been "ruled to be excluded"? Aren't they evidence?

(2) Will the jury see the interrigation videos in which she initially claimes intruders killed Travis? If not, why?

(3) Why is the jury prevented from knowing JA has been in jail for the last 4 years?

(4) How can she make allegations against Travis when he is not here to defend himself? Is it because she is on the stand and can say whatever she wants?

Thanks for answering all of our questions!

1. For documentary evidence, like letters, they have to be properly authenticated and a foundation laid to determine their reliability as evidence. The defense would have had to give the prosecution notice of its intent to introduce these letters as character evidence or past bad acts of the victim. The prosecution then filed a motion in limine - which is just a pre-trial motion asking for an advance ruling on evidence, and the judge found that there was insufficient evidence to authenticate the letters and support their reliability.

This could have also taken place during trial when the defense tried to have them entered. The judge would have just held a hearing outside he presence of the jury and would have ultimately come to the same conclusion and not admitted them.

2. The jury has already seen the interrogation where Jodi claimed two intruders killed Travis. They have seen all of the interrogations and heard the phone calls between Jodi and Flores.

3. It's irrelevant to their job as finders of fact. Has nothing to do with whether or not Jodi committed murder.

4. She can say whatever she wants within the parameters of the rules of evidence. The jury will determine how much weight to give her testimony and whether it's credible. Certainly the jury will consider the fact that Jodi knows that her testimony cannot be challenged by Travis because she killed him.

 

[tinkabella]

Since jodi was caught in an obvious lie about sending/forwading the emails can she be charged with perjury? Is she allowed to do this on the stand?

 

[gitana1]

Since jodi was caught in an obvious lie about sending/forwading the emails can she be charged with perjury? Is she allowed to do this on the stand?

I watched the voir dire portion only and I notIced that at the end, Nurmi kept referring to her having forwarded the emails. This was after Martinez objected and after they went to sidebar. So I have to assume the judge agreed the defense could deem the email as "forwarded". But I only saw that snip so I can not be sure without context.

As to perjury, people ask this question all the time. My clients bring this up all the time. The essential question is, "That person is lying on the stand. That's against the law. Will they be charged?"

The answer is, probably not. In most cases there are issues much more serious than a possible perjury charge. In his case, it's a murder charge. The short answer is people lie under oath all the time and they are rarely prosecuted even when it can be absolutely proven. I could say that no one cares but really, it's that there are usually bigger fish to fry.

Perjury cases are usually only brought when the prosecution really wants to make a point or when they can't succeed on another, more serious charge.

 

[Nova]

Gitana1, isn't an element of a perjury charge that the perjured testimony was significant in nature? What is the legal standard for "significant"? Does the lie have to affect the verdict, potentially affect the verdict, or is there some lesser standard?

 

[gitana1]

Gitana1, isn't an element of a perjury charge that the perjured testimony was significant in nature? What is the legal standard for "significant"? Does the lie have to affect the verdict, potentially affect the verdict, or is there some lesser standard?

Yes The standard is that the issue they are lying about is "material", which means that it affects the outcome of the proceeding.

 

[tinkabella]

If Jodi admits on the stand that she staged the robbery of her grandparents home, can she be charged with robbery as well during this case? Or will she face another trial? Is there a penalty for her admitting guilt even if she claims she stole the gun for protection since it goes to her "battered woman" defense?

 

[gitana1]

If Jodi admits on the stand that she staged the robbery of her grandparents home, can she be charged with robbery as well during this case? Or will she face another trial? Is there a penalty for her admitting guilt even if she claims she stole the gun for protection since it goes to her "battered woman" defense?

It's not robbery or burglary because she didn't use force or the threat of force nor did she break and enter the home. She lived there. It would be some sort of lesser theft and it is extremely unlikely that she would ever be charged unless her grandparents asked that she be charged.

 

[KBisMe]

It's not robbery or burglary because she didn't use force or the threat of force nor did she break and enter the home. She lived there. It would be some sort of lesser theft and it is extremely unlikely that she would ever be charged unless her grandparents asked that she be charged.

Why did JM charge her with 1st degree felony murder on top of the premeditated then? I thought he did that because she "staged" the burglary of her grandparents house to steal the gun and a police report was filed. What else in this case classifies it as a felony murder?

This is what I got when I googled it and I don't see anything else on that list that could apply...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Arizona)

 

[tinkabella]

It's not robbery or burglary because she didn't use force or the threat of force nor did she break and enter the home. She lived there. It would be some sort of lesser theft and it is extremely unlikely that she would ever be charged unless her grandparents asked that she be charged.

Okay so in order to be charged with robbery you have to use force? Jodi kicked the door in. There was damage to the frame of the door. She took (hid) several items to stage a robbery so that she could steal the gun...so with all of that, isn't it against the law to
1. damage property?
2. steal items (hide)?
3. Stage a robbery with the purpose of stealing a gun to commit homicide?
4. use that weapon taken from the home to commit murder?
5. If the grandparents don't press charges against her, does the state still have the right to charge her?

Sorry if you answered all of this in the first post, I just need more clarification.

 

[minor4th]

Why did JM charge her with 1st degree felony murder on top of the premeditated then? I thought he did that because she "staged" the burglary of her grandparents house to steal the gun and a police report was filed. What else in this case classifies it as a felony murder?

This is what I got when I googled it and I don't see anything else on that list that could apply...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Arizona)

Juan explained during one of the evidentiary hearings that the underlying felony for the felony murder charge would be assault or burglary -- not burglary of the grandparents' house, but burglary of Travis' house since she remained in his home as an unwelcome person after she began the attack.

 

[gitana1]

Why did JM charge her with 1st degree felony murder on top of the premeditated then? I thought he did that because she "staged" the burglary of her grandparents house to steal the gun and a police report was filed. What else in this case classifies it as a felony murder?

This is what I got when I googled it and I don't see anything else on that list that could apply...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Arizona)

No, felony murder means that the death occurred during the commission of a felony, not after a felony. So, they were probably covering their bases and stating that it was felony murder because she illegally entered his home or because she was assaulting him (not meaning to kill him) when the death occurred:

Stephens wrote in her order that it is possible Arias may have intended to assault Alexander and accidentally killed him, thus justifying the felony murder charge.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/24/arias-judge-denies-defense-motion-mistrial

I don't think they will prevail on felony murder.

Okay so in order to be charged with robbery you have to use force? Jodi kicked the door in. There was damage to the frame of the door. She took (hid) several items to stage a robbery so that she could steal the gun...so with all of that, isn't it against the law to
1. damage property?
2. steal items (hide)?
3. Stage a robbery with the purpose of stealing a gun to commit homicide?
4. use that weapon taken from the home to commit murder?
5. If the grandparents don't press charges against her, does the state still have the right to charge her?

Sorry if you answered all of this in the first post, I just need more clarification.

Robbery generally speaking is taking something by force, fear of force, intimidation. Basically, the classic robbery is using a gun to hold someone up, like at a liquor store. So robbery is an intimate crime. Many people (me included on occasion), use the word in a colloquial, non-legal sense, like "That was robbery!" or, "She staged a robbery of the gun". But technically she did not. Robbery is an intimate crime involving force or the threat of force used against a person who knows they are being robbed.

Burglary means that the perp illegally entered the home. Here, jodi was allowed to enter the home because she lived there. Yes, what she did is against the law. Probably some sort of fraud, plus some kind of simple theft and perhaps filing a false report or supplying false info to LE. But again, the state is unlikely to do anything unless the grandparents file a complaint.

Also, that crime occurred in California so AZ would not have jurisdiction to charge her.

But really, no one really cares. There are bigger fish to fry, like murder one. I know people get hung up on smaller crimes like perjury, or this, in these kinds of cases, but she is facing the death penalty and unless she totally walks, there is no incentive to spend the money necessary to going after her for these kinds of things.

 

[minor4th]

Okay so in order to be charged with robbery you have to use force? Jodi kicked the door in. There was damage to the frame of the door. She took (hid) several items to stage a robbery so that she could steal the gun...so with all of that, isn't it against the law to
1. damage property?
2. steal items (hide)?
3. Stage a robbery with the purpose of stealing a gun to commit homicide?
4. use that weapon taken from the home to commit murder?
5. If the grandparents don't press charges against her, does the state still have the right to charge her?

Sorry if you answered all of this in the first post, I just need more clarification.

I don't think there's any plan to charge Jodi with anything related to the theft of the gun. That has never been brought up, and it would be hard to prove since she took it from a place that she was given access to by the owners of the gun. If anything I could see them charging her with making a false statement or report to law enforcement related to the gun theft, but I doubt they will since she is facing murder charges and will likely be convicted.

 

[minor4th]

Gitana - I thought the felony murder charge was a stretch and thought it might even be thrown out, until I read the Arizona law and judge's ruling about it. In Arizona, you can establish felony murder even with the underlying felony being an included offense of the murder.

I think they charged felony murder for those jurors who might not find premeditation. And I think it's a good strategy to get a first degree murder conviction.

 

[gitana1]

Juan explained during one of the evidentiary hearings that the underlying felony for the felony murder charge would be assault or burglary -- not burglary of the grandparents' house, but burglary of Travis' house since she remained in his home as an unwelcome person after she began the attack.

Or that!!!

I still think it's a stretch though. But they have murder one. They will prevail on that if anything at all!

 

[gitana1]

Gitana - I thought the felony murder charge was a stretch and thought it might even be thrown out, until I read the Arizona law and judge's ruling about it. In Arizona, you can establish felony murder even with the underlying felony being an included offense of the murder.

I think they charged felony murder for those jurors who might not find premeditation. And I think it's a good strategy to get a first degree murder conviction.

Interesting. So it's a back up so they won't have to resort to a lesser included if they fail to find premeditation? I get it.

 

[SieSie]

Question and Answer Respectfully Snipped:

Thank you for considering my questions

4) Can JA be made to reveal what she did with the gas cans, the weapons used to kill TA, etc?

4. She can be asked, but she can also lie or say she doesn't remember or claim she never had weapons or gas cans, despite the evidence that she obviously did. There is no way to make her tell the truth about what really happened.

Thank you, minor, for answering Zuri's question - it made me wonder if JA can "plead the fifth" and refuse to answer a question???

I appreciate all of the lawyers replies and the other posters questions - very helpful! Thanks in advance! :rocker:

 

[gitana1]

Question and Answer Respectfully Snipped:

Thank you, minor, for answering Zuri's question - it made me wonder if JA can "plead the fifth" and refuse to answer a question???

I appreciate all of the lawyers replies and the other posters questions - very helpful! Thanks in advance! :rocker:

She can no longer plead the fifth because she already began to testify regarding the murder, thereby waiving her right to remain silent.

 

[KBisMe]

Thank you so much to both of you! Well, all of the attorneys on here are awesome! It's great having you guys on here helping us understand some of the legal issues. This felony murder thing had me confused!

I'll admit... Sometimes when I don't have time to read through pages of posts, I scroll through looking for comments by the attorneys. Lol :seeya: