Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[amica]

I find it odd that Juror 11 waited until a 10 minute break to ask to be excused from jury duty due to illness. Can the DT ask that a juror be removed because he/she is ill even though the juror didn't request it? TIA

 

[z3phyr22]

I have a few questions. I'm still new here so hopefully addressing them all in a single post is allowed.
I have heard numerous times that Nurmi tried to get removed from this case, if that's true was he required to state a reason. If true and if JA's convicted should we be expecting an appeal based on some sort of "ineffective legal advice/counsel" with Nurmi's removal attempts to be used as proof?

It's apparent a well rounded, spoke to both party's friends and families, expert opinion would have played out better for Alyce Laviolette, is there a legal reason why she failed to personally contact and talk to Travis's family after being hired by the defense. If yes and after the realization it's not looking well for the defense, could AL have possibly purposely approached Travis's sister in a courtroom full of people in an attempt to help throw this trial and get a new trial? If yes, can AL be held accountable by the court? If no, do you have any idea as to why any paid defense witness would pick at the trial, in the courtroom and before their testimony was done, to make the first contact with the opposing side?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a few questions. I'm still new here so hopefully addressing them all in a single post is allowed.
I have heard numerous times that Nurmi tried to get removed from this case, if that's true was he required to state a reason. If true and if JA's convicted should we be expecting an appeal based on some sort of "ineffective legal advice/counsel" with Nurmi's removal attempts to be used as proof?

It's apparent a well rounded, spoke to both party's friends and families, expert opinion would have played out better for Alyce Laviolette, is there a legal reason why she failed to personally contact and talk to Travis's family after being hired by the defense. If yes and after the realization it's not looking well for the defense, could AL have possibly purposely approached Travis's sister in a courtroom full of people in an attempt to help throw this trial and get a new trial? If yes, can AL be held accountable by the court? If no, do you have any idea as to why any paid defense witness would pick at the trial, in the courtroom and before their testimony was done, to make the first contact with the opposing side?

Nurmi did state a reason--I believe it was that he was going into private practice and not working for the public defender's office any more.

Asking to withdraw is not ineffective assistance of counsel. I don't see how it would be relevant to any other argument for ineffective assistance, either.

ALV was not legally permitted to interview Travis's immediate family members unless a request was made through JM's office and they agreed.

ALV's approach of Samantha could not possibly "throw the trial."

ALV can be held accountable by the court if her approach of Samantha violated the victim's rights statutes (i.e., if she requested an interview or was approaching her as an agent of the defense team). IMO if she was just acting on her own and made some personal remark to Samantha, she could not be "held accountable" unless she had been previously directed not to contact the family. The judge is required to minimize contact between defense witnesses and the victim's family (even if the contact is not actually illegal), so there is some possibility that ALV was instructed about this before testifying.

It's hard to understand why ALV approached Samantha without knowing what she said, but I promise it was not an attempt by the defense to get a mistrial. I just can't imagine how a mistrial would ever arise out of such a thing.

 

[AZlawyer]

I find it odd that Juror 11 waited until a 10 minute break to ask to be excused from jury duty due to illness. Can the DT ask that a juror be removed because he/she is ill even though the juror didn't request it? TIA

Sure. Or the other jurors might have complained that he was getting them all germy.

 

[AZlawyer]

If an expert witness has committed perjury during a trial; what happens to their previous testimony? Is the jury told to disregard all the witness' testimony? Thanks in advance.

Nothing happens. The lie would be pointed out on cross-examination, presumably, and the jury could decide for itself how it felt about the rest of the testimony.

 

[AZlawyer]

Not being knowledgeable in the legal arena, I wondered if JM has moved to have ALV's testimony stricken.. if that can even be done at this stage

No. There would be no grounds whatsoever for that.

 

[AZlawyer]

Please reference the video posted below by Candy_Pickletoes, and assume the hypothetical that this is your expert witness. Would the Judge's reaction as seen on the video cause your stomach to fall? Hypothetically, would you have thought, "Oh, crap"?


Originally Posted by Candy_Pickletoes View Post
OMG, starting at 0.49 of the link, watch the judge very closely after Alyce says "I'm not sure how else to answer that".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jGd...oGrg-EhoRxhtTA

ETA: Make the video full screen to get the full effect.

No. The defense team doesn't much care if the judge believes their witness--they care if the jury believes her. Now, I might have thought "oh crap, I hope the jury didn't see that."

 

[AZlawyer]

If Ms. ALV is found to have lied on her CV, misrepresented her testimony on her previous testimony experiences and so on, would this finally be the issue that just might give Nurmi grounds for a mis-trial???

No. That couldn't cause a mistrial. Witnesses lie and exaggerate every day--this is pointed out in cross--there's an attempt to smooth over the bumps in redirect--the jury makes their notes about who's lying and who's not--and the trial goes on. Nothing to see here.

 

[AZlawyer]

At the end of court today the judge announced they were going to be addressing an issue involving laviolette on the record Monday. could this be about alv approaching Travis' sister? What would be the point of putting it on the record?

It could be about that (I think she said Tuesday BTW). Or it could be about some other contempt issue. Or it could be about Nurmi's latest motion for mistrial and ALV is just going to be a witness about the effect of the "circus" atmosphere. I don't know about that last one, though--it seemed to me that the judge was ticked off at ALV when she was setting the hearing. Also, she noted more than once that ALV was under subpoena, and I would assume that ALV would gladly appear without a subpoena to help Nurmi's motion.

 

[katydid23]

Nurmi's most recent Motion for Mistrial due to Prosecutorial Misconduct is still pending. [from 4/7]

In the very last paragraph he discusses how the prosecutor has made it impossible for the expert witnesses to do their jobs, because they are being harassed by social media, etc.


Since this motion is still pending, could this be what ALV is being brought back for?

ETA: I see you just now answered this in the post above. Thank you.

 

[Cailin Rua]

I get that JM is considered a very "aggressive" prosecutor, but as attorneys go, is he really so over the top that he should be sending people to the ER with palpitations? Isn't it the job of counsel on either side to try to show that the other side's witnesses are mistaken or lying?

 

[AZlawyer]

I get that JM is considered a very "aggressive" prosecutor, but as attorneys go, is he really so over the top that he should be sending people to the ER with palpitations? Isn't it the job of counsel on either side to try to show that the other side's witnesses are mistaken or lying?

I believe the allegation is that the public cyber-mob caused ALV's anxiety attack, not JM.

But to answer your question, I don't believe JM's style is sufficient to cause heart palpitations in a person who is willing and able to answer his questions honestly and without trying to play games with him. IMO one might indeed get heart palpitations from trying to outwit him from the witness stand.

 

[Deebest49]

My Question is: Was the defense given copies of any testing, reports or evaluations that Dr Demarte did, that she will testify to in court? If not, will DT be able to bring in more "Expert" witness's to refute her testimony?

 

[AZlawyer]

My Question is: Was the defense given copies of any testing, reports or evaluations that Dr Demarte did, that she will testify to in court? If not, will DT be able to bring in more "Expert" witness's to refute her testimony?

Yes, the defense will have all of her reports and evaluations.

 

[discogirl]

I noticed that JM has been bringing up ALV's education, experience, representation, and bias. That combined with her bringing up her retirement has me wondering if JM is questioning her authority as an expert? The retirement slip could point to secondary gain. Is it too late in the trial to prove an expert is actually not qualified to be considered an expert?

 

[AZlawyer]

I noticed that JM has been bringing up ALV's education, experience, representation, and bias. That combined with her bringing up her retirement has me wondering if JM is questioning her authority as an expert? The retirement slip could point to secondary gain. Is it too late in the trial to prove an expert is actually not qualified to be considered an expert?

No, any objection to her qualifications to testify would have been handled before she started testifying. And of course she's testifying for secondary gain. She's a paid witness. He's just going through the normal expert cross-examination stuff.

 

[MeeBee]

Would either of these motions be grounds for a mistrial? ALV was still able to testify and was still able to back up her original assertions. Can Martinez really be blamed for the Internet backlash against her? Could the Internet storm over ALV really cause a mistrial? Thanks.

 

[ChinaBlue]

I read that lawyers are not allowed to coach their witnesses. But they have to somehow prepare their witnesses for testimony. How fine of a line is it between trial prep and coaching. Are there any firm dos and don'ts?

You can prep a witness as far as demeanor and preparing them for cross. You just can't tell them what to say. You can let them know that their phrasing or tone could be interpreted in a way they don't want.

I will practice questions with mine - cross them do they know what it will be like. I tell them exactly how to dress and how to not get frazzled or defensive. Someone should have done that more with Laviolette.

OK - Using this question and response as a springboard. it has been suggested on one or two of the threads that once the attorneys approve the jurors' questions, they then review these questions with the witness thus allowing the witness time to prepare a "tailored" response. Is this allowed and/or true?

I was really impressed when I learned that Arizona allows jurors to ask questions (I'm from PA where it is not allowed) but if the witness knows the questions beforehand, the whole process loses some of the spontaneity and veracity of the response.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would either of these motions be grounds for a mistrial? ALV was still able to testify and was still able to back up her original assertions. Can Martinez really be blamed for the Internet backlash against her? Could the Internet storm over ALV really cause a mistrial? Thanks.

No, the motion won't be granted if that's your question.

 

[AZlawyer]

OK - Using this question and response as a springboard. it has been suggested on one or two of the threads that once the attorneys approve the jurors' questions, they then review these questions with the witness thus allowing the witness time to prepare a "tailored" response. Is this allowed and/or true?

I was really impressed when I learned that Arizona allows jurors to ask questions (I'm from PA where it is not allowed) but if the witness knows the questions beforehand, the whole process loses some of the spontaneity and veracity of the response.

My experience has been that the judges do not allow the attorneys to review the questions with the witness. When Jodi was on the stand it was different--she has a constitutional right to be involved in everything her attorneys are doing, including reviewing and objecting to jury questions.