Could the matter with ALV have something to do with the $$ that she has billed to the state. She did mention on the stand twice that she visited JA while she was in town for her daughter's wedding. Did she bill the state for those travel expenses?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can prep a witness as far as demeanor and preparing them for cross. You just can't tell them what to say. You can let them know that their phrasing or tone could be interpreted in a way they don't want.
I will practice questions with mine - cross them do they know what it will be like. I tell them exactly how to dress and how to not get frazzled or defensive. Someone should have done that more with Laviolette.
Could the matter with ALV have something to do with the $$ that she has billed to the state. She did mention on the stand twice that she visited JA while she was in town for her daughter's wedding. Did she bill the state for those travel expenses?
I posted on the general questions thread and got no response, so I'm moving my question here because I really want to know. I hope you all can help me. First of all, I should make it clear that I believe JA is guilty of 1st degree felony murder and I believe the State has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt (yes, I have formed my opinion without hearing all the evidence). Here's my question:
When did the "battered woman" (self defense) defense first appear in this case? On 4/11/13, during her time on the stand answering juror questions, ALV stated that when she first met her JA spoke very positively about Travis and "didn't want to think of herself" as a battered woman. I believe ALV first met JA in November 2011. I just can't form a complete understanding about where the battered woman defense came from in this case. Can anybody answer that for me?
As a follow up, my understanding of cases in which the battered woman defense has been successful involved horrific on-going abuse in relationships that is more in line with the classic dominating abuser who has succeeded in isolating his partner and working over time to make the woman completely dependent on him. The women in such situations kill out of desperation and fear for their lives. This is clearly not the case here so it seems to me that the battered woman defense, even if the incidents of violence that JA now reports did occur, is not applicable. The defense hasn't put forth evidence to support total domination by Travis and JA being or feeling trapped in the relationship. The only testimony that JA feared for her life was JA's own and there are clearly secondary gains associated with her saying so (not to mention that she drove 1000 miles, and worked diligently to cover her tracks before and after, to put herself in that "life threatening" situation). Have I missed other testimony that supports those claims? TIA for any feedback.
Where do I ask a general question about the trial?I have a couple of questions...
IF the prosecution receives new evidence in this case.. can he (if the judge allows it) come off of the rest and continue?
I see where they are listening to something in the judges chambers. Would it be just the attorneys and judge present listening or would Jodi be allowed in there to listen to it as well?
I hope I get this answer before court resumes. Thanks in advance!!
I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.
In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.
All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.
(...snipped for space)
In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.
All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.
I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.
In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.
All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.
I believe the self-defense story came out in Oct. 2011 or so when Nurmi and/or Samuels convinced JA that the Ninja story was not gonna fly with...well...anyone possessing a brain. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.
In AZ, if you have suffered DV from the victim, the reasonableness of your decision to use deadly force is judged from the standpoint of someone else who has suffered that kind of DV, rather from the standpoint of a "reasonable person." So IMO as soon as the defense team heard the self-defense theory, they figured they'd better try to find some DV to give Jodi a better shot at an acquittal.
All-encompassing, controlling DV is not required to trigger this different standard. But, on the other hand, the standard is only altered to adjust to the point of view of someone who has suffered whatever level of DV the defendant has suffered. So if Jodi suffered some especially mean text messages but nothing else (which IMO might actually qualify as DV under our possibly unconstitutional statutes), the question would be how another person who had suffered such text messages would have reacted to whatever Travis supposedly did to Jodi on June 4, 2008.