I have several questions, starting with one addressed here. I've heard the THs say the importance of ALV to the DT is to get some instruction to the jury about using the viewpoint of a person who suffered from DV. Can you explain more or less what that means? For example, what if the jury feels ALV did not prove DV or that her testimony is so tainted that they just discard all of it? That DV instruction must be conditional on believing there WAS DV right?
I saw an earlier comment about "heat of passion" = manslaughter. I thought the idea in general, breaking it into 3 broad categories, was:
* Murder 1 = premeditated
* Murder 2 = intentional but not premeditated
* Manslaughter = unintentional
If that's the case, heat of passion could be Murder 2 or manslaughter couldn't it? What else could be murder 2?
Related to that, has there been any evidence presented that would fall under murder 2? If not, then does it have to be included as a lesser offense in the jury instructions or can the judge skip over it (not that she would)? I'd think KN wants it in as a compromise the jury might take while JM would want it all or nothing to avoid that possibility. If she's going to be out in a few years under Murder 2, the jury might as well find her NG or guilty of manslaughter it seems to me.
Lastly, it drives me crazy how the DT (esp JW) comments on every objection. IANAL obviously, but isn't that highly disrespectful to the judge? It seems to me it's saying, "You're too stupid to rule on the objection on your own, so let me help you out." That makes me crazy more than the speaking objections do. Is it normal for a judge to put up with this from either side?
Thanks much in advance.
Yes, the importance of the DV testimony is to get an instruction that, if the jury finds that she has suffered DV at the hands of Travis, her decision to use deadly force must be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable person who has suffered those acts.
The jury can definitely reject the evidence of DV--if they do, they will not use that instruction.
------------------------------------
AZ second-degree murder includes recklessly engaging in conduct creating a grave risk of death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. Suppose the jury believes Jodi that the gunshot was first, and that she had no intention of shooting Travis but only intended to point the gun at him...not knowing whether or not it was loaded...and with her finger apparently on the trigger...and then the gun "went off"? The ME said that the gunshot alone would have ended his life, so I think the judge could give a 2nd-degree instruction based on Jodi's story. 2nd degree murder followed by crazy excessive overkill.
So the judge told ALV to be back Tuesday because she is under subpoena and still has testimony to give. Beth K said it sounds like this will happen in front of the jury. But the judge never said that and it sounds like LV is done. What is your opinions? Does this sound like something else?
Also, is the fact that the DT hasnt rested yet indicative of them having another witness or are they waiting for these hearings to be done before they do? I keep hearing they have Grace Wong still but she's testifying in the hearing so...I'm confused lol, and really ready for rebuttal. TIA!!!!
I think Beth was jumping to conclusions. To me it sounds like something else, and maybe something not in front of the jury.
Grace Wong will not be testifying in the defense case--she'll be testifying in a mistrial hearing, which is interrupting the defense case.
I'm not sure, in the chaos of the end of the session Friday, whether the defense just forgot to rest (which would be no big deal as they could just do it Monday) or they still have other witnesses. There's no way to tell for sure.
Also, I'm not 100% sure that ALV was really finished with her testimony. I remember the judge read that one "stray" jury question at the end--did she ever ask JM or JW if they had any follow-up on that? :waitasec:
You may have answered my first question above in a comment earlier this evening, so let me twist it a little bit so I can be sure I understand. Is the whole idea of getting DV in that it can be used to help explain 'overkill', or merely that it can help back up the self defense claim?
I did think of one more I wanted to add. It seems JM's objections are all the same tone. Usually his speaking objections are limited to adding an explanation that helps the DT fix the issue, like pointing out a certain word that makes the question improper. That makes it easy for the DT to reword the question in many cases.
JW is the opposite. Many times her objections are almost shrill as opposed to 'normal' objections. Does this tend to telegraph to the jury when she is more shrill or loud that they should perk up, because something REALLY damaging is on the way? And does it also risk having the jury hold it against JA to some extent even if the objection is sustained? "Ooh there's some really bad stuff she managed to hide from us." Obviously jurors are NOT supposed to think like that, but they ARE human beings.
KN seems to be somewhere between the two. Sometimes he gets a little whiny in his speaking objections, e.g. "Asked and answered about three times already." But he doesn't seem to telegraph his like JW does hers.
The DV issue goes straight to the self-defense claim. Self-defense is easier to prove if the defendant is a DV victim, because sometimes a reasonable DV victim "overreacts" due to his/her knowledge that the aggressor is more dangerous than she/he might appear in that moment to a person who hasn't seen what she/he does. Here's the thing, though...Jodi never said that she thought he was going to kill her and so she shot him. She said she thought he was mad and so she pointed a gun at him that she thought was unloaded in hopes of making him "stop"--and then she
accidentally shot him, AFTER which he got really mad and she thought he was going to kill her, and then she went into a fog and has no recollection of deciding anything else. I'm totally confused on how this is self-defense, with or without the DV argument.
I agree that JW is objecting in a way that suggests to the jury that she is desperate to hide damaging information. Asking to approach the bench too often has the same effect. In fact, I think this is one reason that JM doesn't object to every little thing. He wants to appear more open than the defense (and also wants to appear more able to handle the witnesses without help from the judge).