Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[LadyEdith]

Q: I have heard that nothing happens in a trial by accident--I am wondering why you think Nurmi chose to have the photo of Travis on the screen today during the entire testimony of the photo expert. It was even up there when they were getting seated iirc.

 

[AZlawyer]

Q: I have heard that nothing happens in a trial by accident--I am wondering why you think Nurmi chose to have the photo of Travis on the screen today during the entire testimony of the photo expert. It was even up there when they were getting seated iirc.

The jury wasn't there, so IMO there was no reason except that it was the only exhibit being discussed today.

 

[AZlawyer]

In your opinion, how much trouble is ALV in considering the comment by JS?

Sounds bad to me. I thought the judge sounded pissed at ALV last week, and her comment confirmed that for me.

I don't know why everyone is saying that ALV was the subject of the closed hearing today--I think the ALV "issue," whatever it is, is scheduled for hearing tomorrow.

 

[Kattrca]

Okay.. Please AZ help us with the stipulation.

 

[CrescentMohn]

Since they stipulated that JA wasn't holding the knife or gun during that picture, which was the reason this person was going to testify does that mean that tomorrow the defense will rest and the rebuttal case will begin?

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay.. Please AZ help us with the stipulation.

Here's what I posted on another thread:

I think the stipulation was a good idea for JM. The jury will not get to see the blown-up eyeball picture at all. So all they know is that everyone agrees there was no gun or knife IN HER HAND at the second she took the photo of Travis's face.

So the jury will say, "OK, that makes sense, I mean she was probably holding the camera with both hands. But now let's look at the NEXT photo, where he's awkwardly scrunched up at the bottom of the shower and his head isn't in the photo. Now in THAT photo I bet she DID have a gun or knife in her hand and that's why this photo looks so accidental and why he's in a position indicating he's shrinking away from a weapon. And obviously the prosecutor believes that's when the gun or knife appeared or why would he only stipulate she didn't have a gun or knife for the PREVIOUS picture...."

In other words, I think the jury will interpret this as the defense trying to get Juan to agree that she had no gun or knife while taking the photos and him saying, "Oh no. I will only agree she didn't have it IN HER HAND until after she took the face photo and before she took the scrunched-up-in-the-bottom-of-the-shower photo."

Since they stipulated that JA wasn't holding the knife or gun during that picture, which was the reason this person was going to testify does that mean that tomorrow the defense will rest and the rebuttal case will begin?

If that was the defense's last witness, yes. If not, no.

 

[DebinGA]

If the hearing re ALV is sealed, leaving the circumstances and the outcome publicly unknown, is her career as an expert witness effectively over?

 

[AZlawyer]

Sounds bad to me. I thought the judge sounded pissed at ALV last week, and her comment confirmed that for me.

I don't know why everyone is saying that ALV was the subject of the closed hearing today--I think the ALV "issue," whatever it is, is scheduled for hearing tomorrow.

ETA: People let me know that the judge actually said at some point today that the closed hearing was about ALV.

If the hearing re ALV is sealed, leaving the circumstances and the outcome publicly unknown, is her career as an expert witness effectively over?

Well...I kind of think it's over anyway.

 

[MsJosie]

AZlawyer

I have often wondered, what provisions does AZ have for defendants that act out, are uncontrollable or could be harmful to themselves or others during the trial?

In some states, a small room with video hook up to the court room, is where the defendant would sit, watch the trial and interact. Sometimes the room is at the jail so no transportation of the defendant is needed if safety is an issue.

Can the trial, in any stage of the process, continue on if the defendant has to be removed because of behavior issues?

Thank you for all you do, answering all the questions and explaining the process and motions to those of us not in the legal field.

 

[trudy]

Do you think the prosecutor agreed to the stipulation to avoid a possible appellate issue since the outline of JA is based on the expert witness's interpretation? The expert stated that the camera was chest high and both JA's arms were raised. When I viewed the picture (based on this testimony), it appeared to me that JA was then holding a reflective object in one of her hands level with her face. They could come to the same conclusion and using the expert's intepretation and not their own.

 

[Arabian Girl]

TIA for all your time and hard work!! I have 2 questions;

1) What was the legal 'doctrine' the judge referred to with Nurmi, basically asking how this new evidence what benefit his client, and

2) Although Nurmi's point is JA didn't have a knife while snapping THAT picture, the expert testified Jodi was standing and holding the camera chest level. JA testified she was kneeling down during at this point because this is when she "drops" the camera. Doesn't this just prove, once again, she's lying??

Thanks again. :jail:

 

[kaRN]

After the guilty verdict but during aggravation and mitigation, will JA get to wear street clothes or her prison uniform?

 

[weeeva]

I have been wondering if it is automatic in the US that JA would have had an assessment done in jail, by a psychiatrist, due to the nature of the crime committed. Why has there been no mention of this? Samuels is a psychologist and La Violette a DV expert, neither of them are qualified psychiatrists.
Is it possible at this stage for the state to bring on a psychiatrist to testify that JA has NO mental illness?
It now seems that her family and friends have considered her to have long standing mental health problems.
Thank you for your help.

 

[nells]

JM and the DT seemed to be tense and the arguments about prosecutorial misconduct seemed to get personal. Is it "normal" for the prosecution and defense to, apparently, dislike each other? Can opposing attorneys become professional "friends" after the trial?

I guess I'm curious about the professional relationships between lawyers after trials are completed and I'm wondering what you think of how the lawyers are treating each other in this case.

 

[atthelake]

Thank you to all the lawyers for taking your time to help us through the trials.

I still do not understand and question why was the family up in a jury box yesterday? they could have seen everything going on from the seats they usually sit in. Especially since it was a hearing, why did they even go up there?

And I would assume that prosecutor was involved in that decision and told them they would be staring directly at his face the whole time? and they actually decided to do that?



Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[teledude]

I have been admonished to come to this legal thread for guidance on my assertion that Jodi cannot be called to testify in Juan's rebuttal case.

It has always been my understanding the state cannot compel a defendant to testify.

They tell me the attorney's in this thread have stated he could call her to the stand in rebuttal.

Does the fact that she chose to testify earlier negate her constitutional rights in this regard?

thanks in advance for any insight

 

[zoozoo]

I have been admonished to come to this legal thread for guidance on my assertion that Jodi cannot be called to testify in Juan's rebuttal case.

It has always been my understanding the state cannot compel a defendant to testify.

They tell me the attorney's in this thread have stated he could call her to the stand in rebuttal.

Does the fact that she chose to testify earlier negate her constitutional rights in this regard?

thanks in advance for any insight

I am not an attorney, but I DID ask here earlier (seems like weeks ago) if the DEFENSE TEAM could recall JA before they rested, and I believe the attorneys here said they could but it would be highly unusual. I do not think the defendant can be called by prosecuting attorney, but that is my lay person's understanding only.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have been admonished to come to this legal thread for guidance on my assertion that Jodi cannot be called to testify in Juan's rebuttal case.

It has always been my understanding the state cannot compel a defendant to testify.

They tell me the attorney's in this thread have stated he could call her to the stand in rebuttal.

Does the fact that she chose to testify earlier negate her constitutional rights in this regard?

thanks in advance for any insight

I am not an attorney, but I DID ask here earlier (seems like weeks ago) if the DEFENSE TEAM could recall JA before they rested, and I believe the attorneys here said they could but it would be highly unusual. I do not think the defendant can be called by prosecuting attorney, but that is my lay person's understanding only.

The state cannot compel the defendant to testify UNLESS the defendant has already chosen to testify.

In AZ, though, there is usually no point in the state calling a witness in rebuttal who was already called and cross-examined in the defense case in chief. This is because cross-examination in AZ is not limited to the scope of direct. So unless you learned something new since the witness got off the stand the first time, normally there's no need to bring the witness back for rebuttal--you can ask your "rebuttal" questions in cross.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you to all the lawyers for taking your time to help us through the trials.

I still do not understand and question why was the family up in a jury box yesterday? they could have seen everything going on from the seats they usually sit in. Especially since it was a hearing, why did they even go up there?

And I would assume that prosecutor was involved in that decision and told them they would be staring directly at his face the whole time? and they actually decided to do that?



Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Apparently the judge or prosecutor or family did not think they could see everything from their usual seats. Or else the defense team did not think JODI could see from HER normal seat, and the judge offered her the chance to sit in the jury box to see--in which case the judge would have offered the same chance to the family.

I'm certain that the family knew the nature of the hearing, yes. But this family seems to be trying to be strong and participate as fully as possible under the victim's rights statutes, even when it causes them pain.

 

[AZlawyer]

JM and the DT seemed to be tense and the arguments about prosecutorial misconduct seemed to get personal. Is it "normal" for the prosecution and defense to, apparently, dislike each other? Can opposing attorneys become professional "friends" after the trial?

I guess I'm curious about the professional relationships between lawyers after trials are completed and I'm wondering what you think of how the lawyers are treating each other in this case.

I answered this a while back. It is my experience that professional relationships between most lawyers on opposing sides are not too bad and sometimes quite good during the case, and can "heal" after the case. It is my experience that defense attorneys in Phoenix truly do personally dislike most of the prosecutors, and in particular, based on posts I'm seeing on my Facebook page, they dislike Juan Martinez.

I don't know if this is normal for criminal lawyers everywhere--this is just my personal experience with my group of friends. Also, I don't know if the prosecutors personally dislike the defense attorneys, because all my criminal lawyer friends seem to be defense attorneys, so I have no one to ask.