Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

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.

I think Samuels said she saw a psychiatrist--but that would have been for medical treatment, not for an "assessment" to be used at trial.

The state IMO cannot bring in evidence that Jodi has no mental illness, because that information would not tend to prove that she killed Travis intentionally (or anything else relevant in the case).

Also, I'm not sure any psychiatrist would conclude that Jodi has NO mental illness. IMO that is pretty unlikely.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

I don't think anything will change.

 

[AZlawyer]

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:

1) I didn't get to watch the video. In the tweets I was following, I didn't see any legal doctrines mentioned. I did see mention of Rule 702, which is just the rule about what kind of expert testimony is allowed.

2) Are you sure she said she dropped the camera while taking the picture of Travis's face? I don't remember that.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

No. I think the prosecutor agreed to the stipulation to avoid having the jury exposed to this whackadoodle testimony and spending hours in deliberations looking for chihuahuas in the eye reflection. There would be no appellate issue as the defense was fighting for the evidence to come in.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

I believe they do have a room like that, yes. And one way or another, they would definitely find a way to continue the trial.

 

[trudy]

These questions may have been asked before...

Since JA testified would it be more difficult for her to win an appeal?

Could her previous testimony be used against her in a second trial if she did win an appeal?

Would the prosecutor have been limited in entering JA and Travis's text messages, IM's and journals into evidence if she had not testified?

Can the prosecutor enter more of these items during rebutal because she testified?

 

[trudy]

Can the prosecutor show more footage of the 48 hour video to include the all of the Hughes' statements since ALV said she based her opinion on these statements to determine JA was a victim and Travis the perpertrator or would he need to call them as witnesses?

I recall them making statements that they told Travis not to bring JA around because they did not want her around their children.

 

[Miss Chevious]

Does the defense get to cross examine rebuttal testimony?

 

[SyraKelly]

This has probably been asked and answered,but I can not find it..so please forgive me

I read that Arizona does not let the defense have a sur-rebuttal,meaning they do not allow the defense to put witnesses on to refute Juan's rebuttal witnesses..is this true.Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

These questions may have been asked before...

Since JA testified would it be more difficult for her to win an appeal?

Could her previous testimony be used against her in a second trial if she did win an appeal?

Would the prosecutor have been limited in entering JA and Travis's text messages, IM's and journals into evidence if she had not testified?

Can the prosecutor enter more of these items during rebutal because she testified?

Her testifying shouldn't have any impact on any appeal issues that I can think of. E.g., if the court of appeals thinks the judge should have granted one of the mistrial motions, they won't say, "Oh, but Jodi testified, so it's OK."

Yes, her previous testimony could be used against her in a second trial.

I'm not sure the prosecutor particularly tried to get any of the texts, IMs or journals into evidence. But I could be wrong about that.

If Jodi hadn't testified, then many of the texts, IMs and journals would have been irrelevant, I suppose, and therefore not admitted. But insofar as they were relevant, JM would have been able to get them in (if he wanted to). Statements of the defendant are not hearsay.

JM can enter more of these items in rebuttal only if they are relevant to rebut something presented by the defense. Again, it doesn't much matter whether or not Jodi testified, except that her testimony raised issues that would not otherwise have been raised (like self-defense and domestic violence).

Can the prosecutor show more footage of the 48 hour video to include the all of the Hughes' statements since ALV said she based her opinion on these statements to determine JA was a victim and Travis the perpertrator or would he need to call them as witnesses?

I recall them making statements that they told Travis not to bring JA around because they did not want her around their children.

There would be potential hearsay issues--but I can't imagine statements like "we didn't want her near our children" would be allowed into evidence anyway. Sounds irrelevant to me.

Does the defense get to cross examine rebuttal testimony?

Yes.

This has probably been asked and answered,but I can not find it..so please forgive me

I read that Arizona does not let the defense have a sur-rebuttal,meaning they do not allow the defense to put witnesses on to refute Juan's rebuttal witnesses..is this true.Thanks

I don't think anywhere in the country has a sur-rebuttal as a regular phase of trial. However, if something new comes up in rebuttal (which it shouldn't but sometimes does anyway), then a sur-rebuttal will be allowed on the new issue(s).

 

[trudy]

Can the State of Arizona penalize an attorney or expert witness if it is shown they dragged out a case\trial\evaluation for personal gain. Can they ban them from receiving assigned counsel cases in the future? I am sure here in Ohio that assigned counsel fees are capped even in death penalty cases. How does AZ protect taxpayers money from those who abuse the system?

 

[minor4th]

Can the State of Arizona penalize an attorney or expert witness if it is shown they dragged out a case\trial\evaluation for personal gain. Can they ban them from receiving assigned counsel cases in the future? I am sure here in Ohio that assigned counsel fees are capped even in death penalty cases. How does AZ protect taxpayers money from those who abuse the system?

No. Not from anything like we've seen in this case. An attorney is expected to be a zealous advocate and present any and all evidence to support their client's position.

You can't cap fees because then no attorney would ever agree to court appointments.

This case is not going to bust the Maricopa County budget.

 

[katiewonders]

My apology if this question has been asked/answered: is there a list of rebuttal witnesses somewhere? Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

My apology if this question has been asked/answered: is there a list of rebuttal witnesses somewhere? Thanks.

Yes, it's filed in the clerk's office. But I'm too busy to go down and order a copy.

 

[cosmos]

If the jury is the sole trier of fact, how can there be a stipulation that they must regard something as a fact without seeing the evidence? How common is this? It was my belief that inadmissible evidence is simply not admitted, but this has me pretty confused.

 

[TexMex]

Do we know if Jodi was under a court order to cooperate with the States psychologist?
Could her lawyers have prevented her being interviewed and tested?
TIA

 

[Chester_from_THM]

If the jury is the sole trier of fact, how can there be a stipulation that they must regard something as a fact without seeing the evidence? How common is this? It was my belief that inadmissible evidence is simply not admitted, but this has me pretty confused.

They do have the photo, cosmos. It is already in evidence. It is just that the blown up one is not in evidence.

So IMO, this was really no help to the defense, and Juan agreed to the stipulation because he knew it would be of no consequence ultimately to the jury.

 

[gauntlet]

Hypothetically speaking if the following is listed on a docket, could that mean a witness may have had more than a knuckle rap? Or does it mean something completely different?

"4/16/2013 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/16/2013
NOTE: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF SENTENCING PHASE WITNESS"

Thank you all

 

[AZlawyer]

Hypothetically speaking if the following is listed on a docket, could that mean a witness may have had more than a knuckle rap? Or does it mean something completely different?

"4/16/2013 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/16/2013
NOTE: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF SENTENCING PHASE WITNESS"

Thank you all

No, it has nothing to do with that at all. It just means that a witness has been added to the list for the sentencing phase (which will come after the guilt phase if Jodi is found guilty).

 

[AZlawyer]

Do we know if Jodi was under a court order to cooperate with the States psychologist?
Could her lawyers have prevented her being interviewed and tested?
TIA

JA raised her mental condition as an issue in the case, so she would have been ordered to cooperate.