Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[SieSie]

She can no longer plead the fifth because she already began to testify regarding the murder, thereby waiving her right to remain silent.

Thanks, gitana! Had I read ALL of the pages first, I would've seen that this was asked and answered on page 4. :doh: Sorry about that and thanks again for answering.

 

[anagrammy]

There has been some chilling speculation that the defense may NOT have to ask her about the details of the murder. Is this possible? Does this ever happen? And finally- is it possible for Arias to claim self-defense and also claim they have no recollection of the murder itself? It would seem that self-defense and don't remember are mutually exclusive, but with justice in America gone awry (CA/OJ)...

 

[minor4th]

There has been some chilling speculation that the defense may NOT have to ask her about the details of the murder. Is this possible? Does this ever happen? And finally- is it possible for Arias to claim self-defense and also claim they have no recollection of the murder itself? It would seem that self-defense and don't remember are mutually exclusive, but with justice in America gone awry (CA/OJ)...

It's not really possible for them not to ask about the murder. Jodi will have to testify about what happened and what her state of mind was at the time.

I don't think she can claim she had no recollection of the murder -- they are mutually exclusive, as you said.

 

[princesspjs]

There has been some chilling speculation that the defense may NOT have to ask her about the details of the murder. Is this possible? Does this ever happen? And finally- is it possible for Arias to claim self-defense and also claim they have no recollection of the murder itself? It would seem that self-defense and don't remember are mutually exclusive, but with justice in America gone awry (CA/OJ)...

I just wanted to thank you for this question...excellent question!!

 

[gitana1]

It's not really possible for them not to ask about the murder. Jodi will have to testify about what happened and what her state of mind was at the time.

I don't think she can claim she had no recollection of the murder -- they are mutually exclusive, as you said.

I just have to strongly agree because this question has come up a few times.

 

[CJae]

On at least 2 times during an objection by the state to defense questioning of JA they have responded with this:

"It's" ( or " This") is not being offered for the "TRUTH OF THE MATTER"?

I am completely confused by this. I believe she had already begun to answer one of the ?'s and I don't know how many times during this direct her attny has answered to objections like that.

Now, if I'm a juror and I'm hearing this I'm going to be very concerned and want to know if it's not being offered for the truth than why is it in fact being offered at all???

(It would also make me wonder about ALL of the testimony and exhibits as well)

Why is anything like this even allowed?

Thank you! This is really bothering me!

 

[AZlawyer]

On at least 2 times during an objection by the state to defense questioning of JA they have responded with this:

"It's" ( or " This") is not being offered for the "TRUTH OF THE MATTER"?

I am completely confused by this. I believe she had already begun to answer one of the ?'s and I don't know how many times during this direct her attny has answered to objections like that.

Now, if I'm a juror and I'm hearing this I'm going to be very concerned and want to know if it's not being offered for the truth than why is it in fact being offered at all???

(It would also make me wonder about ALL of the testimony and exhibits as well)

Why is anything like this even allowed?

Thank you! This is really bothering me!

This has to do with hearsay. Saying what other people told you is OK as long as you are not trying to prove that what they said was TRUE.

So Jodi could say, e.g., "Chris told me that Travis was mad at me" (I just made that one up so don't go looking for it in the threads lol).

If she was trying to prove "the truth of the matter asserted" BY CHRIS--that Travis was ACTUALLY MAD AT HER--then it would be inadmissible hearsay.

But if she was trying to prove that she THOUGHT Travis was mad at her (because that's what Chris said) and therefore did something in response to that thought, it would be OK.

 

[SkiptomyLu]

Is it normal procedure for the lead investigator to attend the trial, as Detective Flores has been doing for it's entirety (so far, that is)?

 

[minor4th]

Is it normal procedure for the lead investigator to attend the trial, as Detective Flores has been doing for it's entirety (so far, that is)?

Apparently in Arizona it's normal. The judge has referred to him as the "Case Agent". I think he's the stand-in client representative of the State of Arizona.

 

[KBisMe]

today we heard about the helio phone and that there were texts and 8 recordings on it (most likely the sex tapes)

can these be brought in if Jodi testifies to lay the foundation?

or would the recording of someone without their permission thing come into play?

tia

BBM

I must have missed hearing that there are 8 recordings!! :what: Does anyone know if we're going to hear more than the one we already heard?

I hope not!! lease:

 

[TartLemon]

I wonder what JA's defense team is telling her abut how the trial is going? So far, they've not been able to reel in her 'inventive' story telling. Even when Nurmi tries to interrupt, she corrects HIM and continues with some vital piece of info he obviously didn't want the jury to be clear on.

So, does her defense team spend these 4 days with her or allow JA to stew and mull and create a new and colorful dialog of 'facts'?

 

[minor4th]

I wonder what JA's defense team is telling her abut how the trial is going? So far, they've not been able to reel in her 'inventive' story telling. Even when Nurmi tries to interrupt, she corrects HIM and continues with some vital piece of info he obviously didn't want the jury to be clear on.

So, does her defense team spend these 4 days with her or allow JA to stew and mull and create a new and colorful dialog of 'facts'?

I believe they are largely leaving the narrative to Jodi to come up with. I get the impression that Nurmi has the basic outline of specific events that he intends to ask about, but Jodi comes up with a lot of detail on the spot.

I do not think her lawyers have very good control of her, and I do not think her attorneys believe much of what she is testifying about -- this is why they ask open ended questions and just let her respond in narrative fashion. In this way they can avoid eliciting specific testimony that they know or believe is false.

 

[L84tea]

Can they show Travis's account to see if he was "needing" money from JA or not? I was rewatching some of the trial and the part where they show her checks that she has written Travis, certainly they can prove that isn't true? I also wonder if this wasn't really for a portion of her trips and such?

 

[Zeno49]

It's not really possible for them not to ask about the murder. Jodi will have to testify about what happened and what her state of mind was at the time.

I don't think she can claim she had no recollection of the murder -- they are mutually exclusive, as you said.

But it seems to me that JA when pressed about extreme detail and time passage regarding the homicide, her answers might turn vague. I assume JA will claim she was either just coming into consciousness (after having been knocked out) or was in an extreme state of shock during and after the homicide which is kind of the equivalent of "I did it but I don't remember much about it"

 

[minor4th]

But it seems to me that JA when pressed about extreme detail and time passage regarding the homicide, her answers might turn vague. I assume JA will claim she was either just coming into consciousness (after having been knocked out) or was in an extreme state of shock during and after the homicide which is kind of the equivalent of "I did it but I don't remember much about it"

Not if she wants anyone to believe it was self defense. She's going to have to describe exactly what happened.

 

[gitana1]

Can they show Travis's account to see if he was "needing" money from JA or not? I was rewatching some of the trial and the part where they show her checks that she has written Travis, certainly they can prove that isn't true? I also wonder if this wasn't really for a portion of her trips and such?

Yes. They can.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

They knew that eventually, the whole thing would be played. You can't offer part of evidence without the other side being able to offer the rest if the evidence that provides context. But instead of playing a snip and then forcing the prosecution to play the whole thing during rebuttal, which would make it look like the defense was hiding something and playing games, the defense played the whole thing.

My feeling is either Jodi insisted on this evidence being offered against advice of counsel or the defense is just grasping at straws because their case is so very thin.

I thought they were convincing people until they introduced the tape, though. One other possibility: perhaps the prosecution intended to introducd it in rebuttal to prove what we heard- that Jodi was a willing participant. So they felt they had to present it first to frame it differently. If so, it didn't work.

You may have just answered my question about the texts they read today.
Can Juan question about the rest of the partial texts Jodi read today?
Why were only SOME admitted, others only referred to to refresh memory?
Which texts and e-mails can Juan question her on ultimately - new ones, too?


I LOVE THIS THREAD. THANKS TO ALL THE ATTORNEYS!!!

 

[JusticeJunkie]

In cross examination, they cannot go outside the scope of what is asked in direct. However, I guarantee that they are going to discuss the murder.[/Q

Now I'm worried Juan can only ask about the part of the text Nurmi brought up????
Is that correct?

 

[gitana1]

In cross examination, they cannot go outside the scope of what is asked in direct. However, I guarantee that they are going to discuss the murder.[/Q

Now I'm worried Juan can only ask about the part of the text Nurmi brought up????
Is that correct?

No. Don't worry.

 

[Gummishoe]

Why won't they allow the Tire slashing in the questioning? Can they use another term like destroying the tires?