Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[PPKik]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhic
Why didn't the prosecution explore the possibility that JA is a psychopath and have her tested for that?

The MMPI, which Dr. Demarte used, is not directed to one diagnosis. It is a diagnostic exam that tests a person and helps determines what the diagnosis in. The state expert just went in open minded and tried to figure out if jodi has a disorder. She found it was borderline. She didn't say anything about finding markers for antisocial personality disorder, which is as close to psychopath or sociopath as the DSM gets.

Do you know if Dr.DeMarte could have used other tests to determine whether JA has markers for antisocial personality disorder?
Was she limited to certain tests that may not have been designed specifically to asses this disorder?

Dr. Hare's PCL-R is designed to asses psychopathy. Is that test not used forensically because the DSM-IV categories do not include psychopathy per se?

Diagnosing JA with only BPD and not ASPD seemed to leave open the possibility of mitigating JA's murderous rampage, if a juror may not understand that BPD alone does not make a remorseless killer.

Thank you in advance. Hopefully you can explain this better than I understand it, especially after just listening to the juror questions.

 

[Midnight Meddler]

:seeya: Just a quick question -

Do the lawyers know the occupations of the juror's?

Thanks for your hard work :heartbeat:

 

[neesaki]

I just finished watching the rest of the juror questions of Dr. D. and was a little surprised there were so few, especially compared to those that were asked of ALV and RS... hoping that is a good sign.
I don't suppose that Juan has another DV expert lined up, if Dr. D. had any points that could be misconstrued as weak I think that would be the one. I would love to see him have that woman who wrote the book on battered woman syndrome testify as to the fact that she does in fact still use those six criteria. NG had her on the other night and this was confirmed. So JW either didn't know what she's talking about, or she was just purposely trying to confuse and mislead the jury.

 

[gitana1]

Originally Posted by TXProfessional
For anyone interested in JA MMPI-2 "elevated" scores on the 10 Clinical scales. She was elevated on 7 of the 10 clinical scales.

I was most interested in the one she was the most elevated on and thought you might be too. Her T-score on the Psychopathic Deviate scale was a 105 (highest of all of her elevated scores)



BBM

Apparently this information is deemed too prejudicial to have been brought out in this trial (although why I still don't understand LOL).

Can this information be presented to the jury during the penalty phase of this trial?

This is misleading. The scale represents raw data only. Those are general terms that don't necessarily mean what they say. jodi's score on that scale is indicative of a personality disorder. The doctor determined it was borderline. If she had determined it was antisocial personality disorder she would have been able to say so: http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/mmpi_2.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nhic
Why didn't the prosecution explore the possibility that JA is a psychopath and have her tested for that?

The MMPI, which Dr. Demarte used, is not directed to one diagnosis. It is a diagnostic exam that tests a person and helps determines what the diagnosis in. The state expert just went in open minded and tried to figure out if jodi has a disorder. She found it was borderline. She didn't say anything about finding markers for antisocial personality disorder, which is as close to psychopath or sociopath as the DSM gets.

Do you know if Dr.DeMarte could have used other tests to determine whether JA has markers for antisocial personality disorder?
Was she limited to certain tests that may not have been designed specifically to asses this disorder?

Dr. Hare's PCL-R is designed to asses psychopathy. Is that test not used forensically because the DSM-IV categories do not include psychopathy per se?

Diagnosing JA with only BPD and not ASPD seemed to leave open the possibility of mitigating JA's murderous rampage, if a juror may not understand that BPD alone does not make a remorseless killer.

Thank you in advance. Hopefully you can explain this better than I understand it, especially after just listening to the juror questions.

The mmpii does test for psychopathic traits but the diagnosis would be antisocial personality disorder, not psychopathology or sociopathology. That's because there is no such diagnosis in the dsm.

For he same reason, Dr. Demarte would not have conducted Hare's test or any other that tests primarily for psychopathology or sociopathology because those are not actual diagnoses in the DSM.

 

[gitana1]

:seeya: Just a quick question -

Do the lawyers know the occupations of the juror's?

Thanks for your hard work :heartbeat:

They do.

 

[AZlawyer]

i know they write notes for cross, but during redirect, JW was still writing notes furiously and she wasn't asking more questions. why does she do that?

have you ever seen a judge allow so many sidebars? she doesn't even make them voice an objection first. they ask, they get it. what's up with that and do you approve of it?

JW could be making notes for potential closing argument issues.

I have never seen so many sidebars, and I think the judge should make the attorneys voice their objections first.

Is it too late for JM to question the following people?
JA's Aunty
JA's younger sister
MM

No, assuming they know something that would rebut what was presented during the defense case.

Originally Posted by TXProfessional
For anyone interested in JA MMPI-2 "elevated" scores on the 10 Clinical scales. She was elevated on 7 of the 10 clinical scales.

I was most interested in the one she was the most elevated on and thought you might be too. Her T-score on the Psychopathic Deviate scale was a 105 (highest of all of her elevated scores)



BBM

Apparently this information is deemed too prejudicial to have been brought out in this trial (although why I still don't understand LOL).

Can this information be presented to the jury during the penalty phase of this trial?

To add to what gitana said, IMO the biggest problem with presenting the PD scale in this case would be that the PD scale is typically elevated when the person being tested is fighting criminal charges (because it measures, inter alia, conflict with authority), with the elevation being higher for more serious charges. So if you're on trial for your life, this scale will probably be quite high even if you would not have tested high on the scale in your pre-arrest condition.

I happen to think she would have tested pretty high anyway, but there's no way to know that.

 

[Miss Chevious]

Originally Posted by Kel2000 View Post
Someone brought up as a comment on YouTube the fact that Jodi's finger was allegedly "broken" 2-3 days(?) before her "nothing to report" journal entry. Given that Jodi used home spun remedies to heal her finger one could assume that it would be at least physically difficult for her to write that entry and a) people who truly have a broken finger and no pain meds for it probably wouldn't want to write as it would be painful or b) their writing would be significantly altered if they did.

Barring JM's ability to prove this, could he have alluded to it in his questioning with Jodi as an aside like "here it says 'nothing to report' yet you wrote this with the hand with the broken finger for which you sought no medical attention?" or would he need a good faith basis to do so?

Yes, he could have asked that, and he would have had a good faith basis, because she had testified that her finger was broken at the time.

I seem to remember this type of question being asked during JA's cross. She replied "I'm ambidextrous."

 

[neesaki]

Is there a chance that Juan will call for rebuttal, the male friend of Travis' that stated Travis had told him not to be surprised if he ended up dead at the hands of JA, something like that. Sorry if this has already been asked. TIA :wave:

 

[NanaBeck]

First I want to say this is the best place to discuss the trail w/o all chatter & very educational. Thanks do much for all you guys do!!! :yourock: I have two questions & I will make them as brief as possible. lol

One of Jodi's previous lawyers Victoria E Washington's presented a written request to the court to leave the case & the request was approved & she was released from the case. In the letter she stated the request was due to a conflict of interest as she was already representing an individual involved in this case (at least that's how I read it). The letter went on to say that it could be preceived by either party that she was unable to be partial yaddi, yaddi, ya. lol
I was not aware that there is someone else (or maybe Jodi's "alter ego") who had a connection to either the case or Jodi herself, do you know what this is all about and who it involved?

This is 2-parter,& I'm not sure if I'm gonna use the correct verbage but I'll try.

1. Will the docs/items/pics/recordings/videos that have been "entered into evidence" (refer to the evidence both parties agreed on & the judge allowed during precedings) for trial be public or is it already?
2. The "evidence, docs/items/pics/recordings/videos that have been denied or aren't used during trial ever public?


I look forward to your reply. Hope you're enjoying your Sat!

Nanabeck

 

[geevee]

How does discovery work as far as rebuttal goes? Since JM can't anticipate what he will need to rebut anything in specific before trial, can he enter new items of evidence the defense hasn't seen if it's for rebuttal purposes?

Thanks so much, and apologies if this has been addressed already.

 

[gitana1]

Is there a chance that Juan will call for rebuttal, the male friend of Travis' that stated Travis had told him not to be surprised if he ended up dead at the hands of JA, something like that. Sorry if this has already been asked. TIA :wave:

Yes. I don't know if the court would allow such testimony though. It would probably be ruled to be hearsay. I hope it gets in somehow though. Other hearsay statements of Travis' came in as they were not offered "for the truth of the matter asserted" but were instead offered because the experts used them to form an opinion, for example.

First I want to say this is the best place to discuss the trail w/o all chatter & very educational. Thanks do much for all you guys do!!! :yourock: I have two questions & I will make them as brief as possible. lol

One of Jodi's previous lawyers Victoria E Washington's presented a written request to the court to leave the case & the request was approved & she was released from the case. In the letter she stated the request was due to a conflict of interest as she was already representing an individual involved in this case (at least that's how I read it). The letter went on to say that it could be preceived by either party that she was unable to be partial yaddi, yaddi, ya. lol
I was not aware that there is someone else (or maybe Jodi's "alter ego") who had a connection to either the case or Jodi herself, do you know what this is all about and who it involved?

This is 2-parter,& I'm not sure if I'm gonna use the correct verbage but I'll try.

1. Will the docs/items/pics/recordings/videos that have been "entered into evidence" (refer to the evidence both parties agreed on & the judge allowed during precedings) for trial be public or is it already?
2. The "evidence, docs/items/pics/recordings/videos that have been denied or aren't used during trial ever public?


I look forward to your reply. Hope you're enjoying your Sat!

Nanabeck

It could be anyone connected to Jodi or Travis. It I don't know who.

Evidence admitted becomes part of the public record. Evidence not admitted might not ever be seen.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry, I should have asked my questions here.

How obligated is the defense to make sure the truth is told in court? There are some things we know she lied about that are subjective. But some things can be proven to be lies. Would not the defense be obligated to not put forth anything that is an outright lie?? Like the gas in that she filled up with in Utah. The other record of the another purchase for gas. The one JM found.. Is that just sloppy work?? Because they never thought to verify it?? They were completely shocked by the receipt in court.

 

[garthmax]

This goes back to when JA was on the stand and JM brought out the magazine she had sent coded messages in to someone. Didn't the defense know about this magazine? and why did they appear so surprised that the coded messages where in the magazine? or did JM just have to produce the magazine to the defense and not them them why?

 

[RitzBitz]

Hi Lawyers! Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us! Here is my question:
WHEN Jodi is convicted of 1st degree, is it true that if she gets death that it is an automatic appeal and that the cost for the appeal and new lawyers is on the tax payers? If she were to get LWOP would she then have to file for appeal and who pays for that and her attorneys?

 

[gitana1]

I still mostly lurk :lurk:
I'm sorry if I missed out on earlier discussions that answer my question. I can't keep up! Was there an earlier motion to suppress this information (elevation on the Psychopathic Deviate scale) or was there an objection at some point during the testimony that suppresses it?
On a second, separate point, when did the missing (stolen) ring first come up? Before yesterday the only talk I had "heard" about it seemed like speculation. What did I miss there?
TIA

This information is simply raw data used by Dr. Demarte to diagnose arias. I am not aware that there was a motion to suppress the doctors findings or to object to her expertise. It's unimportant because her opinion came in and since the defense discussed it, so does the raw data she used.

The ring came up during testimony Thursday about why Demarte found Jodi to have abandonment issues.

 

[beach]

Mod Note:

This is a NO DISCUSSION thread. ONLY verified lawyers need to be commenting and answering questions.

Ask a legal question and wait for a verified attorney to respond.

The verified attorneys donate their expertise and time selflessly here. We are very fortunate to have them help us and are grateful they volunteer. They shouldn't have to wade through discussion posts to locate the legal questions.

Thanks

:bump:

 

[gitana1]

Minor - this is one if the things I find so incredibly frustrating about our justice system. If we're going to trust the jury system with people's lives and freedom, why can't we trust them enough to have all of the available facts before them?

It's not a matter if trust. It's a matter of admissibility. If we let in hearsay or anything without laying a foubdation for it, then any rumor someone heard could be used as evidence, with no way of determining whether the source of the info is valid and it would be even easier to make stuff up.

Sorry, I should have asked my questions here.

How obligated is the defense to make sure the truth is told in court? There are some things we know she lied about that are subjective. But some things can be proven to be lies. Would not the defense be obligated to not put forth anything that is an outright lie?? Like the gas in that she filled up with in Utah. The other record of the another purchase for gas. The one JM found.. Is that just sloppy work?? Because they never thought to verify it?? They were completely shocked by the receipt in court.

The defense is not obligated to make sure the truth is told at all. However, the lawyers cannot ask a question if they know the answer is going to be a lie. With the gas, it was actually bank records that proved Jodi filled up a third can and the defense team may have missed that entry.

But I don't remember them asking Jodi specifically if she only filled up two cans and they can ask: "then what happened?", without asking a more direct question, if they know she is going to lie, without getting in trouble.

ETA: Here's a comprehensive article on the subject: http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/19/the-ethics-of-letting-a-lying-defendant-testify/

This goes back to when JA was on the stand and JM brought out the magazine she had sent coded messages in to someone. Didn't the defense know about this magazine? and why did they appear so surprised that the coded messages where in the magazine? or did JM just have to produce the magazine to the defense and not them them why?

They did look surprised. They knew about the magazines and that the state intended to use them but they may not have known how or that there was small handwriting in the seams. That would be easy to miss.

 

[Sign]

What process is used to determine the 'final' 12 jurors from the remaining 16 potentials, (assuming there are still 16 at deliberation)? Does either the State or DT have ANY involvement in this process, and if so, can you describe it? e.g. can there be any further interviews or dialogue between the lawyers from either side and the jurors, specific to the decision of deciding the final 12, or eliminating eliminating any at that stage?

Thank you very much, and I apologize if this question has been asked previously, but I have searched and not found it.

 

[minor4th]

Minor - this is one if the things I find so incredibly frustrating about our justice system. If we're going to trust the jury system with people's lives and freedom, why can't we trust them enough to have all of the available facts before them?

That's a loaded question and there are no simple answers. The rules of evidence have developed over hundreds of years and are designed to produce a fair result to both sides. The rules are meant to ensure that a jury's decision is based on evidence that actually relates to the crime and is not influenced by emotion and outrage over information that is tangential to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The stalking info is inflammatory and overly prejudicial and should be kept out IMO. At this point, the stalking info is merely speculation, and so it should not be used against Jodi.

 

[gauntlet]

I hope you are all on overtime this weekend but also that you had a break!

The JA docket currently shows 4/22/2013 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 4/22/2013 under Case Documents but nothing under Court Calendar. A juror had requested a day off tomorrow. There's no filings mentioned before Case Documents and so I was wondering if it's possible the Counsel could be meeting to discuss any outside motions/ issues or even just a continuation of what was discussed on Friday?