Is it true that the judge decides if the defense gets to have a surrebuttal? I heard that Nurmi filed requesting one this weekend? I read above where you said that it would be if something came up that couldn't be handled in cross, (ie., the ring), but I think that the defense could very well have asked Dr. D about that at the time couldn't she?
The only thing I would think they would want to surrebutt is the diagnosis Dr. D gave because it totally ruled out the PTSD and I think they really need that to save her life. What do you think? Thanks for answering and your hard work!
Yes, the judge decides. Re: the ring, the defense could not have dealt with the issue with Dr. DeM, because she didn't know anything about it except whatever she was told. So if the defense really had some evidence favorable to Jodi in that regard (which they don't IMO), they would need some other witness for that.
I think the request for surrebuttal is to rebut the diagnosis of BPD, yes.
I have a question for the lawyers about the jury instructions. What are these and why would these come from the Defense? Wouldn't these come from The State who issued the charges or the Judge?
Jury instructions are given by the judge. Both the State and the defense suggest jury instructions to the judge, and they argue which instructions are appropriate under the applicable law.
Since the surrebuttal is an expert witness to refute Dr. deMarte's testimony of BPD, can the judge allow the surrebuttal but deny the new witness? (i just read on the main thread the name of the Psychologist that the defense is asking to bring in to refute Dr. deMarte's testimony.)
If she allows another expert, this case could go on for months!
If the judge allows surrebuttal on the issue of BPD, she could limit the defense to their current psych witness (Dr. S), unless for some reason he doesn't have the qualifications to address that diagnosis--I can't recall what his qualifications were.
On a related note to several questions above but with a twist.... I believe DeMarte provided a report to both parties prior to trial. If in that report she stated that she believed JA had BPD, then wouldn't the defense have needed to address that with their original experts? "And why in your expert opinion is this not some other disorder, such as BPD for example?" This is certainly not a surprise if they knew this was her finding. If her report did not include that then maybe it's a different story.
It is not an issue of surprise. But yes, I think the defense could have addressed it with Dr. Samuels.
I apologize if this has already been asked and answered :floorlaugh: but what is the difference between Self-Defense and Heat of the Moment (or whatever it is)?
I was thinking maybe they could bring up this new defense because of something that one of the witnesses, such as Dr. DeMarte, said. But they seem mutually exclusive to me.
The difference is that one is a defense and the other is not.
The heat of passion argument is NOT a new defense. The defense team is just requesting that, IN THE EVENT THAT THE JURY DISBELIEVES SELF-DEFENSE, they be allowed to consider whether the killing was manslaughter rather than murder. IMO the judge will have to give the jury the manslaughter instruction. She is required to give instructions on lesser included offenses if they make any sense whatsoever, and here, if the jury believes Jodi's story, really what she described was a lot closer to manslaughter than self-defense. Her story was that Travis assaulted her, she pointed what she thought was an unloaded gun at him, the gun accidentally discharged, and they then fought in a fog until he was dead.
At this late stage in the trial, how is it the defense can request to put a new witness on the stand, considering this case has been all over the international media? Unless that new witness lives in a cave on Mars, the odds of him not seeing any media coverage are slim to none and slim left town months ago. TIA
There is no requirement that the witnesses not have seen anything about the case.
This is crazy. The DT, realizing their two experts failed miserably are trying to bring in an 11th hour expert for a do-over under the guise of surrebuttal. What do you think? Will the judge allow this? At some point doesn't the judge have to put her foot down and say enough? They've had two experts and two chances to cross Demarte. How could they possibly get a surrebuttal? I see Juan has objected to it. Do you think she will sustain it?
I think she might tell them that they can bring Dr. S back to explain why she doesn't have BPD. But IMO if Dr. S is just going to say that she has a personality disorder "not otherwise specified," there isn't much point in doing that.
Doesn't the DT have to get prior approval for funds required to pay an expert witness, since the defendant is indigent?
If so, how could they "hire" an expert witness without the surrebuttal being granted?
Yes, they would have to get fast approval. I assume they have not actually hired the other expert yet.
Regarding the possibility of surrebuttal:
While I've been thinking that Dr. DeMarte's dx of BPD is not new info to the Defense, therefore they should not be allowed a surrebuttal...is the issue at hand is that the jury did not hear this dx until the State's rebuttal?
If so, how does the Defense expert Dr. Samuels dx of a nonspecified personality disorder (during Juan's cross exam) play into this issue of surrebuttal?
TIA!
See above.
Once the trial is over do the jurors have to explain how/why they came to their decision?
and/or
Can the prosecution or defense contact them and ask questions about what made them reach their decision?
Thank you once again
No, the jurors don't have to explain anything. But yes, the attorneys can ask.
Most Maricopa County judges will ask the jurors at the end of the trial whether or not they are willing to be contacted by counsel. If they decline, the judge instructs counsel not to contact those jurors who declined.
