Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[bettybaby00]

No, but this is not the first time this defense has tried to stretch their case beyond established legal principles and procedure.

Thanks for your answers regarding this topic.

I have 2 additional questions.

1) is there any recourse for the state / victims family when DT acts in such a manner?

2) why would JSS allow a new witness at this point? especially given the argument that the state introduced new evidence on rebuttal? They didn't as the diagnosis and conclusions drawn by the state's witness were well know by the DT before she ever took the stand. And lastly, if JSS allows this, does this sort of maneuvering become "a precedent?"

Thank you.

 

[Tracey4AU]

No, but this is not the first time this defense has tried to stretch their case beyond established legal principles and procedure.

Just wanted to throw out my Thanks to you and all of the attorneys who have taken time to address our questions! It is so appreciated!

:seeya:

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Just wanted to throw out my Thanks to you and all of the attorneys who have taken time to address our questions! It is so appreciated!

:seeya:

Someone brought a legal answer from here over to the main thread, and I came here specifically to say what you just said.
What a blessing to have a reliable source to help us understand the legalities.

Thank you to all the attorneys here!!

 

[JusticeJunkie]

No, that would not be what Geffner would testify about for a couple of reasons: 1) like you said, this was addressed in the states case in chief, and there was nothing new brought out in rebuttal, and 2) Geffner is a psychologist, not a medical doctor;, and 3) I believe the pleadings stated that his testimony will rebut the BPD diagnosis given by Demarte.

Minor - and even THAT is not really new testimony, right? Dr S indicated it, he just didn't actually NAME it.
Is this just the judge being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overly cautious AGAIN?
I hope she's not so cautious that she thwarts justice with her fear of being overturned. If the jurors come to a lesser sentence, I'm sorry to say JS will be one of those at fault IMO. She is so uncertain of herself, that she goes totally overboard in her decisions. I wish we had drawn a more experienced judge.

 

[katiewonders]

I read on the forum that the PT has a witness, Jill Hayes. Will there be a sur sur rebuttal?

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

Legal Eagles---- this can't be great for the defense?

Dr Geffner's testimony - O'Rourke v. O'Rourke.

The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Geffner was simply a "hired gun" and that his testimony was completely without merit. In light of the deference that the appellate court is required to give to the credibility determinations of the trial court, it appears unlikely to us that any additional testimony that Dr. Geffner might have been allowed to give would have had any effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. We find that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction on his testimony and that, in any event, Mother has not demonstrated how his testimony was in fact limited in a way that affected the outcome.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...2801.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7

O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE - November 3, 2009 Session.
www.leagle.com
Free US Case Law, Legal, Law, Opinion, Order

O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE - November 3, 2009 Session.
www.leagle.com
Free US Case Law, Legal, Law, Opinion, Order

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I thought I read that the way a judge determines which counts are offered to the jurors is this:

After the CIC, both parties argue before the judge,and if she agrees that the burden of that specific count has been met, it is allowed.
Did that happen here, and we just weren't privy to it (once again), or did the judge just allow the DT's motion to go through?
OR, was I simply mistaken when I read that?

 

[Fishee]

Do you believe that Mr. Martinez just forgot to being up BPD during the CIC or was it some kind of tactical move?

 

[AmmoCat]

I read the following in an article posted on a www.azag.gov site regarding the sentencing phase process: If the jury determines that the State has not established at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, the defendant is no longer subject to the death penalty. The jury is dismissed and the trial judge decides the appropriate sentence. I am not sure of the date of this article, but is that currently the process? I don't see this happening but if they did pull a casey anthony verdict and since JA admitted killing TA then according to this Stephens could impose LWOP correct? And to complicte the question how would the lesser charge instruction play into that scenario? Thanks again for all you folks do...

 

[AZlawyer]

I read the following in an article posted on a www.azag.gov site regarding the sentencing phase process: If the jury determines that the State has not established at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, the defendant is no longer subject to the death penalty. The jury is dismissed and the trial judge decides the appropriate sentence. I am not sure of the date of this article, but is that currently the process? I don't see this happening but if they did pull a casey anthony verdict and since JA admitted killing TA then according to this Stephens could impose LWOP correct? And to complicte the question how would the lesser charge instruction play into that scenario? Thanks again for all you folks do...

Yes, that's the correct process. But it only applies if the jury has already found JA guilty of first-degree murder. If they find her guilty of some lesser offense, or not guilty, then there would be no aggravation phase at all.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you believe that Mr. Martinez just forgot to being up BPD during the CIC or was it some kind of tactical move?

He couldn't bring it up during his case in chief, because it's totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Jodi is guilty of first-degree murder.

He could bring it up in rebuttal, because at that point Jodi had raised the issue of PTSD to explain her "fog," so he could say, no, you don't have PTSD, those symptoms are explained by your BPD.

 

[AZlawyer]

I thought I read that the way a judge determines which counts are offered to the jurors is this:

After the CIC, both parties argue before the judge,and if she agrees that the burden of that specific count has been met, it is allowed.
Did that happen here, and we just weren't privy to it (once again), or did the judge just allow the DT's motion to go through?
OR, was I simply mistaken when I read that?

That's pretty close, yes. And yes, it happened, but behind closed doors as usual. :banghead: When the jury instructions are read, we will hear which lesser-included offenses are included.

 

[AZlawyer]

Legal Eagles---- this can't be great for the defense?

Dr Geffner's testimony - O'Rourke v. O'Rourke.

The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Geffner was simply a "hired gun" and that his testimony was completely without merit. In light of the deference that the appellate court is required to give to the credibility determinations of the trial court, it appears unlikely to us that any additional testimony that Dr. Geffner might have been allowed to give would have had any effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. We find that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction on his testimony and that, in any event, Mother has not demonstrated how his testimony was in fact limited in a way that affected the outcome.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...2801.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7

O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE - November 3, 2009 Session.
www.leagle.com
Free US Case Law, Legal, Law, Opinion, Order

O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE - November 3, 2009 Session.
www.leagle.com
Free US Case Law, Legal, Law, Opinion, Order

Well, it sure doesn't make Geffner look good. But I don't see any way that it would come up directly.

 

[AZlawyer]

I read on the forum that the PT has a witness, Jill Hayes. Will there be a sur sur rebuttal?

Sounds like there might be.

ETA: Assuming the judge allows the new defense expert to talk about Travis's incapacity or lack thereof after the gunshot, that is.

 

[AZlawyer]

Minor - and even THAT is not really new testimony, right? Dr S indicated it, he just didn't actually NAME it.
Is this just the judge being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overly cautious AGAIN?
I hope she's not so cautious that she thwarts justice with her fear of being overturned. If the jurors come to a lesser sentence, I'm sorry to say JS will be one of those at fault IMO. She is so uncertain of herself, that she goes totally overboard in her decisions. I wish we had drawn a more experienced judge.

Dr. S didn't indicate that she had bipolar disorder. He said personality disorder NOS (not otherwise specified), which is not the same thing as saying that he personally was not specifying it. He concluded she had a personality disorder, in other words, but couldn't fit it into the "box" of bipolar or any other specific disorder.

 

[garthmax]

Since it appears that the DT wants to bring in this new expert to opine about the gunshot first scenerio and JM wants to bring in his expert. Don't they just cancel each other out and would it not be best just to not mention the gunshot period.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for your answers regarding this topic.

I have 2 additional questions.

1) is there any recourse for the state / victims family when DT acts in such a manner?

2) why would JSS allow a new witness at this point? especially given the argument that the state introduced new evidence on rebuttal? They didn't as the diagnosis and conclusions drawn by the state's witness were well know by the DT before she ever took the stand. And lastly, if JSS allows this, does this sort of maneuvering become "a precedent?"

Thank you.

1. No.

2. It was new evidence (the BPD diagnosis). For a sur-rebuttal, the new evidence doesn't have to be newly discovered, just newly presented in rebuttal instead of in the case in chief.

Nothing a trial court judge does is ever really a precedent. Appellate courts make precedent.

 

[bettybaby00]

1. No.

2. It was new evidence (the BPD diagnosis). For a sur-rebuttal, the new evidence doesn't have to be newly discovered, just newly presented in rebuttal instead of in the case in chief.

Nothing a trial court judge does is ever really a precedent. Appellate courts make precedent.

Thank you!!!!

 

[MeeBee]

If a witness' stories have changed from what he told LE to what he is saying on the stand, and he had said flat out he would lie on the stand for someone, and the prosecutor told the DT that if they called him as a witness he would go after him for perjury, is this a legitimate basis for appeal? TIA.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Thanks for all the answers AZlawyer. Maybe you attorneys could count this as your pro-bono work. lol
Much appreciated.