Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[beldon]

mispost

 

[beldon]

I apologize everyone - I didnt realize I was in the legal thread <doh>

 

[AZlawyer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Also, in AZ, cross-examination is NOT limited to the scope of direct. Ariz. R. Evid. 611(b) "Scope of cross-examination: A witness may be cross-examined on any relevant matter."

 

[Frigga]

And there we have it- the story of Jodi Arias life as told by her in a nutshell, "I wanted to appear normal... I wanted to pretend like I didn't do what I just did."

-every time she snooped and freaked out
-every time she said terrible things
-every time she had no impulse control

She told us everything we needed to know in one sentence.

 

[KBisMe]

Random question... are the jurors allowed to talk to each other about the case prior to deliberation?

 

[AZlawyer]

Random question... are the jurors allowed to talk to each other about the case prior to deliberation?

In AZ, this is OK in civil cases but not in criminal cases.

 

[wishinuall]

I'm SO excited to have found this thread, so I'll begin with a great big thanx to all of you! I would have thought the only way the defense could have brought all this sexual evidence in would have had to have directly linked it to the murder itself somehow. I loved the insight I got upstream about Nurmi basically asking open ended questions not knowing exactly what she was gonna say! I have been thinking for awhile now that she 'leads' him even more than he leads her, there's just no one objecting!! My point is, could he be in trouble now for bringing all that in & not tying it up? I thoroughly believe when she was telling her story Mon about TA grabbing her arms & spinning her around, throwing her over the desk, she was supposed to have said he forced himself on her, well, raped her, thereby making her all the more 'afraid', (no, wait! Really?) when he 'attacked' her again in the bathroom. So did Nurmi earn himself any violations? (Uh, yea, plenty!) But legally? I shall also end this with a great big thank you!

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm SO excited to have found this thread, so I'll begin with a great big thanx to all of you! I would have thought the only way the defense could have brought all this sexual evidence in would have had to have directly linked it to the murder itself somehow. I loved the insight I got upstream about Nurmi basically asking open ended questions not knowing exactly what she was gonna say! I have been thinking for awhile now that she 'leads' him even more than he leads her, there's just no one objecting!! My point is, could he be in trouble now for bringing all that in & not tying it up? I thoroughly believe when she was telling her story Mon about TA grabbing her arms & spinning her around, throwing her over the desk, she was supposed to have said he forced himself on her, well, raped her, thereby making her all the more 'afraid', (no, wait! Really?) when he 'attacked' her again in the bathroom. So did Nurmi earn himself any violations? (Uh, yea, plenty!) But legally? I shall also end this with a great big thank you!

No, it's all part of the defense theory that she was physically, emotionally and sexually "abused" by Travis so thoroughly that she was justified in interpreting his naked, wet lunge across a tile floor as a threat to her life.

 

[Nova]

Random question... are the jurors allowed to talk to each other about the case prior to deliberation?

AZlawyer already answered your question (he said no, not in criminal cases in AZ).

But speaking not as a lawyer but as one who has been a juror on a moderately lengthy trial (3 months), I can say that jurors spend every day together (and they are cloistered in the jury room during a lot of the time the lawyers are in chambers and/or arguing motions), all the while being forbidden to talk about the only thing they have in common: the trial.

So in theory, no, but in my experience, some begin to refer obliquely to the evidence they have seen. (No, I did not participate.)

 

[Nova]

AZlawyer, gitana1, et al., I am baffled by the strategy of claiming self-defense, then insisting she doesn't remember anything except an "accidental" firing of the gun.

Is that really enough to meet her burden for an affirmative defense? Or is all of this just an attempt to humanize Arias so the jurors won't condemn her to death?

 

[ladonna]

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)?

In Arizona I understand it is...it also happened in the E. Johnson trial

 

[Nosey Parker]

Question please. The wonderful, awesome magazines that threw m'lady off her game today - would they have been provided to the defence before today?

 

[minor4th]

Question please. The wonderful, awesome magazines that threw m'lady off her game today - would they have been provided to the defence before today?

Depends on if the defense asked for them in discovery. Probably so.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, gitana1, et al., I am baffled by the strategy of claiming self-defense, then insisting she doesn't remember anything except an "accidental" firing of the gun.

Is that really enough to meet her burden for an affirmative defense? Or is all of this just an attempt to humanize Arias so the jurors won't condemn her to death?

Yeah, I suppose it's enough. In "self defense" (not) she grabbed the gun, so any "accidental" firing was just a consequence of that self defense....I guess so.

IMO if this is all she had to say about the self-defense, they should have kept her off the stand until the penalty phase.

 

[KBisMe]

Yeah, I suppose it's enough. In "self defense" (not) she grabbed the gun, so any "accidental" firing was just a consequence of that self defense....I guess so.

IMO if this is all she had to say about the self-defense, they should have kept her off the stand until the penalty phase.

What are your thoughts on how things went today? It's irritating me how many talking heads are saying that JM was bullying her and she handled herself perfectly.

IMO he shouldn't treat her like a victim because he's the one trying to prove that she premeditated this murder. I was disgusted by her smirks and the giggle moment. We saw a totally different side of her today! She's no victim! She looked like she was loving that she had an answer for everything JM asked.

Soft spoken Nurmi = soft spoken JA. Strong and to the point JM = snarky and confident JA.

Anyway, I'd be really curious to hear your opinion on how it went today! :seeya:

 

[KBisMe]

Oops, I didn't realize I was in the legal thread. I think I should've put my post in the discussion thread, but I don't know how to move it. Sorry! :doh:

 

[peedoffinny]

I have a question about how the evidence is handled in regards to the magazines and the 'secret codes'. Does the prosecution have to point out to the DA what they find in the magazines, or do they just submit them and if the DA doesn't find it, it's not there problem. Thanks in advance for answering me.

 

[gitana1]

I have a question about how the evidence is handled in regards to the magazines and the 'secret codes'. Does the prosecution have to point out to the DA what they find in the magazines, or do they just submit them and if the DA doesn't find it, it's not there problem. Thanks in advance for answering me.

They just have to submit an evidence list and copies of the evidence but the magazines were the subject of pre-trial hearings so I'm pretty sure the defense knew what they were about.

 

[tinkabella]

Can jodi face any legal trouble for trying to tamper with a witness? How would this info affect her to the jury? Is she now impeached?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can jodi face any legal trouble for trying to tamper with a witness? How would this info affect her to the jury? Is she now impeached?

She could face additional charges, but really no one is going to worry about that right now. She's already on trial for capital murder.

The jury IMO will take this into consideration in deciding whether she's credible (hint--the answer is no).

"Impeaching" a witness just means showing the jury that the witness is a liar. Probably some--maybe all--of the jurors think she's a liar at this point. But impeachment doesn't have any legal result. It's not like there's an announcement to the jury "this witness has been impeached," or an instruction to the jury to disregard "impeached" testimony.