Hello. I am finding it downright crazy that Jodi, just convicted on Murder One, can be allowed to be all dressed up with makeup and give a tv interview ! That sounds downright nuts ! Is that AZ court policy? It absolutely makes no sense, EXCEPT that the pros' might want to pull strings to let it happen, to let Jodi hang herself with her own words. Even then, though, it still doesn't make sense, because my understanding is that someone just convicted of Murder One is at a super high risk of attempting suicide, so the last thing any Dept. of Corrections officials would decide to do is to let the person give a tv interview !What in the world in going on in those Arizona Courts ??? ty
I don't think it's different in Arizona than anywhere else, and to me it doesn't seem nuts.
Also, giving a TV interview is a pretty low-risk time for a suicide attempt. I don't think she was put on suicide watch until after she said in the interview that death would be the ultimate freedom, anyway.
Regarding the statement Jodi Arias made in her interview w/Fox News immediately following her conviction yesterday, my question is this: If, in fact, Arias continues to request that she receive the death penalty, is it possible she'll get her wish? I've been thinking about the Aileen Wuornos case in Florida, where she finally petitioned the Florida Supreme Court and told them she no longer wanted any more appeals filed on her behalf; that she killed those men in cold blood, would do it again, etc. etc. Anyhow, Jeb Bush had her evaluated by 3 psychiatrists, who determined she was of sound mind & knew that she'd be executed, and in short order, they DID execute her! Could this possibly happen to Jodi Arias if she petitions for early execution?!?
JA has not "requested" that she receive the death penalty; she has just said informally to a reporter that she would rather receive it. However, yes, she can fight the issue if she wants to.
Some questions for our wonderful lawyers
1) as a convicted felon, how in the heck did FJA, still in the court house, under the Judges rule, was ALLOWED to give interviews? Of course she was happy still in street clothes etc...
2) did convicted FJA get paid for these interviews? Whether she signed an agreement before or after....it is wrong....and the signing of the papers would have had to go through her lawyers or the jail house would have seen them first. So possible her lawyers knew about the interview.....
3) can she be prevents from getting any monies now?
It appears that some laws need to be changed in regards to what happened. FJA is ruling, not the law...this probably what the big fight was about after court finished and it was reported FJA and her lawyers fought.
Thank you for your answers again...I wish we could throw a nice dinner party for all of you, send you on a cruise, but that will have to be a dream and accept our biggest thanks.
1) Convicted felons are not barred from giving interviews. I honestly don't know why everyone seems to have this idea.
2) She did not get paid for the interview IMO. Fox10 doesn't have the budget for it lol.
IMO she is just extremely narcissistic and thinks everyone deserves to hear her speak. Also, I have no doubt her lawyers knew about the interview and opposed it.
3) No.
Why should the laws be changed? JA isn't "ruling" anything--she's just talking. No one has to listen to her speak. I just honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about.
I hope you don't mind answering a couple of further questions on the appeal process. I was looking at a Web site of an Arizona Criminal Appeals Attorney and it explains that the various levels of appeals are Superior Court, Arizona State Appellate Court, Arizona Supreme Court, The Ninth Circuit Court, and finally the United States Supreme Court.
So my questions are:
1) At each level is another court case involved or is there just a review of the documents and/or proceedings of the original court case and it's proceedings?
2) Will Jodi only get one shot at each level or can she make repeated appeals at each level?
3) In a similar vein, should her appeal be granted at whatever level, can the state then appeal the granting of her appeal?
4) Who, for the State, would be in charge of the State's side of the appeal, i.e., does Maricopa County pass control of the case onto a higher (prosecuting) authority. (I'm assuming here that JM would not be the attornery to be responsible for representing the State at each new level.)
5) You said the State pays for Jodi's appeal - does this apply at each level or will there come a time when she must foot the bill for further appeals?
I'm 65 so chances are pretty good that I will not be alive when she is actually executed (obviously I am hoping for the DP) - I'm just trying to figure out how long I must hang around to feel rather confident on my way out that the ultimate justice for Travis Alexander will be served.
1) There is no new trial in each court, if that's what you mean--just a review of the record.
2) There has been some streamlining, I believe, since last time I was involved in a death penalty case. My understanding is that the goal is now one appeal at each level--not sure if that goal has been accomplished in practice.
3) Yes, the state can appeal any granted appeal for Jodi, but the US Supreme Court is not required to take any appeal, so they would hear it only if the issue were a "big deal" constitutional issue.
4) The prosecutor on appeal would be whomever is assigned. If they have appellate attorneys in that office who focus on appellate issues rather than trial practice, they will probably assign the case to a couple of those attorneys. Not because they are "higher" than JM--just because the skills to handle an appeal are different from the skills to handle a trial.
5) The state will pay for all the appeals if she remains indigent.
Now that JA is found guilty does her right to twitter and/or interviews STOP?
No.
I wanted to ask if evidence too prejudicial before can now be presented and does the jury have to be unanimous in their rulings for the next phases ?
Just to make sure you understand, evidence is never never never excluded just because it makes the defendant look too guilty. That's not what "prejudicial" means. So nothing was excluded for that reason.
If something was excluded because it really had nothing to do with the case issues and might make the jury think badly about Jodi for some OTHER reason having nothing to do with the case, then it will probably continue to be excluded. This makes sense, right? Why should evidence like that be admitted?
Yes, the jury has to be unanimous at every phase.
I've read that defendants in criminal trials who testify in their own defense, including ones who are innocent, are more likely to be convicted of the highest charge and sentenced to the most severe punishment. In some states I believe defendants must acknowledge their awareness of the risks involved to the judge before they are allowed to testify in order to eliminate that as an appeal issue later. Does Arizona have such a requirement or can Jodi now claim she did not receive adequate warning from her lawyers?
I'm not sure if she would have had to acknowledge the risks in writing, but she likely had to make assurances to the judge on the record. Sometimes, though, even when defendants get all the right warnings they still claim the warnings were inadequate. But anyone can claim anything--it doesn't mean they'll win.
During either the aggravation phase or the penalty phase, can the prosecution present evidence that was considered too prejudicial and not admitted during the guilt phase? For example, can Juan have someone from law enforcement tell the jury that Jodi had a 9mm gun, bullets, and knives in her car when she was arrested?
See above re: prejudicial evidence. I'm sure, if that information is true and was excluded, that it was excluded because it has no tendency to prove that Jodi killed Travis intentionally or with premeditation or not in self-defense. In other words, it is irrelevant. And if the judge found that it had some slight relevance but any such relevance would be outweighed by the risk that a jury would draw some other irrelevant conclusion from it (i.e., that it was "prejudicial"), then apparently she was right, because many WS'ers seem to think it is important evidence, so there is a risk that a jury would think the same thing. But really, what does it prove?
The state certainly can't raise this information in the aggravation phase, because it has nothing to do with the sole aggravation issue (cruelty).
In the mitigation phase, if Jodi were to say, e.g., that she was so traumatized by killing Travis that she would never again touch a knife or a gun, then JM could bring this in to rebut that mitigation evidence.
Hope this makes sense. Jodi wrote a letter to the Judge asking for Nurmi to remain on her case when he wanted off. Stating that he knew the case, and they connected with one another. But then Nurmi filed the motion for ineffective council. Is there some clause in this? I believe Jodi had to sign this document as well. Can they use this if she claims ineffective council? Hope this question makes sense.
There has been no motion for a finding of ineffective counsel filed. Such a motion would not be filed BY the supposedly ineffective counsel. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I have never seen a defendant remain seated along with their defense council while a verdict was being rendered.
The judge did not tell the defendant to rise/stand while the verdict was being read, anyone know why? TIA
Good question. I noticed when the judge said "please be seated," Jennifer Willmot remained standing for a couple of seconds, as if she was confused by that also.
When JA gets the death penalty, can she waive all automatic appeals and take the fast track to an execution date?
She can try, anyway. Her attorneys/family will likely try to fight her on that issue.
Hallo AzLawyer! I have a question and I hope you understand what I'm trying to ask lol: can Jodi waive her rights to beg the jury for her life? She said in an interview on FOX that she'd rather get the Death Penalty than LWOP. Can she somehow choose not to defend herself against the cruelty aggravating factor?
See above.
Hi there,
Jodi is giving an interview to our local news station that will be airing in minutes. My question is, can what she says in the interview be used in any of the phases going forward?
Yes, if she says something relevant.
