Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZL for all the answers and I see my question was kind of asked already by someone else, but just want to be certain I understand.

Background:
My question pertains to the 3 phases of the trial and my understanding that the trial is really not over until all 3 phases are completed. I understand that "convicted" persons can give an interview from jail/prison, but considering that the trial is really not over yet, and considering that future witnesses (i.e., Jodi) may appear in the next phases, and considering that maybe the jail made a mistake and their policies are such that they should have waited until trial is really done before granting any interviews of person on trial........

My Question:
Is it possible that if the Jail found they broke protocol and should not have let her have that interview because her trial is really not over yet, is this something that could somehow UN-DO her conviction of the 1st phase? (i.e., mistrial, etc.)

No, there would have been nothing that I know of preventing her from giving an interview during trial or between phases of trial (or before trial, as she did several times, or after trial). And even if there were any rule/procedure/order to that effect, it wouldn't affect her conviction.

 

[Hatfield]

No, there would have been nothing that I know of preventing her from giving an interview during trial or between phases of trial (or before trial, as she did several times, or after trial). And even if there were any rule/procedure/order to that effect, it wouldn't affect her conviction.

THANK YOU SO MUCH for replying. I feel much relief now. I could not stop worrying about this. Thanks again.

 

[Nova]

...Yes, it has happened, and that's the purpose. I believe the jury would just be sent back for further deliberations, though, after further clarifying instructions from the judge.

ETA: Before this was done regularly, what would sometimes happen is that a juror would contact the defense counsel a week or a month or a year down the line and say, "I was bullied into pretending that I agreed with the others, but that wasn't my true verdict." So the idea is to find out right away while there's still time to fix the situation.

Speaking as a juror rather than as a lawyer, it is one thing to vote "guilty" in a secret ballot (such as those many juries conduct) and quite another to stand up in open court and say, "Yes (I find the defendant guilty of murder)."

The latter takes far more conviction, which is as it should be.

 

[Nova]

AZ Laywer...And all who answered the questions and comments. We get pretty upset with some of the stuff that goes on, asking all of you all kinds of questions. Your answers show how calm all of you are, putting thought into the answers that at least makes me think in another direction....it is much appreciated.

Have a great week end!

Yes, indeed. The attorneys here do an enormous service in educating the public. Our views of trial procedure are badly warped by the dramatic liberties taken in films and TV shows. The end result is a view that the judicial system is somehow designed to favor the defendant at the expense of justice.

And that is simply not the truth.

 

[Nova]

BTW and re the question as to whether a lawyer and an attorney are the same.

AZLawyer said no and he is correct for the United States.

But we have a lot of posters from overseas: in England, for example, the distinguish between barristers (trial counsel) and solicitors (personal counsel). Both are "lawyers", but only solicitors are "attorneys". Other countries that follow English law have similar distinctions--NONE of which apply in the U.S.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes, indeed. The attorneys here do an enormous service in educating the public. Our views of trial procedure are badly warped by the dramatic liberties taken in films and TV shows. The end result is a view that the judicial system is somehow designed to favor the defendant at the expense of justice.

And that is simply not the truth.

Thank you to all the lawyers here who give of their time, and set the record straight

 

[nells]

BTW and re the question as to whether a lawyer and an attorney are the same.

AZLawyer said no and he is correct for the United States.

BBM - Not a legal question, but I hope it will be answered: AZLawyer and gitana are women, yes?

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

FWIW, KCL and Beth Karas on HLN has said that the state has proof that Jodi forged the letters in her cell. Beth said it was one of the things she wishes the jury knew. Good thing it didn't matter in the end.

Yes--what actually happened was that Jodi could not find what she said were the original hand-written letters and all she had were the letters she re-typed. So of course it was bogus and laughable.

My question to AZ who is doing a great job here and patient with everyone, why couldn't the State bring up issues of her forging these documents or at least typing her own and that she couldn't find the original's? The Judge said she could still talk about pedophilia even after these nefarious acts of typing letters she could not find the original's for--my only guess would be that there is a 1% chance or less chance she copied them from real letters and the State couldn't prove they (the originals) didn't exist?

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - Not a legal question, but I hope it will be answered: AZLawyer and gitana are women, yes?

Yes.

Yes--what actually happened was that Jodi could not find what she said were the original hand-written letters and all she had were the letters she re-typed. So of course it was bogus and laughable.

My question to AZ who is doing a great job here and patient with everyone, why couldn't the State bring up issues of her forging these documents or at least typing her own and that she couldn't find the original's? The Judge said she could still talk about pedophilia even after these nefarious acts of typing letters she could not find the original's for--my only guess would be that there is a 1% chance or less chance she copied them from real letters and the State couldn't prove they (the originals) didn't exist?

If she wasn't offering the letters as evidence any more, I'm sure JM didn't want the jurors reading them! There's always a chance that one juror would say "now I have reasonable doubt because these might be real..."

 

[CarolinaWoman]

My question please, Nurmi filed a motion the night of the conviction that Travis Alexander’s family record their statements on video instead of making them in-person when the sentencing phase begins. Ms. Arias requests that any and all victim impact evidence be presented to the court via videotape so as to prevent any unpredictable outburst.

She was on the stand for 18 days, live and lying ... now she wants the Alexander family and others to be videotaped! I think she just doesn't care to face these people. I hope the judge denies the motion.

But I want to know does this happen often, victim impact statement being videotaped for the court? I can understand young children being videotaped but not in this case.

Thank you AZ Lawyer and others for taking your time to answer questions. You and this website are the only ones I trust to receive an answer to my sometimes dumb questions.

 

[cosmos]

If jurors believe the defendant's testimony is not credible, can they consider that to be affirmative evidence of guilt, or must they simply disregard that testimony and continue to insist that only the state's case can meet the burden of proof? The jury instructions say jurors must evaluate the defendant's testimony the same as they would with any other witness, but I don't feel that answers my question about affirmative evidence of guilt versus disregarding testimony since other witnesses can't be found guilty of murder and potentially sentenced to death in this trial if they are not believed.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes--what actually happened was that Jodi could not find what she said were the original hand-written letters and all she had were the letters she re-typed. So of course it was bogus and laughable. My question to AZ who is doing a great job here and patient with everyone, why couldn't the State bring up issues of her forging these documents or at least typing her own and that she couldn't find the original's? The Judge said she could still talk about pedophilia even after these nefarious acts of typing letters she could not find the original's for--my only guess would be that there is a 1% chance or less chance she copied them from real letters and the State couldn't prove they (the originals) didn't exist?

Yes, I already knew all that but what I am saying is that it goes further and that it isn't just speculation and that the state actually has PROOF that Jodi wrote the letters in her cell. I'm sure we'll learn more about this after all this is over but they sound very sure that Juan can prove these letters are forged by Jodi in prison.

 

[ladonna]

Does anyone know what Jean Caseras meant when she said Jodi was being held under C 19? I've been trying to search Arizona laws and have come up empty.

 

[Iz?s#1Mom]

Is it likely that the Judge Stephens will rule in favor of JA wanting the victim impact evidence to be presented by video?

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kpho/KPHO NEWS/defensemotion.pdf

 

[gcharlie]

Source: http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Crime_Victims/victimRights/

Victim Impact Statement

The victim impact statement may be either written or oral. It allows the victim to provide information for the judge’s consideration at sentencing. It allows the victim to show the pain, anguish, and financial devastation the crime may have caused. The judge really does not know how truly affected the victim is unless the victim speaks up.

When you give your victim impact statement, you may choose to be very brief - or you may decide to talk at length. You may have other family members join you in giving a statement.

The victim impact statement is the ONLY TIME that you will have to address the one person - the judge - who can decide the fate of the defendant.

The victim impact statement is YOUR TIME - USE IT!!

Some items to consider when deciding what to say (always go into detail)
Physical injuries suffered
Medical treatment required
Psychological injuries suffered
Psychological treatment required
Amount of time lost from work
Prognosis for further psychological treatment
Prognosis for further medical treatment including surgery, therapy, etc.
Lingering pain, anxiety, anguish, and nightmares
The affect on your lifestyle
The affect on your family’s lifestyle
In the event of a death, tell what it is like to get a phone call in the middle of the night, to rush to the hospital and not knowing if your loved one will still be alive when you reach them.
In the event of a death, describe what it is like to explain a death to younger siblings still alive, to the children left behind, or other family members.
In the event of the death of a child, explain what it is like to give birth to a child, raise and nurture them with love and care - and then to have them taken away before they have lived a full life.
In the event of the death of a spouse, tell what it is like to marry the person of your dreams, to plan, to love, to expect to celebrate your 50th anniversary with that person - and then to have them taken away.

Researching this, I cannot find what is allowable or not in Arizona. I have found some interesting pieces which address challenges to the VIS and the likelihood that such challenges backfire on the defendant, now convicted.

One of the things that I am really wondering about is if the family, in their VIS, can address the "continued assault on Travis" through the courts by the convicted murdered after his death. So much of their grief and pain has been suspended, prolonged, magnified, etc. since learning of his death up to this phase of the trial.

 

[Hope4More]

Sorry, AZLawyer, for missing your reply that JA's allegations of pedophilia are considered evidence because she testified to them while on the stand.

I understand that particular rule--kinda, anyway, and the role of the jury in ascertaining whether or not her testimony about the allegations was credible. I was still struggling over why the allegations were admissable on the grounds of relevance. DV allegations, equally unsubstantiated, allowed her to claim self defense, but not so the claims of pedophilia.

Then I remembered the DT claim that JA's discovery of the alleged pedophilia was what caused TA to become violent towards her, and the DT's assertion that the testimony of other girlfriends was essentially irrelevant because only JA knew about the pedophilia and therefore TA had no reason to be violent in those relationships.

A follow-up question, if you have the patience. Was the DT obligated to have a "factual" context for the pedophilia allegations, such as claiming it was the cause of DV, or was JA legally entitled to take the stand, accuse Travis of whatever she wanted to, whether it was relevant or not to the charges against her, and have whatever she accused him of be considered evidence?

Thanks.

 

[Ammonitida]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but what is the earliest that Jodi can appeal after her sentence?

 

[CorallaroC]

Seems odd Arias would tell Fox10 in her recent interview that her defense atty has told her she has NO mitigating factors. None? Zippo?
I looked at a googled-list:
http://crime.about.com/od/death/a/mitigating.htm
one item is: "The presence or absence of any prior felony"
Hmmm, wonder if she has a previous felony that hasn't been made public yet?

Common sense tells me Arias is just telling another LIE and we should brace ourselves for another zinger.

But my legal question for this thread is: is there even such a thing as a convicted murderer who has ZERO mitigating factors for a DT to present?

ETA: here is link where she tells Fox 10 she has no mitigating factors: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...ias-told-fox-10-she-has-no-mitigating-factors

 

[Linda7NJ]

Seems odd Arias would tell Fox10 in her recent interview that her defense atty has told her she has NO mitigating factors. None? Zippo?
I looked at a googled-list:
http://crime.about.com/od/death/a/mitigating.htm
one item is: "The presence or absence of any prior felony"
Hmmm, wonder if she has a previous felony that hasn't been made public yet?

Common sense tells me Arias is just telling another LIE and we should brace ourselves for another zinger.

But my legal question for this thread is: is there even such a thing as a convicted murderer who has ZERO mitigating factors for a DT to present?

ETA: here is link where she tells Fox 10 she has no mitigating factors: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...ias-told-fox-10-she-has-no-mitigating-factors

The key being, "Jodi said"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LadyEdith]

The key being, "Jodi said"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. And not only is it all likely a made up lie so she can deliver the zinger "my mother didn't beat me enough" or harder or whatever, but does she not realize that we've all seen the exuberantly dressed Mitigation Specialist whose job it is to observe the trial and collect and organize all the potential mitigating factors?

Doesn't make sense does it...... Smells like manipulation to me.


And finally my legal question,

What re will the mitigation specialist play going forward? What re and duties will she fulfill?