Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[scorpio24]

During Mr. Martinez's questioning, I got the impression that Jodi had spoken to Matt McCartney. Are her phone calls in jail recorded? If so, can they be used against her in this trial?

 

[polleypockets]

if jodi had not decided to testify - do you think martinez would have been able to bring in the magazine evidence in to court? especially if it has to do w/ jodi's horrible claims against TA?

 

[StephanieHartPI]

And for the record, most of us are beyond certain, Travis never had any deviant behaviors with children.

That is not to say those terrible things don't happen, they do. However, regardless of what we "hear" or the scandals that rock the internet about things like that and similar, these types of allegations are often leveled in disputes.. Whether its "divorce" or "child custody" or as we have seen here (even in the FCA case in FL against her father) abuse, neglect, molestation, you name it, it comes up.

So one must always look upon many things they hear about people with an open mind and sometimes great suspicion that many times these things are simply false. Unfortunately you can't unring that bell once you hear it and some will believe it. And dig deep enough and all of our closets might contain a skeleton or two!

 

[polleypockets]

imo - i personally do not believe the claims which is why i refer to them as claims - i do not want to even type the word

 

[SevenSeas]

In Arizona, how do they go about selecting who will be the chosen 12 of the 18 to deliberate?

 

[AZlawyer]

During Mr. Martinez's questioning, I got the impression that Jodi had spoken to Matt McCartney. Are her phone calls in jail recorded? If so, can they be used against her in this trial?

They would be recorded, but I don't think they are retained forever. They could be used against her if relevant!

 

[AZlawyer]

if jodi had not decided to testify - do you think martinez would have been able to bring in the magazine evidence in to court? especially if it has to do w/ jodi's horrible claims against TA?

Probably not. I can't think of any other reason they would have been admissible, since they never made it out of the jail.

 

[AZlawyer]

In Arizona, how do they go about selecting who will be the chosen 12 of the 18 to deliberate?

Random picking of names out of a hat. Well, not usually a hat, but whatever's around.

 

[princesspjs]

In the defense's most recent filing of an interlocutory stay they are siting the differing testimony of Dr Horn and Det Flores.

They are saying that Det Flores remembers and testified to a conversation with Dr Horn regarding in what order Travis sustained the wounds that killed him. Dr Horn has testified that he does not remember having the conversation. Dr Horn testified that the gunshot to his face came last. Det Flores believes that the gunshot was first.

It is my understanding that the death penalty would be appropriate if the state can prove that the murder was heinous or tortuous - paraphrasing here.

What difference does it make if Travis was stabbed first or shot first? In either scenario he survived the initial injury and Jodi continued to attack him and attack him until she had completely mutilated him as he tried to get away and in essence she murdered him three times over that day.

Isn’t that what really matters – all of the actual, documented injuries that Travis had to endure as he tried to stay alive?

Documents:
http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Petition.pdf

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Stay.pdf

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Is it normal, or even legal for a witness to be given a transcript of her own testimony and allowed time to review it before answering cross examination questions about state's evidence? It seemed bizarre for Juan to give her a copy of the story she told on the witness stand, after giving her all that time to read her journal. Is that par for the course?

 

[AZlawyer]

In the defense's most recent filing of an interlocutory stay they are siting the differing testimony of Dr Horn and Det Flores.

They are saying that Det Flores remembers and testified to a conversation with Dr Horn regarding in what order Travis sustained the wounds that killed him. Dr Horn has testified that he does not remember having the conversation. Dr Horn testified that the gunshot to his face came last. Det Flores believes that the gunshot was first.

It is my understanding that the death penalty would be appropriate if the state can prove that the murder was heinous or tortuous - paraphrasing here.

What difference does it make if Travis was stabbed first or shot first? In either scenario he survived the initial injury and Jodi continued to attack him and attack him until she had completely mutilated him as he tried to get away and in essence she murdered him three times over that day.

Isn’t that what really matters – all of the actual, documented injuries that Travis had to endure as he tried to stay alive?

Documents:
http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Petition.pdf

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Stay.pdf

From reading the petition, it appears that the only aggravating factor being argued is "cruelty." If Travis were shot first and rendered unconscious by the shot, then the murder wasn't "cruel" (legally) because he wouldn't have felt the stabbings and throat cutting. If he were stabbed first in the heart and rendered unconscious by the stabbing, then the murder wasn't "cruel" because he wouldn't have felt the other stabbings, throat cutting or gunshot.

IMO the reason that no court will accept the defense team's argument about the conflict in testimony is because here, no matter what the order of injuries was, it is perfectly clear from the defensive wounds--and now from Jodi's own testimony--that Travis was awake and aware of the attack and trying to save himself for a period of time, and was NOT immediately incapacitated.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it normal, or even legal for a witness to be given a transcript of her own testimony and allowed time to review it before answering cross examination questions about state's evidence? It seemed bizarre for Juan to give her a copy of the story she told on the witness stand, after giving her all that time to read her journal. Is that par for the course?

Yes, if you want to "refresh the witness's recollection," you can show the witness the transcript.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, if you want to "refresh the witness's recollection," you can show the witness the transcript.

It's also a prerequisite to impeaching testimony through prior inconsistent statements.

 

[minor4th]

In the defense's most recent filing of an interlocutory stay they are siting the differing testimony of Dr Horn and Det Flores.

They are saying that Det Flores remembers and testified to a conversation with Dr Horn regarding in what order Travis sustained the wounds that killed him. Dr Horn has testified that he does not remember having the conversation. Dr Horn testified that the gunshot to his face came last. Det Flores believes that the gunshot was first.

It is my understanding that the death penalty would be appropriate if the state can prove that the murder was heinous or tortuous - paraphrasing here.

What difference does it make if Travis was stabbed first or shot first? In either scenario he survived the initial injury and Jodi continued to attack him and attack him until she had completely mutilated him as he tried to get away and in essence she murdered him three times over that day.

Isn’t that what really matters – all of the actual, documented injuries that Travis had to endure as he tried to stay alive?

Documents:
http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Petition.pdf

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Stay.pdf

Do you know when these were filed?

 

[AZlawyer]

It's also a prerequisite to impeaching testimony through prior inconsistent statements.

Under AZ Rule 613(a), you don't have to show it to the witness, only to her attorney. Actually, you only have to disclose the "contents" of the statement to the witness's attorney--so I would think the fact that Nurmi et al were sitting there in court when she made the statement would be sufficient disclosure lol.

ETA: Correction--you have to disclose to the adverse party's attorney, not the witness's attorney--in this case, same thing.

 

[minor4th]

Under AZ Rule 613(a), you don't have to show it to the witness, only to her attorney. Actually, you only have to disclose the "contents" of the statement to the witness's attorney--so I would think the fact that Nurmi et al were sitting there in court when she made the statement would be sufficient disclosure lol.

I should have qualified my statement by saying it's a prerequisite in my jurisdiction. I defer to you on all thing Arizona

 

[minor4th]

During Mr. Martinez's questioning, I got the impression that Jodi had spoken to Matt McCartney. Are her phone calls in jail recorded? If so, can they be used against her in this trial?

Haven't checked if anyone else has answered this, but I believe there was a pre-trial ruling that jail calls were not to be released to the State. I will see if I can find that in the court minutes.

 

[seagull65]

Is there a sticky with links to Jodi A's police interviews, the medical examiner's report, etc? I can't find it, thanks!

 

[minor4th]

if jodi had not decided to testify - do you think martinez would have been able to bring in the magazine evidence in to court? especially if it has to do w/ jodi's horrible claims against TA?

I think he still could have brought it in, just like he was able to bring in her statements made during police interrogations as well as statements made in media interviews. He would have had to jump through some additional hoops to lay the foundation that it was Jodi's handwriting and the circumstances of writings

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

It's also a prerequisite to impeaching testimony through prior inconsistent statements.

That makes much more sense - thanks to both of you for the answers.
It seemed like it was an 'open book test', with the book provided by prosecution! The reasoning is much more logical, knowing this now.