Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[CarolinaWoman]

She can't say whatever she wants, no. She doesn't have to provide the statement beforehand, but if she says something that is "evidence" regarding a mitigating factor or innocence of the crime, she may open up the door to cross-examination and additional rebuttal by the state. So Nurmi and Wilmott will probably review her proposed statement carefully to ensure she doesn't open any doors.

Arias does what Arias wants to do, thus far Nurmi and Willmott have not had much control over her.

My question is there is time limit Arias can speak or can she just go on and on (visions of 18 days on the stand here.)

 

[4Jacy]

Once she's transferred to prison, I believe she can buy one for her cell, yes.

Thank you AZlawyer (even though I wanted a firm "NO")

I just want to go outside and scream!! She slaughtered a man for God's sake, WHY should she be allowed a TV?

 

[AZlawyer]

Arias does what Arias wants to do, thus far Nurmi and Willmott have not had much control over her.

My question is there is time limit Arias can speak or can she just go on and on (visions of 18 days on the stand here.)

There is no set time limit, but she has to avoid a lot of subjects to make sure she doesn't open the door for cross-examination and more rebuttal evidence, and the judge can also tell her to move it along if she's repeating things she said during the guilt phase.

 

[PPKik]

Originally Posted by bparsons
what will happen if they do not agree on death penalty? Do they decide LWOP/any prison time or does the judge? Thanks in advance.

If they are a hung jury, another jury will be empaneled to decide life vs. death. If they unanimously decide for life, the judge decides LWOP vs. natural life.

Sorry if I missed this somewhere else, but I thought LWOP was the same as "natural life." Does "natural life" in Arizona mean a 20+ year sentence with the possibility of parole?

I thought after the aggravation phase was completed and extreme cruelty was proven, there was no other option but LWOP or the DP.

(If by some cruel twist, this jury doesn't unanimously decide, and life with the possibility of parole is back up, I don't understand how this figures in with the extreme cruelty finding.)

If, in the unlikely circumstances this present jury unanimously votes for life, is it still the judge's decision whether or not CKJA gets LWOP, or the possibility of parole? In other words, does it make any difference in terms of sentencing, if there should be a new jury or this one deciding?

Thank you for always clearing up these difficult fine legal points and for helping us better understand this process.

 

[pferrin]

Thank you AZLawyer, if ja gives a statement rather than testimony will she be at the podium or witness stand?

 

[LinTX]

Sorry if I missed this somewhere else, but I thought LWOP was the same as "natural life." Does "natural life" in Arizona mean a 20+ year sentence with the possibility of parole?

I thought after the aggravation phase was completed and extreme cruelty was proven, there was no other option but LWOP or the DP.

Life is 25yrs to life. Natural life is LWOP. The aggravation being proved is what allowed the DP to be considered. The other choices, determined by the judge if a jury can't find for DP, are still life vs natural life.



AZLawyer, what does the BBM mean regarding what can be presented during penalty phase?
'Regardless of rules of evidence'?
'Any' information relevant?

13-751
C. At the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding that is held pursuant to section 13-752, the prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances included in subsection G of this section, regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence at criminal trials. The burden of establishing the existence of the mitigating circumstances included in subsection G of this section is on the defendant. The defendant must prove the existence of the mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact is a jury, the jurors do not have to agree unanimously that a mitigating circumstance has been proven to exist. Each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance found by that juror in determining the appropriate penalty.

and

13-752:
G. At the penalty phase, the defendant and the state may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. In order for the trier of fact to make this determination, regardless of whether the defendant presents evidence of mitigation, the state may present any evidence that demonstrates that the defendant should not be shown leniency including any evidence regarding the defendant's character, propensities, criminal record or other acts.

Does that mean JM is not restricted by what was presented @ trial? 'Any relevant' combined with 'regardless of rules of evidence' in the BBM makes me think this could get interesting, but I'm probably reading all this stuff wrong. Wish we had JM's witness list...

 

[garthmax]

Would CMJA be able to offer to JM LWOP if she decided no appeals, just like the Dr. in the NJ? But I guess the family would have to decide also, and they have made it quite clear their wishes.

 

[bettybaby00]

Hi again...couple of questions:

I was wondering when JA was initially charged with aggrivating factors in the 1st degree indictment, how/why were heinous and depraved "ruled out?" I'm sure I'm not using the right language, but I hope you get what I mean

2) with regard to the jury deliberating on the DP, and the fact that if they are hung a new jury will be impaneled in the attempt to reach a unanimous verdict for the DP. Are the jurors instructed about what happens if they can't agree on the DP? If not, I would wonder if they might be less concerned, believing that then the "judge will handle it."

Thank you in advance

 

[WindyCityGirl]

The concept of premeditated versus felony murder confuses me in this case. I read that 5 of the jurors found JA guilty of premeditated murder, whereas 7 found her guilty of both premeditated and felony murder........how could the murder not be a felony if it was premeditated? doesn't one imply the other? very confusing to me. Thank you for insights and sharing your knowledge

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

The concept of premeditated versus felony murder confuses me in this case. I read that 5 of the jurors found JA guilty of premeditated murder, whereas 7 found her guilty of both premeditated and felony murder........how could the murder not be a felony if it was premeditated? doesn't one imply the other? very confusing to me. Thank you for insights and sharing your knowledge

Az can answer this one, but the way I understand it is that felony murder is usually in the act of a burglary or another act where this is no premeditation.
In other words--had Jodi not stolen the gun from her Grandparents, then she got the gun from Travis (that's what she said and the defense team said) so Juan said then---she committed a burglary before she shot Travis. Also, even if she was invited into Travis's home and there was premeditation once she started stabbing Travis, then she would lose her invitation to stay--thus felony murder.

In premeditation there is more of a planning. “Wrongfully causing the death of another human being, after rationally considering the TIMING---OR---METHOD of doing so in order to increase the likihood of success or to evade detection or apprehension.”

Now to me, and to the jury, the evidence for premeditation was overwhelming---
1. Faked Journal entries.
2. Broke into TA’s face book, sent messages to herself.
3. Hacked into his ATM, Bank Records, and E-mails.
4. Robbed Grandparents of 25-calibre GUN, $30 cash, and a stereo.
5. Dyed her hair a different color.
6. Drove 90-miles out of her way away from home town to get rental car.
7. Used rental car, specifically asked for not red, so she could presumably not see any stains/blood to clean.
8. Borrowed two gas cans, and bought a third.
9. Turned off cell phone so it wouldn’t ping off towers.
10. Turned her license plate upside down.
11. Brought gun and knife to crime scene.
12. Showed up at Travis’s house early in morning.
13. Locked Travis’s dog in a closet so he wouldn’t get in blood.
14. Waited until he was in vulnerable position in Shower and naked.
15. Arranged for date with Ryan Burns and was to arrive same night as murder.


However--what if you get some juror who is brain dead and says--'we'll what if that is all coincidental'? Then Juan can say---well, once she starts stabbing Travis--she would no longer be welcomed into Travis home, whether she planned it or not.

I am sure AZ will add more.

 

[aa9511]

I know this has been asked a few times, but I'm still confused...

if the jury does lwop instead of the death penalty, what does that mean for Jodi's sentence...I mean does that literally mean she spends THE REST OF HER LIFE in prison with no parole, or does that mean that the judge can say how many years without parole in prison...for example can JSS say her sentence is 30 years in prison without parole? And then she would be eligible for parole after those 30 years? Or then she would be released (after 30 years)?

TIA!

 

[Geri58]

To any legal eagle.....I posted something in regards to this on another thread...but here goes. Darryle Brewer at one point on the witness stand stated that JA had a good relationship with his son but at another time stated that she only kept or watched him only two times throughout their four year relationship. If he testifies that she was a good caretaker for his son can't JM bring up that fact and ask him questions about why she was only able to watch him two times over that four year period. Doesn't that say something about how cautious he was and that maybe he also was aware of her BPD and protected his son at all costs.

 

[AbbieNormal]

Thank you AZlawyer (even though I wanted a firm "NO")

I just want to go outside and scream!! She slaughtered a man for God's sake, WHY should she be allowed a TV?

Not if shes sitting on death row. They said the other night that death row prisoners do not get a TV. They get a sparse cell, let out 1 hr a day to shower or make phone calls and that's it. They spend their time alone and that will KILL Arias. I think she ran her mouth about wanting the DP w/ out realizing what being locked up under the DP would entail. Ha ha too bad for her, she would have been happy as a clam in gen pop for the rest of her life, she has adjusted well to prison and it would have been same old same old for her.

 

[Sign]

Hi AZLawyer,

Can you please explain what factors tend to govern a judge's decision for LWOP vs Life? Are there specific guidelines, or because this is so anomalous given the change in the law and that this murderer is grandfathered in, it is simply up the judge's discretion? Do you have a prediction if it comes to that? (hey, you've been right so far!)

Thanks

 

[K_Z]

Is CFJA allowed a TV in her cell? Please say "no", I've had enough stress from this case!!

TIA

All male and female inmates on Death Row are classified as maximum custody. All inmates are single cells which are equipped with a toilet, sink, bed and mattress. Each Death Row inmate has no contact with any other inmate. Out-of-cell time is limited to outdoor exercise in a secured area, two hours a day, three times a week, and a shower, three times a week. All meals are delivered by correction officers at the cell front. Limited non-contact visitation is available. Death Row inmates may place two ten minute telephone calls per week. Personal property is limited to hygiene items, two appliances, two books and writing materials, which can be purchased from the inmate commissary. Health care is provided at the Health Unit; medication is passed out at the cell front. Clergy contacts are provided at the cell.

(BBM)

http://www.azcorrections.gov/dr_faq.aspx

The inmate has to have funds to purchase the TV from the commissary, and they usually are specially designed for prisons (clear plastic case, small size, limited volume, etc). I can't imagine that they have access to more than 2-3 "outside" channels, probably something like weather, CSPAN, and closed circuit educational or religious inmate jail channels.

Of note, even while on "death watch" in the few hours preceding execution, inmates still have access to TV, but the TV has to be outside the bars of their cell.

1.2.9 Ensure the inmate has access to a department television set that is secured outside of the cell, and does not have access to any other appliances.

Page 12

www.azcorrections.gov/Policies/700/0710.pdf

 

[K_Z]

2 Questions:

1. Once a defendant is convicted, why is there such a long interval between the conviction, and sentencing?? For example, it is widely reported that once the aggravation/ mitigation phase is complete and the jury returns their recommendation for life or death, that the sentencing hearing would be 30 to 60 days later. Even if the jury decision is death-- the articles still say sentencing is in 30- 60 days. The decision is pretty much made at that point-- why the long delay in "formal" sentencing? Couldn't the judge just sentence the convicted right then, seeing that there isn't another sentencing option??

(Lol-- In my profession we have literally seconds to a few minutes to make most life and death decisions, so it puzzles me to see it necessary to take WEEKS to MONTHS to make a formal proclamation on a sentence that is inevitable according to the law.)

2. Does the convicted, but yet formally unsentenced defendant remain in County Jail during the delay between conviction and sentencing? If so, is this different if the sentence is death? ie, does a defendant with an "inevitable" death sentence go to death row at state prison for the 1-2 months before sentencing, or remain in County Jail?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

If they are a hung jury, another jury will be empaneled to decide life vs. death. If they unanimously decide for life, the judge decides LWOP vs. natural life.

Sorry if I missed this somewhere else, but I thought LWOP was the same as "natural life." Does "natural life" in Arizona mean a 20+ year sentence with the possibility of parole?

I thought after the aggravation phase was completed and extreme cruelty was proven, there was no other option but LWOP or the DP.

(If by some cruel twist, this jury doesn't unanimously decide, and life with the possibility of parole is back up, I don't understand how this figures in with the extreme cruelty finding.)

If, in the unlikely circumstances this present jury unanimously votes for life, is it still the judge's decision whether or not CKJA gets LWOP, or the possibility of parole? In other words, does it make any difference in terms of sentencing, if there should be a new jury or this one deciding?

Thank you for always clearing up these difficult fine legal points and for helping us better understand this process.

Sorry about confusing you with "LWOP v. natural life." That was a typo. I meant "LWOP v. 25-to-life."

So you are correct that LWOP and natural life mean the same thing. But it is not correct that LWOP or death are the only choices at this point. If we end with a hung jury, OR if the jury unanimously decides "life," the judge can still give her 25-to-life.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZLawyer, if ja gives a statement rather than testimony will she be at the podium or witness stand?

Most likely she would be at the podium, although there's no requirement that she do it that way.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer, what does the BBM mean regarding what can be presented during penalty phase?
'Regardless of rules of evidence'?
'Any' information relevant?


and

Does that mean JM is not restricted by what was presented @ trial? 'Any relevant' combined with 'regardless of rules of evidence' in the BBM makes me think this could get interesting, but I'm probably reading all this stuff wrong. Wish we had JM's witness list...

The rules of evidence (except for relevance) are largely repealed for the mitigation phase. In addition, even if the defense presents no mitigating evidence during this phase, the jury is required to consider any mitigating evidence presented during the guilt phase. So JM is allowed to rebut that evidence. JM is also allowed to rebut any of the statutory mitigating factors, because the jury is required to consider those even if the defendant doesn't ask them to. At this point, JM would also be allowed to rebut any of the mitigating factors listed by Nurmi, which are pretty broad (she's a "good friend" and trying to improve her life, etc.).

What he can't do, and what I think a lot of WS'ers want him to do, is to present new "aggravation"-type evidence. The aggravating factors are those listed by statute and nothing else, and the aggravation phase is over.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would CMJA be able to offer to JM LWOP if she decided no appeals, just like the Dr. in the NJ? But I guess the family would have to decide also, and they have made it quite clear their wishes.

Yes, she can always make the offer (I assume you mean if she's sentenced to death). I very much doubt that JM would consider it at that point, though.

Also, while I'm sure JM would ask the family for their thoughts on any offer from JA, the family's wishes are not binding on him.