Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Happy Monday Az Lawyer ... my question is once the jury returns their verdict, death penalty or LWOP or the other life sentence you mentioned ... do the appeals start immediately? How long does the first appeal normally take and is that to the first level of AZ Appellate Court? Will another attorney handle any appeal or does Nurmi do that?

I am just asking the after effects once the jury makes a decision as far as time appeals take, who handles the appeals, how many levels if first appellate court upholds the verdict ... what is next before it reaches AZ Supreme Court?

The jury will decide death or life--if the verdict is life, the judge will decide LWOP or 25-to-life.

The appeals will start within 20 days of sentencing (immediately if there is a death sentence). Appeal times vary widely--but I would expect about 9 months for a life sentence appeal to the AZ Court of Appeals, or about 1 1/2 years for a death sentence appeal to the AZ Supreme Court. (Death sentence appeals skip over the Court of Appeals stage.) And then about another 10 years through various courts.

There will be a new appellate attorney appointed for the appeal.

 

[AZlawyer]

Why didn't the DT use DeMarte's diagnosis and claim a personality disorder as a mitigating factor? I know a PD is not a defense strategy, but why not use it in mitigation? IMO, it's a stronger factor than "a good friend" or "a good artist."

I agree with you.

 

[ChubbyCheeks]

What does the defense's request "stay to seek emergency relief" mean? What would that do to the trial proceedings? TIA

 

[CarolinaWoman]

The jury will decide death or life--if the verdict is life, the judge will decide LWOP or 25-to-life.

Snipped to ask two more questions.

Does the 25-to-life sentence deduct for time served?
With this sentence does it mean defendant is eligible for parole in 25 years?

 

[AZlawyer]

What does the defense's request "stay to seek emergency relief" mean? What would that do to the trial proceedings? TIA

A stay to seek emergency relief means that the trial proceedings would be halted while the defense goes to a higher court to ask for one or more of JSS's rulings to be overturned.

Since we found her DUI arrests in two seconds on Google, surely to God Kirk and Jennifer knew of Patrisha Womack's history. They KNEW JM was going to leave no stone unturned about her. Don't you therefore find it exceedingly dumb that they picked her for a witness. She was doomed at hello.

Then to feign shock that JM questioned her in the depo, standard things, is just not in good faith in my opinion.

Don't you ask your witnesses , look empty the bucket...tell me everything because the other side is sure going to ask you about your history? Then don't you, trust but verify and have your own paralegal or investigators check the records of your potential witnesses yourself to be CERTAIN. Then, don't you do a mock cross examination to see if they can withstand the inevitable cross examination? Especially if you are collectively being paid seven hundred dollars an hour and someone's life is on the line?

I blame the Jodi's lawyers on this one. All day long. Just as a side note they would have KNOWN if she is on Welfare she could not be receiving money for selling stories, photos, etc and not reporting it to government. It seems crazy to me that they even dreamed of calling her, rather than mom. Hearing JM say that Miss Womack would have testified that indeed Jodi's childhood was not full of any abuse, but was rather happy/normal in her opinion. HOW could Jodi's lawyers have not thought this through...hmmmm what will Juan ask?

I assume they "picked" PW as a witness because Jodi has NO REAL FRIENDS, and she was the only one who felt sorta kinda friendly toward Jodi. I'm sure if Jodi had any friends who didn't have all these skeletons in their closet, they would have picked them instead.

I assume they didn't want to call Mom as a witness because she might deny being abusive/neglectful, might be impeached with her Flores interview tape if she tried to say wonderful things about Jodi, etc.

Snipped to ask two more questions.

Does the 25-to-life sentence deduct for time served?
With this sentence does it mean defendant is eligible for parole in 25 years?

Yes, 25-to-life means that the defendant would be eligible for parole in 25 years.

All sentences deduct time served.

 

[Shadowboy]

A follow up to my Q and your A re: PD as a mitigating factor

... Assuming JA's current list of mitigating factors was written and put forth by JA (which is something I sincerely believe) ... could the DT ignore her wishes and throw a "hail Mary" during their final argument, using the personality disorder as a mitigating factor? Can they completely change tactics and/or go against JA's wishes?

{And THANK YOU for all of your time and effort!!}

 

[AZlawyer]

A follow up to my Q and your A re: PD as a mitigating factor

... Assuming JA's current list of mitigating factors was written and put forth by JA (which is something I sincerely believe) ... could the DT ignore her wishes and throw a "hail Mary" during their final argument, using the personality disorder as a mitigating factor? Can they completely change tactics and/or go against JA's wishes?

{And THANK YOU for all of your time and effort!!}

I don't think she wrote it, since she told the Fox reporter that she had no mitigating circumstances.

Yes, the DT could mention BPD in closing, although JM would have to be given a chance to respond.

They can't go against JA's wishes unless she is deemed incompetent to assist them, which clearly she hasn't been.

 

[kscornfed]

"The ONLY felony alleged in connection with the felony murder was 2nd degree burglary. The jury did not receive any instructions regarding any other felony.

IMO there would have been a problem on appeal if the jurors had accepted the felony murder theory. Luckily, they didn't. The jurors who didn't vote for felony murder perhaps realized that there was something fundamentally circular/wrong about the "unwelcome visitor after the attack began" argument.[/QUOTE]"

if it was wrong, why was it included? when KN objected to JM's explanation of how this was also felony murder and said 'misstates the law', the judge overruled him. and JM did mention the gun---just in case any of them believed TA had one.
JM asked the jury to find her guilty of both, from what i recall.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

When the final verdict is made does that end the client relationship for Nurmi and Willmott with JA? Will the court appoint a new attorney for appeals or is that Nurmi and Willmott's responsibility ... are these three joined at the hip forever?

Thank you for taking your time to answer questions. I really appreciate your answers that help my scrambled brain understand all the confusion this trial has brought about for me.

 

[bsk]

How confrontational can a lawyer get with a judge before getting in some sort of trouble? JSS seemed quite unhappy today, and I wondered if it was at least in part because of the exchange that went something like:
JSS: "It would speculative for the Court.... Motion denied."
KN: "It would NOT be speculative...."
How close is that to translating into: "Your Honor, you are a liar!"? Even though it was not in front of the jury, I wondered if KN was walking on thin ice by continuing to argue with the judge after she had ruled.

Do you think Nurmi pitching a hissy fit and not calling DB was just a calculated move to help with an appeal (either to 'prove' they had no fair chance or to bolster the case of ineffective counsel)? Did the judge offering to hold a closed hearing with PW screw the DT for this issue on appeal? Also, could the judge have asked Jodi if it was HER decision not to call DB, just so it was clear for future appeal purposes?

Lastly, I realize that attorneys with terrible clients and/or terrible cases need to stretch for anything close to appeal issues (the 'throw the spaghetti against the wall' approach), but did it seem sillier than whatever is usual for Nurmi in effect to argue that it would be 'intimidation' for Juan to bring up impeachment issues while cross-examining PW?

Thanks!

 

[My3Sons]

<snipped by me>

I never watched JM's closing and was confused when people told me that the "felony murder" argument was about stealing Travis's gun. But then other people told me that those people were dreaming and JM never said that.

I assume the second group of people were correct, because the way JM had explained the felony murder argument before was that Jodi either re-entered the home (after pretending she was leaving) with the intention of killing Travis, or that she became an unwelcome visitor as soon as she started the attack. That argument makes a lot more sense than the "gun theft" argument, although IMO the second version (where she became an unwelcome guest when the attack began) is legally flawed, and I'm glad the jury didn't go with felony murder for that reason.

If JM didn't make the argument that the theft of Travis's gun was the basis for felony murder, then I don't think we need to worry that the jury is confused about that issue.

<snipped by me>

Hi AZ! Juan did, in fact, say that. He said (paraphrasing) "Even if you believe she used Travis' gun, she admitted on the stand she took that gun with her, which means she stole his gun, which is a felony, so that makes it felony murder".

I don't think he stated that this was the only thing they could believe in order to make this a felony murder. But...he did present it as a possible scenario for them to find felony murder. HTH

Question: did the judge have to meet with the three alternates to determine that they agreed with and/or accepted the verdict in order for them to remain alternates on the panel for the sentencing phases? What would happen if one or more of them said they could not accept the verdict?

TIA.

 

[zoozoo]

Another question for the helpful WS attorneys: the defense keeps making accusations implying JM has been "intimidating witnesses". IIRC they stated JM "intimidated" Samuels when he interviewed him regarding his PowerPoint that had not been disclosed to the prosecution until the morning of Samuels' testimony. The defense also implies JM "intimidated" ALV when questioning her in a sealed hearing. And today, the defense implies JM "intimidated" P. Womack when interviewing her last week.

Isn't the prosecution allowed to question witnesses about issues that would go to their integrity? Would such questioning be seen as "intimidating" the witness? For example, if JM questioned Womack about her legal issues in the past and her possible financial gain from this case (by media appearances or sale of photos, for instance), why can the defense claim that is "intimidation"? It seems like those are legitimate issues going towards the witness's integrity and therefore would be ok to pursue to impeach the witness.

Likewise, if JM questioned ALV in closed hearing about actions or statements attributable to her that reflected on her reliability as a truthful expert, how is that "intimidating" a witness?

It seems like the defense wants to be able to call any witness and have the judge prevent the prosecutor from asking the tough questions by screaming "intimidation". If a witness has done something wrong or unethical or illegal, doesn't the opposing attorney have the right to ask about these things thereby letting the witness know that their actions are going to be out in the open? I guess that could be "intimidating", but it is not against the rules, is it?

Also, one last question: can the defense subpoena witnesses for the mitigation phase? If yes, why didn't they subpoena Womack if they wanted her to testify so badly. Can a witness just decide after being interviewed by opposing attorney that he/she doesn't want to testify because of issues that might come to light without having to take the stand and take the 5th? Wouldn't many witnesses just claim death threats and not show up if that were the case?

Thank you in advance!

 

[gauntlet]

Will JM be able to cross examine CMJA's allocution?

 

[Grammy717]

Hi, AZ! You said in an earlier post, "All sentences deduct time served." So if she does get DP, does that mean it'll occur 5 years sooner to account for her jail time already served? (sorry...couldn't resist).

 

[AZlawyer]

[B

]"The ONLY felony alleged in connection with the felony murder was 2nd degree burglary. The jury did not receive any instructions regarding any other felony.

IMO there would have been a problem on appeal if the jurors had accepted the felony murder theory. Luckily, they didn't. The jurors who didn't vote for felony murder perhaps realized that there was something fundamentally circular/wrong about the "unwelcome visitor after the attack began" argument

.

"
[/B]

if it was wrong, why was it included? when KN objected to JM's explanation of how this was also felony murder and said 'misstates the law', the judge overruled him. and JM did mention the gun---just in case any of them believed TA had one.
JM asked the jury to find her guilty of both, from what i recall.

[/QUOTE]

IMO Nurmi's argument about the felony murder charge was better than the state's argument. However, I have not done any independent research on this--I just read the briefs on both sides and was unconvinced by the state's brief.

IMO if JM mentioned the (nonexistent) gun in closing, it was likely because he realized the weakness in the "unwelcome visitor due to assault" argument and hoped that the "gun theft" argument would be more defensible on appeal in the event that the jury went for felony murder.

The law is very often unclear. I'm sure JM didn't make the argument thinking it was wrong. And since the jury didn't go for felony murder, at this point it makes no difference whether he was right or wrong.

 

[AZlawyer]

When the final verdict is made does that end the client relationship for Nurmi and Willmott with JA? Will the court appoint a new attorney for appeals or is that Nurmi and Willmott's responsibility ... are these three joined at the hip forever?

Thank you for taking your time to answer questions. I really appreciate your answers that help my scrambled brain understand all the confusion this trial has brought about for me.

The A/C relationship ends when the appeal is filed or the appeal time has expired. A new attorney will be appointed for the appeal.

 

[Linda From New York]

The A/C relationship ends when the appeal is filed or the appeal time has expired. A new attorney will be appointed for the appeal.

AZlawyer...what the heck went on today???

 

[AZlawyer]

How confrontational can a lawyer get with a judge before getting in some sort of trouble? JSS seemed quite unhappy today, and I wondered if it was at least in part because of the exchange that went something like:
JSS: "It would speculative for the Court.... Motion denied."
KN: "It would NOT be speculative...."
How close is that to translating into: "Your Honor, you are a liar!"? Even though it was not in front of the jury, I wondered if KN was walking on thin ice by continuing to argue with the judge after she had ruled.

Do you think Nurmi pitching a hissy fit and not calling DB was just a calculated move to help with an appeal (either to 'prove' they had no fair chance or to bolster the case of ineffective counsel)? Did the judge offering to hold a closed hearing with PW screw the DT for this issue on appeal? Also, could the judge have asked Jodi if it was HER decision not to call DB, just so it was clear for future appeal purposes?

Lastly, I realize that attorneys with terrible clients and/or terrible cases need to stretch for anything close to appeal issues (the 'throw the spaghetti against the wall' approach), but did it seem sillier than whatever is usual for Nurmi in effect to argue that it would be 'intimidation' for Juan to bring up impeachment issues while cross-examining PW?

Thanks!

The "hissy fit" would not impact any appeal issue or ineffective assistance of counsel argument. I think Nurmi is just stressed out about the situation and lost his temper.

I have no idea what happened with DB and don't want to speculate. But I think there is a zero percent chance that it was a calculated move for either of the reasons you mentioned. IMO if the defense had any decent mitigation witnesses, they would be putting them on the stand, unless Jodi has refused to allow it.

No, offering a closed hearing doesn't settle the issue, because PW alleged that her life was threatened. I doubt any of these threats included the words "unless you appear in a closed hearing." Her name was already released, and that was the problem. (Supposedly. Personally, I think JM's explanation for her absence made more sense.)

Was DB even addressed? If not, I tend to think that his status has been discussed at some point in sidebar or behind closed doors. Yes, the judge can and probably did make sure that whatever happened with DB was on the record (sealed, of course :banghead:, but still on the record).

It would be silly to say that impeaching a witness is "intimidation." But I didn't watch the proceedings this morning, so I wonder if what Nurmi meant/said was that the issues JM wanted to raise would not be admissible for impeachment?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ! Juan did, in fact, say that. He said (paraphrasing) "Even if you believe she used Travis' gun, she admitted on the stand she took that gun with her, which means she stole his gun, which is a felony, so that makes it felony murder".

I don't think he stated that this was the only thing they could believe in order to make this a felony murder. But...he did present it as a possible scenario for them to find felony murder. HTH

Question: did the judge have to meet with the three alternates to determine that they agreed with and/or accepted the verdict in order for them to remain alternates on the panel for the sentencing phases? What would happen if one or more of them said they could not accept the verdict?

TIA.

No, the alternates would not have been questioned, and might, in fact, disagree about the verdict. If they were substituted in at this stage, however, they would be instructed that they are required to accept as true that Jodi killed Travis with premeditation and in a cruel manner.

 

[AZlawyer]

Another question for the helpful WS attorneys: the defense keeps making accusations implying JM has been "intimidating witnesses". IIRC they stated JM "intimidated" Samuels when he interviewed him regarding his PowerPoint that had not been disclosed to the prosecution until the morning of Samuels' testimony. The defense also implies JM "intimidated" ALV when questioning her in a sealed hearing. And today, the defense implies JM "intimidated" P. Womack when interviewing her last week.

Isn't the prosecution allowed to question witnesses about issues that would go to their integrity? Would such questioning be seen as "intimidating" the witness? For example, if JM questioned Womack about her legal issues in the past and her possible financial gain from this case (by media appearances or sale of photos, for instance), why can the defense claim that is "intimidation"? It seems like those are legitimate issues going towards the witness's integrity and therefore would be ok to pursue to impeach the witness.

Likewise, if JM questioned ALV in closed hearing about actions or statements attributable to her that reflected on her reliability as a truthful expert, how is that "intimidating" a witness?

It seems like the defense wants to be able to call any witness and have the judge prevent the prosecutor from asking the tough questions by screaming "intimidation". If a witness has done something wrong or unethical or illegal, doesn't the opposing attorney have the right to ask about these things thereby letting the witness know that their actions are going to be out in the open? I guess that could be "intimidating", but it is not against the rules, is it?

Also, one last question: can the defense subpoena witnesses for the mitigation phase? If yes, why didn't they subpoena Womack if they wanted her to testify so badly. Can a witness just decide after being interviewed by opposing attorney that he/she doesn't want to testify because of issues that might come to light without having to take the stand and take the 5th? Wouldn't many witnesses just claim death threats and not show up if that were the case?

Thank you in advance!

It's not against the rules to impeach a witness. Also, in a pre-testimony interview or deposition, you can ask a lot more than you can ask when the witness is on the stand, and that's OK too.

I always thought their "intimidation" argument was about JM's "tone" with witnesses (the tone of a passionate prosecutor who hates liars lol) rather than the substance of his questions, though. I haven't seen anything from JM in open court that would constitute "intimidation." I think the idea is that if the record is jam-packed with references to JM intimidating witnesses, it will start to seem true even if the backup evidence is not really there.

The defense can subpoena witnesses for the mitigation phase, but not from California. The defense could have, I suppose, started a separate proceeding in California to get a California judge to subpoena the witnesses to appear at, e.g., a California conference center from which they could call in to the Arizona court. It's probably not a great idea to force witnesses to testify in a mitigation hearing, though--if they don't volunteer, they may not be such great mitigation witnesses, unless they're just testifying to clear, demonstrable facts.