Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Sophieandme]

Can a new rebuttal witness be announced at this point in the trial? If so, does the defense depose them while the trial is ongoing?

TIA!

 

[sleuth21]

How is it possible to find an impartial jury in a high profile case like this or that of CA? I mean I KNOW that there can be a change of venue, but come on, this has been national news for at least a year now. I am sure it was local news for the many years before being picked up by the TH's.

Criminal trial lawyer.....would you rather.....defense of prosecutor? Advantages/disadvantages?

And, as a personal opinion, based on what you have seen of AZ v. JA, If you had to GUESS, based on what you know on the history of juries in DP cases, not to mention, pretty mousy women, who will prevail?

Getting an impartial jury wouldn't be too difficult in a larger jurisdiction. There were probably a lot of people who paid little attention to the case or who could disregard what they had heard. Unlike us WSers, there are a lot of strange folks who don't love to follow criminal cases.

As a criminal trial lawyer I've been both a prosecutor and now I'm a defense attorney. There are distinct advantages to both. Most of my clients are guilty as sin and what I do is advocate for a sentence that fits the crime and allows for rehabilitation. My favorite part of my job is seeing people turn their lives around and succeed. Being a prosecutor can give great satisfaction because you are playing a big part in keeping your community safe while also having a duty to see that rights are honored by law enforcement and the legal system. It is a righteous job.

If I had to take this case I would love, love, love to be on the prosecution. Juan Martinez has a reason to be very passionate about getting justice here. Passion in the courtroom is a major asset. I think Nurmi hates his client and I find it's an uphill battle to maintain a vigorous defense for people like JA. I've had a few clients like her and I was resigned to defending rights and not the person.

As far as the DP in this case, I believe it will be imposed. This is a vicious, brutal murder. Mr. Alexander surely suffered. I think JA has been exposed as an obsessed ex-girlfriend. Her various personalities on the stand IMO show someone without a true identity of her own. She is a hollow shell and unlikely to offer much to others should she be allowed to live. Her lies are also fairly transparent, particularly regarding the gun. Juries do not respond well to being treated like idiots. Mr. Martinez also did a remarkable job of rehabilitating Mr. Alexander's character as a loving and generous human being who treated JA with kindness and only responded to her sexual advances in kind without being aware that perhaps JA did not always have positive feelings about their exchanges.
Finally, as Katiecoolady has said, the presence of a grieving family has a big impact on a jury. They can feel the loss.

Phew. Long post.

 

[sleuth21]

Can a new rebuttal witness be announced at this point in the trial? If so, does the defense depose them while the trial is ongoing?

TIA!

A new rebuttal witness could likely be called at this stage. Even when the defense reveals their defense and their witnesses, the defense always has the advantage of not having to fully reveal their case. It seems like Jodi has brought up the names of people for the first time as well.

I believe that the judge would be the one to make the final decision if the defense objected. If it appears that the prosecution could not have discovered the identity of rebuttal witnesses or could not have foreseen that certain points would need to be rebutted, it would cut heavily in favor of the prosecution. Certainly the defense would be allowed adequate time to interview and follow up on any new rebuttal witnesses. Few jurisdictions allow deposition of witnesses in criminal trials except in very rare circumstances. I'm not sure if AZ allows for the routine use of sworn depositions in criminal trials but the defense could certainly interview the new witness.

 

[Sleuths4Me]

The Finger debate question: Can JM ask the court to order JA to have her finger x-rayed? I am assuming JM didn't know she was going to say TA broke her finger so if that is new "evidence" the DT is throwing in can't JM say "OK, let's get that finger x-rayed."?

 

[sleuth21]

The Finger debate question: Can JM ask the court to order JA to have her finger x-rayed? I am assuming JM didn't know she was going to say TA broke her finger so if that is new "evidence" the DT is throwing in can't JM say "OK, let's get that finger x-rayed."?

Unless the defense had a medical expert come in and testify as to the nature of the injury and how it was sustained I do not believe that the prosecution could compel her to undergo medical testing. If she produced and expert the prosecution would have the right to review both the expert's findings and the tests or examination findings that formed the basis of that opinion including any x-rays. The prosecution can point out that nobody can confirm how she sustained the injury except the defendant herself.

 

[bananarama]

Why did the Judge admit the defense's cut up/text version of the sex tape? How prejudiced is that against the victim? I can't believe it!

 

[sleuth21]

Why did the Judge admit the defense's cut up/text version of the sex tape? How prejudiced is that against the victim? I can't believe it!

This was a shocking ruling. I believe I saw from AZlawyer on the main thread indicating the same from AZ's view. Prejudice toward the victim isn't necessarily a factor but the State is also entitled to a fair trial. Playing the words of an unavailable person with zero other audio to provide context is really surprising. Had the whole audio not already been played this would not have happened I'm sure. The judge seems to be a big chicken and afraid of being reversed on appeal. These attorneys seem to run her courtroom. :twocents:

 

[Sassynic]

Sorry wrong thread.

 

[pinkie60]

is it true the evidence has not been presented yet? if so, there is a long way to go yet. will the prosecution have the experts testify about the crime scene?

 

[AZlawyer]

Unless the defense had a medical expert come in and testify as to the nature of the injury and how it was sustained I do not believe that the prosecution could compel her to undergo medical testing. If she produced and expert the prosecution would have the right to review both the expert's findings and the tests or examination findings that formed the basis of that opinion including any x-rays. The prosecution can point out that nobody can confirm how she sustained the injury except the defendant herself.

In AZ, the defendant is required to "ubmit to a reasonable physical or medical inspection of his or her body, provided such inspection does not include psychiatric or psychological examination," if relevant. Here, Jodi testified that the finger was broken when Travis kicked it, whereas in Reality Land, she sliced through a tendon with a bloody knife (IMO JMO and all that jazz). I think JM could have forced an x-ray in this situation to see what the actual injury was.

 

[AZlawyer]

is it true the evidence has not been presented yet? if so, there is a long way to go yet. will the prosecution have the experts testify about the crime scene?

Lots of evidence has been presented, including all the crime scene experts. Some evidence, I'm sure, has not. The prosecution has rested, which means they think they have finished proving their case. The defense has not rested. I'm not sure if they will have more witnesses after Jodi; we'll have to wait and see. The prosecution then gets to present evidence rebutting the defense's case.

 

[RadarLuv]

The Doctrine of Completeness....


So no recross, but the Doctrine of Completeness comes to play now according to TH's. Does this essentially mean that a recross IS in our future?

 

[forb8182]

Lots of evidence has been presented, including all the crime scene experts. Some evidence, I'm sure, has not. The prosecution has rested, which means they think they have finished proving their case. The defense has not rested. I'm not sure if they will have more witnesses after Jodi; we'll have to wait and see. The prosecution then gets to present evidence rebutting the defense's case.

So will JM get the opportunity to re-cross after Nurmi is done with re-direct? I have seen posts saying he can and more saying JM cannot speak with her again when Nurmi is done with her. Sorry if this has been answered already, I haven't been able to find it...

 

[Nova]

"Felony murder" gets you a first-degree murder conviction without the need to prove premeditation. It applies where a murder takes place in the course of committing another felony. In the indictment, the felony that was listed as the basis for the felony murder charge was 2nd degree burglary, based on Jodi entering TA's home without permission or remaining there after she was no longer a welcome guest with the intent to commit another felony. I think JM said in argument that the other felony she intended to commit was aggravated assault? But I'm not sure.

Doesn't that make all murders "felony murders"? Isn't anybody "unwelcome" once s/he starts committing a crime? Can you kill someone without assaulting him?

This sort of reminds me of how California prosecutors turned "three strikes" into "one strike" by filing multiple felony counts for a single act.

 

[AZlawyer]

The Doctrine of Completeness....


So no recross, but the Doctrine of Completeness comes to play now according to TH's. Does this essentially mean that a recross IS in our future?

So will JM get the opportunity to re-cross after Nurmi is done with re-direct? I have seen posts saying he can and more saying JM cannot speak with her again when Nurmi is done with her. Sorry if this has been answered already, I haven't been able to find it...

Normally, there is no recross. But if Jodi is saying things on redirect that are beyond the scope of cross (i.e., new things), then JM will get a short recross to address those things only.

 

[Nali87]

Here I am. Again. I do try to get answers on google before I ask them here lol.


My question: Can a couple of jurors go for for premeditated murder and a couple with felony murder? Can 6 go for PM and 6 for FM with end result being = guilty of murder in the first degree?

Thank you!

 

[AZlawyer]

Doesn't that make all murders "felony murders"? Isn't anybody "unwelcome" once s/he starts committing a crime? Can you kill someone without assaulting him?

This sort of reminds me of how California prosecutors turned "three strikes" into "one strike" by filing multiple felony counts for a single act.

It is a little circular in this case for sure, at least the way it's been presented by the state. Of course, not all murders take place in the defendant's home, so second degree burglary doesn't always apply. Still, it's a little odd.

Personally, I would have said that the felony underlying the second degree burglary (i.e., the reason she entered/remained in the home) was kidnapping or extortion. In other words, I would have said, OK, either (1) she went there with the intent to kill him (premed. murder) or, (2) in the alternative, she went there with the intent of holding him against his will at gunpoint and forcing him to agree to something (Cancun?) with the threat of revealing sex tapes, etc., if he didn't agree, and the gun went off by "accident" (felony murder).

JM did say that the felony underlying the burglary would have been aggravated assault, which would apply if TA was held at gunpoint/knifepoint as I mentioned above, but he keeps saying that the assault was the "attack" rather than the threat. Once you prove an intentional attack involving a gunshot to the head, a stab wound to the heart, or a slit throat, you might as well just prove premeditated murder IMO.

 

[AZlawyer]

Here I am. Again. I do try to get anwers on google before I ask them here lol.


My question: Can a couple of jurors go for for premeditated murder and a couple with felony murder? Can 6 go for PM and 6 for FM with end result being = guilty of murder in the first degree?

Thank you!

Yes, they do not have to be unanimous on premeditated vs. felony murder.

 

[Nova]

It is a little circular in this case for sure, at least the way it's been presented by the state. Of course, not all murders take place in the defendant's home, so second degree burglary doesn't always apply. Still, it's a little odd.

Personally, I would have said that the felony underlying the second degree burglary (i.e., the reason she entered/remained in the home) was kidnapping or extortion. In other words, I would have said, OK, either (1) she went there with the intent to kill him (premed. murder) or, (2) in the alternative, she went there with the intent of holding him against his will at gunpoint and forcing him to agree to something (Cancun?) with the threat of revealing sex tapes, etc., if he didn't agree, and the gun went off by "accident" (felony murder).

JM did say that the felony underlying the burglary would have been aggravated assault, which would apply if TA was held at gunpoint/knifepoint as I mentioned above, but he keeps saying that the assault was the "attack" rather than the threat. Once you prove an intentional attack involving a gunshot to the head, a stab wound to the heart, or a slit throat, you might as well just prove premeditated murder IMO.

Thank you. Your description of the relevant "felony murder" makes more sense to me than what I've heard thus far from JM.

 

[Nova]

How is the defense's burden of "some evidence" in an affirmative defense (is that the term in AZ or just in CA?) explained to the jurors?

(I did try googling this. Some jurisdictions put the defense's affirmative burden at "preponderance of the evidence", but I take it from your replies that that is not the Arizona standard. As a juror on a self-defense case in CA (20 years ago), it seemed to me that the instructions put the defense's burden pretty high.)

As always, thanks in advance. All of our lawyers are so generous to give of their knowledge so freely. I hope you all recognize the service you perform in terms of educating the public. I have to believe your work here will be repaid in better educated jurors (and more willingness by the public to do their jury service) in the future.