Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[gcharlie]

Can JM call a forensic expert in the rebuttal phase?

He was very careful to obtain a detailed description from JA how TA was shot, including the "linebacker" demonstration. Expert testimony could refute her version and strip any credibility she might have, including her memory loss.

 

[gitana1]

Can JM call a forensic expert in the rebuttal phase?

He was very careful to obtain a detailed description from JA how TA was shot, including the "linebacker" demonstration. Expert testimony could refute her version and strip any credibility she might have, including her memory loss.

A forensic expert already testified during the state's case and he stated no one could survive the shot Travis sustained to The head so Travis was shot last. He also stated there was no blood from the head wound indicating Travis had already bled out when he was shot.

 

[nursebeeme]

please forgive if this has already been asked:

I have heard hln talking heads saying that nurmi and martinez will get to be up again after Arias answers the questions.. if so why? I don't recall that happening with other witnesses who were asked questions by the jury????

 

[Wake_me]

Question about the jury questions. Are the jury members aware that Jodi had time to see their questions in advance? I don't believe they were present for the discussion about JM and the DT viewing them prior, but I might be mistaken.

 

[ClosArgs]

I have a question regarding closing arguments. I noticed that M.M. was listed as a defense witness. However, from an exchange between JA and Juan I got the distinct impression MM is not backing her story on the alleged bruising to her neck. However, yesterday JA again mentioned MM and some rep from PPL seeing the bruising. If defense does not call either "witness" to corroborate her state, can Juan point that out to the jury in his closing arguments, including she had the right to supoena either or both?

 

[minor4th]

please forgive if this has already been asked:

I have heard hln talking heads saying that nurmi and martinez will get to be up again after Arias answers the questions.. if so why? I don't recall that happening with other witnesses who were asked questions by the jury????

Yes, they will both have a chance to ask follow up questions after Jodi finishes with the jury questions. They have been offered this opportunity each time the jury has had questions for a witness. I believe when they asked Flores a couple of questions, the lawyers asked a follow up question or two.

 

[minor4th]

Question about the jury questions. Are the jury members aware that Jodi had time to see their questions in advance? I don't believe they were present for the discussion about JM and the DT viewing them prior, but I might be mistaken.

They are probably unaware of that specifically, but I don't think it matters - this jury seems pretty sharp, and they do know that Jodi has spent years getting her story straight with her lawyers.

 

[minor4th]

I have a question regarding closing arguments. I noticed that M.M. was listed as a defense witness. However, from an exchange between JA and Juan I got the distinct impression MM is not backing her story on the alleged bruising to her neck. However, yesterday JA again mentioned MM and some rep from PPL seeing the bruising. If defense does not call either "witness" to corroborate her state, can Juan point that out to the jury in his closing arguments, including she had the right to supoena either or both?

Yes, the prosecutor can comment on the defense' failure to call corroborating witnesses and produce corroborating evidence, despite their claim that such witnesses and evidence exist.

 

[sleuth21]

I found the following below regarding the procedure in AZ if there is a hung jury in the penalty phase. It's very different from the norm so I copied and pasted below:

Arizona: After a defendant is found guilty of 1st degree murder, there are two stages to determine the appropriate sentence: (a) an aggravation phase to determine whether aggravating circumstances exist and (b) a penalty phase to determine whether to impose the death penalty. If the jury cannot reach a verdict on any aggravating circumstances and none have been proven, the court dismisses the jury and impanels a new one. The new jury does not consider any aggravating circumstances the first jury found not proven by a unanimous verdict. If the new jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, the court imposes a sentence of life or natural life. At the penalty phase, if the jury cannot reach a verdict, the court dismisses the jury and impanels a new one. The new jury does not consider any aggravating circumstances the first jury could not find proven or not proven by a unanimous verdict. If the new jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, the court imposes a sentence of life or natural life (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703.01(J) and (L)).

 

[Tiki]

don't think and Psychologist would give her an evaluation of Travis -

 

[Donnareit]

I've been out of the loop for awhile, but I took an interest in this case because of the DV expert witness the defense plans to call. To my experienced ear, I foresee questioning will be around reinforcing terms Jodi and here team have been drilling on - especially the "how did that make you feel," and what was her mindset.

So, considering the state of the law 20 years ago:

There is a fundamental difference between the way women tell of their battering experiences and what is permitted under the male- identified rules of evidence. Women tend to tell of the events in question rooted in their context, by weaving a tale of patterns of events and feelings in the context of how they happened. Rules of evidence call for the recitation of discrete events separated from feelings or opinions. Facts out of context may be acceptable, but they do not convey the battered woman's experience. Expert witnesses can tie together what the current evidentiary rules do not allow the defendant to say. Until feminist legal scholars argue for and attain reform in the rules of evidence, a battered woman will be constrained from putting her case in front of the trier of fact.

And the way I see the judge handling this case, I would ask our Legal Eagles here if there has been tremendous changes to the Rules or will the Prosecution manage to hold these experts in check?

Whatda ya think? I truly appreciate reading your informed opinions here. Thanks (and no, I'm not on Jodi's side - she is the perp here).

 

[minor4th]

I've been out of the loop for awhile, but I took an interest in this case because of the DV expert witness the defense plans to call. To my experienced ear, I foresee questioning will be around reinforcing terms Jodi and here team have been drilling on - especially the "how did that make you feel," and what was her mindset.

So, considering the state of the law 20 years ago:

There is a fundamental difference between the way women tell of their battering experiences and what is permitted under the male- identified rules of evidence. Women tend to tell of the events in question rooted in their context, by weaving a tale of patterns of events and feelings in the context of how they happened. Rules of evidence call for the recitation of discrete events separated from feelings or opinions. Facts out of context may be acceptable, but they do not convey the battered woman's experience. Expert witnesses can tie together what the current evidentiary rules do not allow the defendant to say. Until feminist legal scholars argue for and attain reform in the rules of evidence, a battered woman will be constrained from putting her case in front of the trier of fact.

And the way I see the judge handling this case, I would ask our Legal Eagles here if there has been tremendous changes to the Rules or will the Prosecution manage to hold these experts in check?

Whatda ya think? I truly appreciate reading your informed opinions here. Thanks (and no, I'm not on Jodi's side - she is the perp here).

There have definitely been some changes in the rules of evidence and procedure in the last 20 years. There have also been significant changes in "science" and expertise in the area of "battered woman" syndrome and the psychology behind it.

I agree that the defense has been geared around getting Jodi to use the DV buzz words and framing events in terms of how they made her feel. The judge has certainly allowed Jodi to testify in that manner, without limitation. I do not think Jodi has so far been constrained in the least from presenting every amount of testimony about her life and experiences and feelings -- 20 years ago, much of Jodi's testimony would probably have been excluded.

I think the Judge will give the experts a wide berth, just as she has given Jodi a wide berth, and I do not think the State will be able to force the experts to give testimony in a linear, purely factual manner.

Hope that answers what you were getting at.

 

[Nosey Parker]

This is where I get confused over the responsibilities of an officer of the court - defence lawyers.

Mr. Martinez has only just begun his barrage of impeachments, IMO. It's my understanding that a defence lawyer does not have to believe his/her client, but has a duty to not ask questions when they know the testimony will be a lie. Am I correct?

In the case of today's impeachment concerning the three gas cans filled up, along with the car, in Salt Lake City, there was paperwork proving this. Nurmi and Wilmott must have known this. Why, then, did they continually ask Arias to testify on many occasions that she had no third gas can.

 

[minor4th]

This is where I get confused over the responsibilities of an officer of the court - defence lawyers.

Mr. Martinez has only just begun his barrage of impeachments, IMO. It's my understanding that a defence lawyer does not have to believe his/her client, but has a duty to not ask questions when they know the testimony will be a lie. Am I correct?

In the case of today's impeachment concerning the three gas cans filled up, along with the car, in Salt Lake City, there was paperwork proving this. Nurmi and Wilmott must have known this. Why, then, did they continually ask Arias to testify on many occasions that she had no third gas can.

We have not yet seen a business record from Walmart showing that there was no return of a gas can that day -- I would not assume that the defense has any such thing at this point. I'm not 100% convinced that Juan has any such thing either, but we will see on rebuttal. So far he has only made that suggestion, couching it as "would you be surprised to learn Walmart had no gas cans returned that day". We shall see.

As far as Nurmi specifically eliciting testimony that he knows is false, I don't think he's done that with the gas cans. I don't remember him asking Jodi to deny that she had 3 gas cans, and even if he did, there's no reason to think that Nurmi KNEW it was a lie, even if he doesn't believe her. It is not obvious on the face of the evidence we've seen -- to arrive at a conclusion that there must have been 3 gas cans, you would have to know exactly how much gas the Ford Focus holds.

 

[snowcat]

Sorry if this has been addressed but can't catch up. Does the Prosecution have to disclose all of its exhibits to the defense prior to using them in court ( e.g. bank statement produced today that included extra gas transaction from SLC)

TIA

 

[snowcat]

Can new discovery be made during the trial? jodi claims travis broke her finger, can martinez get an X-ray to check out if her finger was broken 15 years ago? or if its the result of tendon damage from killing travis? Can new evidence be presented by the prosecution at this point in trial?

i want to know too

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry if this has been addressed but can't catch up. Does the Prosecution have to disclose all of its exhibits to the defense prior to using them in court ( e.g. bank statement produced today that included extra gas transaction from SLC)

TIA

Yes, all the evidence has been disclosed.

 

[bananarama]

We have not yet seen a business record from Walmart showing that there was no return of a gas can that day -- I would not assume that the defense has any such thing at this point. I'm not 100% convinced that Juan has any such thing either, but we will see on rebuttal. So far he has only made that suggestion, couching it as "would you be surprised to learn Walmart had no gas cans returned that day". We shall see.

As far as Nurmi specifically eliciting testimony that he knows is false, I don't think he's done that with the gas cans. I don't remember him asking Jodi to deny that she had 3 gas cans, and even if he did, there's no reason to think that Nurmi KNEW it was a lie, even if he doesn't believe her. It is not obvious on the face of te evidence w've seen -- to arrive at a conclusion that there must have been 3 gas cans, you would have to know exactly how much gas the Ford Focus holds.

It will be interesting to see if JM has a report from Wal-Mart regarding the non-reported gas can return. It was pointed out, on the receipt thread, that retailers will normally cross out an item on the receipt when it is returned, however, that was not done in this instance. Perhaps he should point this out as well.

 

[tinkabella]

If Matt M. was caught lying for Jodi will he face charges for perjury?
If so, would he still be allowed to testify since he was involved in the witness tampering scandal with Jodi?
If he is called by the defense, can Juan tell the jury on cross that he willingly provided false information at the hearings?
If he testifies for the state is he given immunity if he agrees to tell the truth about Jodi?
After being caught in such a scandal would he be allowed to testify?
How much can Juan tell the Jury about the hearing/contradicted stories Matt told them when lying for Jodi?
If he testifies and admits that he helped stage the letters at Jodi's request can the letters come in because someone "opened the door"

 

[swanna]

Does anyone know why it took so long for this case to get to trial?

Not sure how to embed, but here is something I seen on Justice For Travis page about some of the reasons it took so long to get to trial.

http://www./show/l8bs75