Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

I remember, at some point, someone saying that they had access to the whole interview. Was the entire interview entered into evidence? Does the jury have access to all the evidence if they feel like they want to review something?

I don't know if the entire thing was entered into evidence. I wasn't paying much attention to the case at that time. I suppose you could watch the trial coverage from that day and see what was played for the jury--most likely, they played the whole thing if the whole thing was being entered as an exhibit.

All the exhibits will be in the jury room during deliberations, except if there is physical evidence that needs to be kept safe. For anything like that, the jurors will have to ask the bailiff to see the evidence, and they will be supervised while viewing it.

 

[Donnareit]

Can the jury see that "say cheese" outtake? They've not seen it yet have they? Can that come in? That to me is THE most bizarre thing she's ever said on tape.

Is there a link for this? I do not think I've seen it.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Hi AZ,

When the attorneys are at sidebar and speaking with judge, can they be heard by the witness in the stand, They look pretty close in range?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ,

When the attorneys are at sidebar and speaking with judge, can they be heard by the witness in the stand, They look pretty close in range?

Not with the white noise machine. Before they started using that, the witnesses (and sometimes even the jurors) IMO used to be able to hear quite a bit.

The witness is close enough that he might hear a word here or there if people get excited and start shouting.

 

[Nova]

It would be hard for me to not go home and google global transient amnesia, or find out proper procedures for those tests Dr. Quack administered and stuff like that. If someone tells me something that I'm not familiar with, I google the crap out of it! I'm in TN, and there isn't ANYTHING on our news about this. A friend of mine is a Mormon, and that is how I heard about this case. But I would think in AZ all of the newspapers and newsstands would be chock full of daily articles. Not to mention every local morning news shows etc... Is this case not a big "news" story there? I would have thought that it would be nearly impossible to avoid seeing and hearing it.

As a juror on a three-month murder trial, I gave up reading the LA Times and, because we were forbidden to visit the murder scene on the main street in Santa Monica, I went miles out of my way every time I left the house.

It all depends on how seriously you take your oath to the court.

(ETA I know this isn't a discussion thread, but I want to make it clear that some, maybe most, jurors do take their oath this seriously.)

 

[katiewonders]

I read on the courtroom observers' thread that the verdict will not be seen and they were talking about texting or emailing to alert that a verdict was reached. Huh? Is it true that the cameras won't be on when they read the verdict? Thanks.

 

[Hally]

I think that was one of the points Juan was trying to make in his questioning of Samuels.

JM did, but why would that be admitted in a killing/murder case? or used as a diagnosis of PTSD in the first place? That's my question.

If this is this case then anyone can go out and kill/murder someone and claim PTSD because they have been hedl up in jail until the trial???

Makes no sense and I don't see the legalities involved.

 

[AZlawyer]

JM did, but why would that be admitted in a killing/murder case? or used as a diagnosis of PTSD in the first place? That's my question.

If this is this case then anyone can go out and kill/murder someone and claim PTSD because they have been hedl up in jail until the trial???

Makes no sense and I don't see the legalities involved.

Hopefully the jury will feel the same way you do. Samuels's opinion was admitted because he SAID it showed PTSD from the killing, based on the trauma of having to defend herself. JM pointed out that what he'd really proved was that jail is traumatizing lol.

When evidence turns out not to be so great, there isn't some big announcement to the jury "ignore that evidence"--they get to figure ouit for themselves what to ignore.

 

[Donnareit]

Can ALV testify to things that Jodi told her Travis did or would that be hearsay?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can ALV testify to things that Jodi told her Travis did or would that be hearsay?

If it was part of what she relied on to conclude that Jodi was a victim of DV (assuming that's the point of her testimony), then she can testify about hearsay. But of course JM can then point out that her opinion is only as good as Jodi's word.

 

[MeeBee]

If it was part of what she relied on to conclude that Jodi was a victim of DV (assuming that's the point of her testimony), then she can testify about hearsay. But of course JM can then point out that her opinion is only as good as Jodi's word.

KCL did say that she was informed that LaVi cannot testify about Travis' abuse only about Jodi and her behavior.

 

[princesspjs]

I think that was one of the points Juan was trying to make in his questioning of Samuels.

Hopefully the jury will feel the same way you do. Samuels's opinion was admitted because he SAID it showed PTSD from the killing, based on the trauma of having to defend herself. JM pointed out that what he'd really proved was that jail is traumatizing lol.

When evidence turns out not to be so great, there isn't some big announcement to the jury "ignore that evidence"--they get to figure ouit for themselves what to ignore.

The thing that I just can't figure out about all of this PTSD nonsense is - why is Dr. Samuels diagnosis of Jodi having PTSD after she murdered Travis so important? Why is the defense trying so hard to convince the jury of this diagnosis?

IMO 1. Who wouldn't have PTSD after they killed someone so brutally, no matter the instigating factor might be??? and 2. Who cares if she did?

How would it be helpful to her case even if it were true? It just seems like one big smoke screen/fluffy filler so they could use their key words that they've scripted throughout the trial. (the fog, blunted affect, disassociated amnesia or whatever)

ETA: I don't believe PTSD is nonsense...I just don't think or care, whether or not Jodi has it.

 

[Donnareit]

If it was part of what she relied on to conclude that Jodi was a victim of DV (assuming that's the point of her testimony), then she can testify about hearsay. But of course JM can then point out that her opinion is only as good as Jodi's word.

Thanks for answering my question. Now I do not understand the "victim of DV" part. This can't be a diagnosis, nor is it an excited utterance (like she would make to the police). I just see this more like what she may have told MM, but without seeing the bruises or the actual pictures on the computer, how can this be reliable testimony?

I hope I don't seem argumentative, but this part really matters to me; plus I think it could end up being one of the issues raised on appeal.

 

[noor]

I have a quiestion.

Sometimes the witness is asked to read something (like the diary or texts) for himself.
Not out laud.
Yesterday Samuels was reading, then all of a sudden he said 3 words that he was reading, JM immediately stopped him.

Why is that?

TIA.

 

[jbaxter68]

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong thread to post my question. But after listening to the "sexually" taped cell phone calls from JA and Travis, it sounds to me like it may not be Travis. How can they tell if she didn't use something like Audacity or some other software to make this tape up on a computer?

 

[Doester]

If the prosecution comes across new evidence during the trial, are they allowed to bring it in?

 

[AZlawyer]

The thing that I just can't figure out about all of this PTSD nonsense is - why is Dr. Samuels diagnosis of Jodi having PTSD after she murdered Travis so important? Why is the defense trying so hard to convince the jury of this diagnosis?

IMO 1. Who wouldn't have PTSD after they killed someone so brutally, no matter the instigating factor might be??? and 2. Who cares if she did?

How would it be helpful to her case even if it were true? It just seems like one big smoke screen/fluffy filler so they could use their key words that they've scripted throughout the trial. (the fog, blunted affect, disassociated amnesia or whatever)

ETA: I don't believe PTSD is nonsense...I just don't think or care, whether or not Jodi has it.

The primary point of the PTSD testimony is to convince the jury that Jodi isn't lying when she says she can't remember much. It doesn't directly apply to the elements of the case or any defense.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks for answering my question. Now I do not understand the "victim of DV" part. This can't be a diagnosis, nor is it an excited utterance (like she would make to the police). I just see this more like what she may have told MM, but without seeing the bruises or the actual pictures on the computer, how can this be reliable testimony?

I hope I don't seem argumentative, but this part really matters to me; plus I think it could end up being one of the issues raised on appeal.

Jodi has testified to the DV, so there is already evidence of DV before the jury. Now, Jodi is a big old liar, of course, so the jury might choose to disbelieve her. And the expert is going to say (probably) that Jodi's behavior is consistent with that of a victim of DV, and that a reasonable victim of DV would have interpreted Travis's alleged "body slam" on June 4 as requiring a response with deadly force.

The reason for trying to prove this is that Arizona has a special self-defense law for victims of DV. If you are a victim of DV, your response to an attack is judged by how a reasonable victim of DV would react rather than how a reasonable "person" would react.

ONE BIG PROBLEM. JUAN, PLEASE READ THIS. :seeya: Jodi never SAID that she interpreted Travis's attack as requiring a response with deadly force. She said she never intended to shoot him at all, and thought the gun was unloaded! She believed that his actions justified a "scaring him off with a gun he would have known was unloaded" response, not a "shooting him in the head response."

So. If I were the prosecutor, I would object to her testifying to how a reasonable DV victim would respond since Jodi never claimed to have responded that way. Frankly, I would object to her testimony in its entirety as irrelevant, for the same reason.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a quiestion.

Sometimes the witness is asked to read something (like the diary or texts) for himself.
Not out laud.
Yesterday Samuels was reading, then all of a sudden he said 3 words that he was reading, JM immediately stopped him.

Why is that?

TIA.

If the witness is reading something that is not yet admitted into evidence, the jury is not allowed to know what the document says until the judge says "exhibit 123 is admitted."

 

[AZlawyer]

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong thread to post my question. But after listening to the "sexually" taped cell phone calls from JA and Travis, it sounds to me like it may not be Travis. How can they tell if she didn't use something like Audacity or some other software to make this tape up on a computer?

Most likely the call matches up with their cell phone records, or the state would have checked that out.