Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

If the jury is the sole trier of fact, how can there be a stipulation that they must regard something as a fact without seeing the evidence? How common is this? It was my belief that inadmissible evidence is simply not admitted, but this has me pretty confused.

The jury only gets to determine facts that are in dispute.

Stipulating to facts is extremely common in civil cases, and not uncommon in criminal cases.

The parties could also stipulate to allow evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, although in a criminal case the judge would be careful to ensure that the defendant's rights were being served by the stipulation.

The stipulation here--that Jodi was not holding a knife or gun in her hands at the time a certain picture was taken--did not involve any inadmissible evidence, though.

 

[cocomod]

I see on a couple of other cases where the judge allows the defendant's attorney to hire expert witnesses, but limits the hourly rate and caps the amount to be paid (in cases where the defendant cannot afford her own attorney).

Is there a reason why this judge did not do the same?

 

[summer4meplz]

This is my first lawyer question.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7UIKNzwg4&feature=youtu.be

you can hear wilmott calling Dr. D a *****.....what effect if any could this have on the trial...thanks...I read here all the time..

 

[luvbug622]

wilmot calls dr. D a 'bit**' and you can see JA lift her head up and smirk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7UIKNzwg4&feature=youtu.be

 

[AZlawyer]

wilmot calls dr. D a 'bit**' and you can see JA lift her head up and smirk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7UIKNzwg4&feature=youtu.be

No, she didn't. I promise. No way.

 

[AZlawyer]

I see on a couple of other cases where the judge allows the defendant's attorney to hire expert witnesses, but limits the hourly rate and caps the amount to be paid (in cases where the defendant cannot afford her own attorney).

Is there a reason why this judge did not do the same?

The judge has nothing to do with this--it is handled by the county Office of Public Defense Services. They require estimates up front and can disapprove anything that isn't reasonable and necessary, but in a capital case it is reasonable and necessary to spend quite a bit of money on experts.

 

[Phesey]

My question is about the closed hearings like the one they had today. Will the transcripts of these hearings ever be released? I'm curious to know what goes on behind closed doors.

Thank you in advance.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

Someone on this board had mentioned that a diagnoses such as 'anti-social personality disorder' are typically kept out of trials as they're unduly prejudicial. Is that in anyway true?

 

[Sherbie]

No, she didn't. I promise. No way.

Thanks button was not enough. This has gotten out of hand. There's no way that happened.

 

[jayarohh]

No, she didn't. I promise. No way.

I'm an audio engineer. I removed the ambience, isolated JW's voice and i can assure you she did not say it. If anything, she said "you betcha" - answering the Doc's request to see the document. Case closed.

 

[Cailin Rua]

Is there any verification done when a defendant claims "illness?" How do the courts keep this from being abused to the point that defendants delay their trials until they die a natural death?

 

[Alexander family fan]

AZ Lawyer, thank you for all you do here. I just heard Lenore Walker call into Nancy Grace's show and inform the public that indeed she does still use her list of criteria that JW was grilling the expert about today, claiming, "Are you aware that even Lenore Walker does not use that list anymore?". My question is doesn't a lawyer have to have a good faith basis of asking a question?

Do you find that odd that JW could be so wholly uninformed to hammer a witness so hard on something so specific, call someone by name and make assertions that are not based in reality? Could she just have heard this little tidbit from ALV or Samuels and ran with it, without checking it out? Considering how much the pair of them have been so discredited, if I were her, I would take everything they told me with a HUGE grain of salt.

The other thing I want to ask you is when you have an expert testify,do you not do a mock cross exam with them to prepare them for what they are likely to be asked so they wont be like a deer in the headlights?

ALV said she had testified aprox. 20 times, yet she was not familiar with the concept of hypothetical questions that are commonly posed to an expert. Do they do that in AZ as they do here in Texas, very often, use hypotheticals? She acted like JM was speaking Chinese...

If this were your case, would you get Ms. Lenore Walker on the line and ask her to fly in tomorrow, just for kicks to set the record straight, afterall , JW has thoroughly misrepresented her current concepts on the subject, to a global audience since this trail is watched far and wide. She may be happy to come at once, just to shut that nonsense down.

How crazy for JW to worry over copyrighting a test, yet she misrepresents a leader in the field of battered woman's syndrome, IN A BATTERED WOMAN'S CASE. It is blasphemy. You just can't make this stuff up!!!

Again, thank you for all you do here.

 

[minor4th]

Someone on this board had mentioned that a diagnoses such as 'anti-social personality disorder' are typically kept out of trials as they're unduly prejudicial. Is that in anyway true?

None of Demarte's testimony or anything about her opinions and diagnoses of Jodi Arias would have been part of this trial if the defense had not made an issue of her mental health. As far as her culpability in the killing of Travis, it's really irrelevant that she has this diagnosis of personality disorder -- except to rebut the diagnosis of PTSD and battered woman.

 

[minor4th]

Is there any verification done when a defendant claims "illness?" How do the courts keep this from being abused to the point that defendants delay their trials until they die a natural death?

I don't think there is really any verification, especially if someone is saying they have a migraine -- because there is no way to verify it or prove that she's faking it. Normally, the defendant's lawyers would counsel the defendant to stick with it and get through the trial if possible because it starts to look bad to the jury if they suspect that it is the defense or the defendant who is causing the delays.

Think about it though - as annoying as it is, in the scheme of things it is really not a big deal that Jodi caused another delay of a couple of hours on an afternoon of trial. Her case will resume tomorrow and will proceed until it is concluded. If she gets another migraine next week, again it will only delay the inevitable by a few hours. There's really no harm here.

 

[gitana1]

This is my first lawyer question.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7UIKNzwg4&feature=youtu.be

you can hear wilmott calling Dr. D a *****.....what effect if any could this have on the trial...thanks...I read here all the time..

wilmot calls dr. D a 'bit**' and you can see JA lift her head up and smirk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7UIKNzwg4&feature=youtu.be

I don't know how much more strongly I can assure everyone that Wilmott did not utter a profanity in the courtroom. She would pretty much have to be mentally ill to do such a thing because to do such s thing would ruin her reputation and in order to get to the level of being a death penalty trial attorney, the experience, the intense stress and frustration she would have gone through for years to get to that level, as a litigator, renders her fully incapable of losing it and having such an unprofessional slip of the tongue.

It just didn't happen. Oh, and I heard the audio in question.

 

[Steft50]

AZ Lawyer, thank you for all you do here. I just heard Lenore Walker call into Nancy Grace's show and inform the public that indeed she does still use her list of criteria that JW was grilling the expert about today, claiming, "Are you aware that even Lenore Walker does not use that list anymore?". My question is doesn't a lawyer have to have a good faith basis of asking a question?

Do you find that odd that JW could be so wholly uninformed to hammer a witness so hard on something so specific, call someone by name and make assertions that are not based in reality? Could she just have heard this little tidbit from ALV or Samuels and ran with it, without checking it out? Considering how much the pair of them have been so discredited, if I were her, I would take everything they told me with a HUGE grain of salt.


Again, thank you for all you do here.

Thank you, this is my question as well, although I see it as a case of the defense lawyer flat out lying to the witness for reaction purposes. What can the ramifications be to JW for this action?

 

[Kel2000]

I don't know how much more strongly I can assure everyone that Wilmott did not utter a profanity in the courtroom. She would pretty much have to be mentally ill to do such a thing because to do such s thing would ruin her reputation and in order to get to the level of being a death penalty trial attorney, the experience, the intense stress and frustration she would have gone through for years to get to that level, as a litigator, renders her fully incapable of losing it and having such an unprofessional slip of the tongue.

It just didn't happen. Oh, and I heard the audio in question.

What exactly does it take to be become a death penalty trial attorney? I certainly am not one with enough legal expertise to call into question JW's abilities (or to discount the hard work it sounds like it took for her to get to where she is) but I have to say there have been a few instances in this trial, such as this cross with JD, that she seems quite out of her depth.

 

[Words2Serve]

I heard that in AZ for Death Penalty case (maybe anywhere) DT can rebuttal after JM rebuttal; can JM then rebuttal again?

If so, can DT call new people to the stand or does it have to be people already called?

Thank you.

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is about the closed hearings like the one they had today. Will the transcripts of these hearings ever be released? I'm curious to know what goes on behind closed doors.

Thank you in advance.

They should be, eventually, but it might take a motion by a media outlet to get it done.

AZ Lawyer, thank you for all you do here. I just heard Lenore Walker call into Nancy Grace's show and inform the public that indeed she does still use her list of criteria that JW was grilling the expert about today, claiming, "Are you aware that even Lenore Walker does not use that list anymore?". My question is doesn't a lawyer have to have a good faith basis of asking a question?

Do you find that odd that JW could be so wholly uninformed to hammer a witness so hard on something so specific, call someone by name and make assertions that are not based in reality? Could she just have heard this little tidbit from ALV or Samuels and ran with it, without checking it out? Considering how much the pair of them have been so discredited, if I were her, I would take everything they told me with a HUGE grain of salt.

The other thing I want to ask you is when you have an expert testify,do you not do a mock cross exam with them to prepare them for what they are likely to be asked so they wont be like a deer in the headlights?

ALV said she had testified aprox. 20 times, yet she was not familiar with the concept of hypothetical questions that are commonly posed to an expert. Do they do that in AZ as they do here in Texas, very often, use hypotheticals? She acted like JM was speaking Chinese...

If this were your case, would you get Ms. Lenore Walker on the line and ask her to fly in tomorrow, just for kicks to set the record straight, afterall , JW has thoroughly misrepresented her current concepts on the subject, to a global audience since this trail is watched far and wide. She may be happy to come at once, just to shut that nonsense down.

How crazy for JW to worry over copyrighting a test, yet she misrepresents a leader in the field of battered woman's syndrome, IN A BATTERED WOMAN'S CASE. It is blasphemy. You just can't make this stuff up!!!

Again, thank you for all you do here.

Yes, a lawyer has to have a good faith basis for asking the question. IMO someone told JW this information, and she didn't check it out herself. Not unethical but not smart either.

Yes, I'm sure Nurmi and JW tried to prep ALV for cross. IMO an unwise decision was made by one or more of the three of them for ALV to "fight back" with JM.

Lenore W cannot be brought in at this point, but Dr. DeM can check this out herself and testify tomorrow that she checked it out and JW was incorrect.

Thank you, this is my question as well, although I see it as a case of the defense lawyer flat out lying to the witness for reaction purposes. What can the ramifications be to JW for this action?

Nothing. She didn't "lie," she just got a fact wrong in her question. She should have checked it out first. JM will fix this in rebuttal.

What exactly does it take to be become a death penalty trial attorney? I certainly am not one with enough legal expertise to call into question JW's abilities (or to discount the hard work it sounds like it took for her to get to where she is) but I have to say there have been a few instances in this trial, such as this cross with JD, that she seems quite out of her depth.

Actually, not much. 5 years experience plus some continuing legal education hours in the area to be co-counsel, which I think JW is. JW has a lot more experience than that, though.

I heard that in AZ for Death Penalty case (maybe anywhere) DT can rebuttal after JM rebuttal; can JM then rebuttal again?

If so, can DT call new people to the stand or does it have to be people already called?

Thank you.

It's just the same as any other case--no sur-rebuttal unless something new is raised during rebuttal (which shouldn't but sometimes does happen). If sur-rebuttal were allowed on some limited issue, there could be a new witness, but just on that limited issue. And if the witness has never been disclosed, there would have to be some EXTREMELY good reason for that fact.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

Can a trial continue without the presence of the defendant? Couldn't JA be returned to the jail and JW continued with her cross of Dr. D?