Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

In the threads, there was a link to an attorney website and a description of the process for what happens after the jury verdict on the first degree murder charge. Kind of an algorithm-- "If second degree, then this, if not guilty then this, if guilty of first degree then this." I'm sorry-- I can't find the link now-- needle in a haystack!

Anyway, my question has to do with what this atty described as an intermediate deliberation step, if they find JA guilty, and before the penalty phase. It was described as an "aggravation" verdict, determining if the murder involved cruelty. If I understood this correctly, the "cruelty" finding determined if the penalty phase was to occur (death vs life in prison).

I'd not heard of this "cruelty" deliberation phase before. Does it occur directly after a finding of guilt? ie, does the jury "keep on" deliberating after finding guilt, and deliver both the guilty verdict and the verdict on "cruelty" at the same time? Do they deliver the guilty verdict (if found guilty), the verdict is read in court, and THEN they immediately go back to deliberate on cruelty? Does the judge schedule them to return a few days or a week or 2 later to deliberate about cruelty? What is the typical interval for the trial verdict to the "aggravation/ cruelty" deliberation? And is there any additional testimony that would precede the cruelty deliberations? (like there is in penalty phase)

Third question-- how long would you think the interval will be if there is a penalty phase, from the trial verdict? A few days? Will the defense say they need "a lot of time" to prepare for the penalty phase, or are they expected to be "ready to go" within a day or 2 of a trial verdict? How long would you anticipate penalty phase testimony to go? A few hours, or many days?

Thank you in advance! I hope I explained my questions clearly enough!

Some people (like me lol) use the term "penalty phase" to refer to both the aggravation and mitigation phases. So what you're talking about is just Part One of what I call the "penalty phase." Part One is that the jury has to find that an aggravating factor exists. Here, the only factor alleged is cruelty. Part Two is for the defense to present mitigating evidence and for the state to rebut that evidence. The jury then decides death vs. life.

The phases should follow one right after the other (or with just a day or two in between), with evidence first and deliberations at the end of each phase. The aggravation phase should be very short and may not even require any more testimony, just argument. The mitigation part of the penalty phase could go on and on....

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm surprised the judge allowed the "recreation" of the closet/gun situation 5 years after the fact with other people living in the house and myriad potential changes to the shelving system. Verified attorneys, no experts to support this? What do you think?

I don't think any expert testimony was required--it's the sort of thing that laypeople can understand without the assistance of an expert.

My guess is that the judge said, OK, the detective can explain this, and then if you have any evidence that the shelving system was different in June 2008, you can present that too.

 

[K_Z]

Does Jodi have any additional "specialist" attorneys for penalty phase, as CA did with Ann Finnell?

If not, will Atty Nurmi take the lead in a potential mitigation phase, since he is lead atty? Or will he and Atty Wilmott split the duties, as they do now? (As in, is there any AZ rule about this? Must the atty be "death qualified" as in FL?)

 

[K_Z]

If the case goes to penalty phase, is it required that the "same" 12 deliberating jurors from the trial verdict continue to deliberate? Can an alternate be substituted during penalty phase if necessary? Or is there a mistrial if all 12 "original" deliberating jurors cannot continue as a "group" to the end of penalty phase?

 

[Softail]

At about 1:20 in the video from yesterday - The judge says jury instructions will be given before closing arguments. Is this normal? Or did she mis-speak? :waitasec: I was under the impression that jury instructions were given after closing arguments.

Jodi Arias Trial - Day 52 - Part 1 - YouTube

 

[SunnyinMO]

Any ideas about the abrupt ending of the trial yesterday? I thought it very odd?
JSS calls everyone in chambers. We wait and wait and wait. Next thing we know BAM. Court is over for the day.

 

[shadedwillows]

It's not a matter if trust. It's a matter of admissibility. If we let in hearsay or anything without laying a foubdation for it, then any rumor someone heard could be used as evidence, with no way of determining whether the source of the info is valid and it would be even easier to make stuff up.



The defense is not obligated to make sure the truth is told at all. However, the lawyers cannot ask a question if they know the answer is going to be a lie. With the gas, it was actually bank records that proved Jodi filled up a third can and the defense team may have missed that entry. But I don't remember them asking Jodi specifically if she only filled up two cans and they can ask: "then what happened?", without asking a more direct question, if they know she is going to lie, without getting in trouble.

ETA: Here's a comprehensive article on the subject: http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/19/the-ethics-of-letting-a-lying-defendant-testify/



They did look surprised. They knew about the magazines and that the state intended to use them but they may not have known how or that there was small handwriting in the seams. That would be easy to miss.

BBM
What I don't understand is how the defense team missed the BBM statement above. IMO; it's a very important issue to "miss". I just feel that the behavior and conduct of Ms. W. is immature, unprofessional amongst many others "incident's" I have witnessed. Just one of the many examples was her immature "hmm" in response to JSS sustained objection during Dr. D's cross. (would that not be considered rude at best?) I have read many posts that indicate the DT has "very little to work with"; and although the evidence is solid in this case IMO, I am perplexed as to the reason her behavior is sort of...dismissed?

One thing I know for certain it does not surprise me in the least that the AZ defense attorneys and Mr. JM don't have the common or more usual relationships that tend to occur among the criminal attorneys for our DA's office and defense attorneys here in NY. For example; they socialize, some belong to the same places of worship and work together on projects, they carpool for school etc...

Could one of our most appreciated and respected attorneys relieve me of my state of confusion?

Many, many thanks for helping us understand the law. I got as far as "torts" and "easements" in my pre-law education and selected another profession .

pardon my spelling, run on sentences and grammar I'm running late...thanks much in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

Does Jodi have any additional "specialist" attorneys for penalty phase, as CA did with Ann Finnell?

If not, will Atty Nurmi take the lead in a potential mitigation phase, since he is lead atty? Or will he and Atty Wilmott split the duties, as they do now? (As in, is there any AZ rule about this? Must the atty be "death qualified" as in FL?)

No, there are no additional attorneys assigned.

Nurmi is lead counsel and Wilmott is co-counsel. This means nothing as far as who will examine which witnesses. Wilmott could handle all the witnesses if that's how they want to do it.

The attorneys must be qualified to handle death cases, yes. The qualifications for co-counsel are quite low, but Wilmott exceeds those requirements significantly.

If the case goes to penalty phase, is it required that the "same" 12 deliberating jurors from the trial verdict continue to deliberate? Can an alternate be substituted during penalty phase if necessary? Or is there a mistrial if all 12 "original" deliberating jurors cannot continue as a "group" to the end of penalty phase?

Alternates can be substituted after the guilt phase, yes.

At about 1:20 in the video from yesterday - The judge says jury instructions will be given before closing arguments. Is this normal? Or did she mis-speak? :waitasec: I was under the impression that jury instructions were given after closing arguments.

Jodi Arias Trial - Day 52 - Part 1 - YouTube

Generally, instructions are given after closing arguments, but the judge can do it the other way around if she wants to. In this case, it might be a good idea to switch the order, since the attorneys are likely to be making a lot of detailed references during closing to the jury instructions.

Any ideas about the abrupt ending of the trial yesterday? I thought it very odd?
JSS calls everyone in chambers. We wait and wait and wait. Next thing we know BAM. Court is over for the day.

I didn't think it was odd. I think they were out of witnesses who were available.

 

[Nhic]

Will the jury be able to view the entirety of the police interrogation tapes when deliberating? TIA

 

[Nhic]

Will the DT's surrebuttal witness be examining/testing JA before testifying next week, or will he only be able to dispute Dr. Demarte's interpretation of her test scores? TIA

 

[CarolinaWoman]

When the judge gives the instructions to the jury, does she compile the instructions or is there some standard set of instructions? Does the DT and Prosecution have any input on the instructions to the jury?

 

[TXProfessional]

This information is simply raw data used by Dr. Demarte to diagnose arias. I am not aware that there was a motion to suppress the doctors findings or to object to her expertise. It's unimportant because her opinion came in and since the defense discussed it, so does the raw data she used.

The ring came up during testimony Thursday about why Demarte found Jodi to have abandonment issues.

Sorry so late to this discussion--didn't realize that the info I posted was being discussed here. gitana1, with all due respect, that information was not in "raw data form"--see examples at pearson.com for samples of raw data scores. In fact, it is in the form of a T-score which is interpretable and meaningful data based on the evaluation of a respondent. This data is absolutely interpretable, both a globally and individually, as per MMPI2 manual. The dx that Dr. DeMarte reached, i.e., BPD, was based on the collective (global interpr) t-scores of JA's Clinical scales (7 of which were elevated--or clinically significant) in conjuction with supporting collateral information of course. However, I strongly disagree that each score of the 10 Clinical Scales does not have meaningful information--the key is to interpret the scores within the context and conceptualization of each of the scales as set forth by instrument developer, and with advanced education in the understanding and studying the instrumentation itself.

It is my opinion that the reason why the t-scores of JA's Clinical Scales were not discussed in more detail is because some of those she was elevated in could be seen as favorable or supportive of the defense's claims. BTW JA's Sc Clinical Scale T-score was very elevated and is interpretable by itself. Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative just factual.

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

I am wondering what you feel the deserving penalty should be (not will be because that is up to the Jury but you can provide an opinion there as well). In this case there are four areas I consider key. 1) Stalking, 2) Premeditation, 3) Jodi's Remorse, and 4) Is Jodi likely to re-offend, (is she dangerous to the public)? To me based on some notes I put together the punishment would be severe, what is your opinion?
----------------------------------------

JODI STALKING (Point-1)
1. Travis told her to stay away and she moved 272-miles to be closer to him.
2. Jodi was “clingy, smothering, and stalking.” (Travis’s Friend).
3. Jodi stalked previous boyfriends.
4. Text—“How evil you are you, worse thing that happened to me.” (Travis)
5. “Countless times you have prevented me the decency of privacy.” (Travis)
6. Arias snuck in house, laid on couch.
7. Arias hide in closet when he was gone or when he was on dates.
8. Arias peaked through windows while he was with another woman.
9. Arias showed up on dates and other social functions uninvited.
10. Arias showed up on doorstep and threatened to kill herself if he wouldn’t let her in.
11. Arias snuck in doggie door, and later hid behind Christmas Tree.
12. TA finally gave her a job cleaning his house, and slept in his bed without his permission.
13. Arias slashed his tires twice in two different locations so she had to be following him.
14. Arias slashed the tires of a girl friend of his.
15. She hacked into his emails.
16. She hacked in to his Face book.
17. She hacked into his ATM/Bank accounts.
18. She sent threatening e-mails to his friends, especially girl friends.
19. “We saw the evil look in her eye, we told Travis we don’t want her around our children and we don’t want her around here.” (Chris Hughes)
20. “I am extremely Fearful.” (Travis)
21. Turned her jealousy of a planned trip to Cancun into a Rage.
22. “Jodi was obsessed.” (Sky Hughes).
23. “Jodi was Clingy, like Fatal Attraction.” (Clancy)
24. Travis would question her, ‘Why you in the house, why are you here?’ (Zach Billing)
25. “She told me she snuck over to his house and looked in the window.” (Jodie’s father).
26. “She haunted him; every girl he met a girl she would text and send these crazy e-mails, saying you are a *advertiser censored*, and you shouldn’t be dating Travis.” Chris Hughes.
27. “She was obsessed with him and she didn’t want my brother to move with his life.” (Travis’s sister)
28. “In the end he was scared but he just couldn’t get her out of his life.” Chris Hughes.
29. “It takes an evil, evil person to do what she did.”
30. “My spying ex.” (Travis)
31. “Don’t be surprised if I end up dead.” (Travis)



Why was Travis Stalked?

“Anyone who knew him loved him. He went out of his way to help people, and to make sure they were taken care of. He was an amazing person.”


Why didn’t Travis call the Cops?

Read his journal, he thought if he could appeal to the goodness in people he could change anyone. To admit he couldn’t do that would be a failure on his part. He tried to motivate her but was manipulated by kinky sex (a form of power and control), and he was also perhaps he was afraid she would go to the Mormon church and tell them he was having sex. This is why she hooked up with Ryan Burns after they broke up, to stay around Travis. Also, fear doesn’t show up until later in the stalking process. Travis would also have to face the ridicule of perhaps his friends or police, and that could have damaged his business. Also conduct causes fear, although not always vocalized. For instance a woman who is abused could be planning an exit strategy can often still have sex with that person.

------------------------------------

PREMEDITATION: (Point-2)

1. Faked Journal entries.
2. Broke into TA’s face book, sent messages to herself.
3. Hacked into his ATM, Bank Records, and E-mails.
4. Robbed Grandparents of 25-calibre GUN, $30 cash, and a stereo.
5. Dyed her hair a different color.
6. Drove 90-miles out of her way away from home town to get rental car.
7. Used rental car, specifically asked for not red, so she could presumably not see any stains/blood to clean.
8. Borrowed two gas cans, and bought a third.
9. Turned off cell phone so it wouldn’t ping off towers.
10. Turned her license plate upside down.
11. Brought gun and knife to crime scene.
12. Showed up at Travis’s house early in morning.
13. Locked Travis’s dog in a closet so he wouldn’t get in blood.
14. Waited until he was in vulnerable position in Shower and naked.
15. Arranged for date with Ryan Burns and was to arrive same night as murder.
16. Malice: “Intent to kill or harm.”
17. PREMEDITATION:
“Wrongfully causing the death of another human being, after rationally considering the TIMING---OR---METHOD of doing so in order to increase the likihood of success or to evade detection or apprehension.”
--------------------------------

JODI SHOWED NO REMORSE: (Point-3)
1. “He had it coming.”
2. Wanted make-up in jail and smiled for her mug shot, saying that’s what Travis would have wanted.
3. Showed more remorse on police video tape for dog she kicked (who then disappeared).
4. Made out/intimate relations with Ryan Burns immediately after killing.
5. “No Jury will Convict Me.”
6. Morbid curiosity of autopsy photos to help build her case.
7. “No reason to be sad, smile and say Cheese.”
8. Cried about what SHE would miss out on during police interrogation.
9. Frequent smiles and giggles during proceedings.
10. Lied about pedophilia after killing, and forged papers to kill him again.
11. Lied about domestic abuse after killing him thus killing him again.
12. Filed motion saying if convicted remorse would not be a factor in penalty and she would never apologize.
13. Said in police interrogation tape that TA’s murder was a temporary loss for his family and they would get over it.
14. Savage and brutality of killing—29-stab wounds, shot in head, near decapitation.
15. Sent twenty Iris’s to his Grandmother after she killed him.
---------------------------------

DANGEROUS JODI (Likely to Re-Offend) Point-4
1. Frequent rage and physical violence toward mother.
2. Lied about Marijuana she was using on roof of house.
3. Attacked and kicked dog who ‘disappeared’ and never came back.
4. Kicked and broke walls and doors and smashed things.
5. “Her own actions scare people”
6. Stalked and used the men in her life prior to Travis.
7. Practiced Witchcraft in a prior relationship.
8. Gave Chris Hughes such an evil look that he told Travis not to bring her around anymore and he didn’t want her around his children.
9. Threatened TA’s female friends.
10. Broke in Travis’s email, Face-book, and ATM and sent messages to herself.
11. Broke into Travis’s house several times and was there uninvited at other times.
12. Stalked Travis at his house and on his dates.
13. Slashed all four tires of Travis’ car twice.
14. Slashed tires of a girl acquaintance of Travis once.
15. Travis friends called other friends out of fear of Jodi.
16. Peeped outside TA’s window when he was with someone else.
17. Broke into Grandparents house and stole gun, $30, and stereo.
18. Turned license played upside down to evade police.
19. Turned off cell phone, dyed hair, and borrowed gas cans to evade police.
20. Premeditated and planned attack on Travis.
21. Hide gun and knife from Travis for several hours.
22. She and NOT Travis, had a morbid curiosity of the “Psycho” movie and combined that with her own psychosis, personality disorder (black and white- no gray, go from loyalty to intense rage).
23. Stabbed Travis---29 times.
24. Cut a gaping hole in TA’s neck.
25. Shot TA in head.
26. Removed evidence—gun and knife from crime scene and destroyed/hide evidence.
27. Removed (Stole) car mats from rental car and did not return them.
28. Had a 9mm gun, 2-knives, and a box of ammo in her car when arrested.
29. Forged pedophile papers prior to trial.
30. Lied throughout interviews and trial, falsely claimed abuse.
31. Narcissist and above the Law.
32. Six disciplinary actions In Jail
A. Fight with cellmate
B. Disobey return to cell
C. 3-different violations for hiding pens
D. Hiding various creams.
E. Hiding various pictures.
33. Accused prosecutor of being threatening on the stand.
34. Broke pencils and gave other people the finger.
35. Tweeted derogatory statements to Nancy Grace and Prosecutor.
36. Borderline Personality Disorder: Past behavior=future behavior.

 

[TexasLassie]

Which side, Defense or Prosecution, will present their closing argument first on Thursday? Who will give the closing for the Defense, if you know..

TIA

 

[SyraKelly]

Can Juan bring in the manifesto as an agg circumstance to show the jury that she thought she would be famous & shows no remorse for her crime?TIA

 

[garthmax]

Will JM be able to depose the expert testifying on Wednesday? Do you feel, like I do, that this is just a waste of time and the jury will not be happy to have to listen to another expert testify about JA's ?domestic abuse. Can this expert totally evaluate JA again or just give his opinion about the evaluation Dr. D already did? I would think if this expert evaluated JA and gave her the same tests or similar tests the results would not be accurate. And the timing of testing after five years would not be accurate? Also what is your opinion of this expert working so closely with ALV? And why bother bringing in this expert since JA has already lied directly to the jury!

 

[katiedid2]

I defended Baez for a long time as an average and not unethical lawyer. Later, there were a couple of incidents that caused me to revise my opinion on the last part, but I can still say that approximately the first 47,832 things that everyone complained about were unfounded. I don't like his style, but apparently some people do, and some of those people are on juries.

I don't think Nurmi is vile or despicable. He is not the best at presentation either, but he is handling this case competently and making all the necessary arguments.

What's your opinion of Jennifer wilmotts behaviour in the court. Is she acting like she should? Snarky, giggly and BBF with Jodie? Her rude attitude towards juan and other experts and witnesses, what's your opinion.
And thank you in advance.

 

[*~Aimee~*]

If they find first degree and it goes on another month or so for penalty phase. Does the same jurors have to be there? Or if they loose any more jurors does it just restart there?

Please don't say whole new trial.

 

[nells]

I think female lawyers have to be really good in order not to be criticized. I think JW is average in her skill in examining witnesses. As gitana has pointed out, it is difficult to criticize the substance of her arguments, because she has very little to work with.

She's doing fine. She is professional. I don't like her because of my personal feelings about the case, her professional decision to participate in such a disgusting defense- one she knows is b.s., and because she has gotten away with smarmy little tricks like speaking objections to coach her witness while feigning outrage at things she feels cross the line on the other side.

But putting my emotion aside and just looking at her performance, she has been professional and has done well with what she's got to work with, which is absolutely nothing.

Just bumping AZ's and gitana's answers re: Willmott (around page 55 of this thread)

 

[pferrin]

Sorry if this question has been asked and answered. Can the defense call any other rebuttal witness at this point or are they limited to just this one? Thank you.