Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[PPKik]

The mitigation specialist should not be testifying as a witness for any reason that I can possibly imagine.

If possible, could you please explain what the 'mitigation specialist' is actually doing in this case?

I have read court documents where the Office of the Public Defender was ordered to be paid for 100 hours for one to sit in court (and do what?). Do these people have a legitimate purpose, or is this a bureaucratic position signify nothing but an hourly salary?

Thanks in advance for your time and help understanding aspects of this complex process.

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

BBM = Bolded By Me
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

HTH :seeya: (Hope That Helps)

LOL---Yes it does---now don't do that again.

 

[Itsy]

Wasn't me! I was just helping you out... eace:

 

[4Jacy]

I believe there have been some recent steps taken to streamline the process, but there are still an awful lot of constitutional "hoops" that the government has to go through to make sure that there are no mistakes made. Killing someone is pretty serious, after all, even if it is being done for purposes of justice.

Thank you so much for your answer. It's not what I really wanted to hear, but on some measure I understand. Still: too long; too unfair...{{sob}} lease:

 

[AZlawyer]

If possible, could you please explain what the 'mitigation specialist' is actually doing in this case?

I have read court documents where the Office of the Public Defender was ordered to be paid for 100 hours for one to sit in court (and do what?). Do these people have a legitimate purpose, or is this a bureaucratic position signify nothing but an hourly salary?

Thanks in advance for your time and help understanding aspects of this complex process.

She would have interviewed people for the mitigation phase--family, friends, teachers, etc.--and in the guilt phase she would have been watching for testimony that could potentially be referenced and argued in the mitigation phase.

 

[kscornfed]

AZ, do you believe the DT will really offer nothing in mitigation, as JA says? and if they did that, would it mean there won't be victim impact statements since those would be in rebuttal to mitigating evidence?

 

[Keyra6]

Can someone convicted of Murder 1 sell things from prison?
(Jodi Arias Selling art)

 

[tlckgram]

Sorry, one more question. Would it be standard protocol for the prosecutor to have kept the "wastebasket evidence" of the practice writings JA was working on for the fake pedo letters? Just in case down the road JA says her counsel was ineffective for not introducing said fake letters. How long would the PT keep something like that? Till all appeals are exhausted? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, do you believe the DT will really offer nothing in mitigation, as JA says? and if they did that, would it mean there won't be victim impact statements since those would be in rebuttal to mitigating evidence?

No, I don't think they will do this unless JA insists that they not offer any mitigating evidence because she wants the death penalty.

IMO victim impact statements would still be allowed because the jury is allowed to consider mitigating evidence that was already presented during the guilt phase (like Jodi being supposedly abused by her mom, dad, boyfriends, and Travis), so the VIS could be presented in rebuttal to that information.

Can someone convicted of Murder 1 sell things from prison?
(Jodi Arias Selling art)

Yes. At this point she would not be allowed to profit from anything relating to the crime, but her silly traced drawings could be sold. And the people who own the copyrights on whatever she's tracing can sue her for copyright violation.

Sorry, one more question. Would it be standard protocol for the prosecutor to have kept the "wastebasket evidence" of the practice writings JA was working on for the fake pedo letters? Just in case down the road JA says her counsel was ineffective for not introducing said fake letters. How long would the PT keep something like that? Till all appeals are exhausted? TIA

Yes, if such evidence exists, it would have been preserved. The news story that was quoted above didn't say where that information came from, though, so I don't think we can assume the evidence exists. Also, the state could not offer this evidence to an appellate court, because it was not offered at the trial court level.

I don't think the state throws away death penalty case file materials until at least after execution--and maybe never.

 

[buckeyefan1]

I was wondering if Jodi could be sued for slander by any of the people she has talked about in her last interview after the verdict. I know TA can't of course, I have JM in mind regarding her calling him a liar, etc. thank u

 

[Sign]

Dr. Horn will probably be the only witness re: cruelty. JA could testify that she never intended for him to suffer, but more likely her attorneys will just make that argument based on her prior testimony.

Hi AZlawyer,

1) In determining 'cruelty', is the emphasis placed on the victim's experience, or the murderer's intention? I had read that the factor of cruelty is met when a victim suffered physical pain and/or mental anguish and the defendant knew, or should have known, that the victim would suffer. That definition doesn't seem to take into account the defendant's intention. However your quoted reply above to another user's question suggests that JA testifying that she never "intended for him to suffer" could be a mitigating factor in the aggravating phase. Could a 'botched' job of a potentially merciful killing still result in 'cruelty' being met, if the victim suffered? I would imagine yes, but would really appreciate your opinion.

2) Similarly, let's look at a specific possibility in this case. Let's say for argument's sake that JA's original intention was to kill Travis by shooting him once or twice in the head. However, she's a poor shot and only wounds him with the first shot, followed by the gun jamming. JA panics, runs to the kitchen and comes back with a knife. Unskilled in knife-combat, she 'tries' to kill him as swiftly as possible, but clearly causes a prolonged, painful and presumably terrifying execution for the already injured and unarmed Travis. In this 'hypothetical' (not!) scenario, has the criteria for cruelty been met? I would hope so, even though it could be argued that JA's intention throughout the massacre was to do away with Travis as quickly as possible.

TIA, and thanks so much for all your replies here.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was wondering if Jodi could be sued for slander by any of the people she has talked about in her last interview after the verdict. I know TA can't of course, I have JM in mind regarding her calling him a liar, etc. thank u

Yes, I suppose JM could sue her. I have a feeling he doesn't think she's worth the trouble, though.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZlawyer,

1) In determining 'cruelty', is the emphasis placed on the victim's experience, or the murderer's intention? I had read that the factor of cruelty is met when a victim suffered physical pain and/or mental anguish and the defendant knew, or should have known, that the victim would suffer. That definition doesn't seem to take into account the defendant's intention. However your quoted reply above to another user's question suggests that JA testifying that she never "intended for him to suffer" could be a mitigating factor in the aggravating phase. Could a 'botched' job of a potentially merciful killing still result in 'cruelty' being met, if the victim suffered? I would imagine yes, but would really appreciate your opinion.

2) Similarly, let's look at a specific possibility in this case. Let's say for argument's sake that JA's original intention was to kill Travis by shooting him once or twice in the head. However, she's a poor shot and only wounds him with the first shot, followed by the gun jamming. JA panics, runs to the kitchen and comes back with a knife. Unskilled in knife-combat, she 'tries' to kill him as swiftly as possible, but clearly causes a prolonged, painful and presumably terrifying execution for the already injured and unarmed Travis. In this 'hypothetical' (not!) scenario, has the criteria for cruelty been met? I would hope so, even though it could be argued that JA's intention throughout the massacre was to do away with Travis as quickly as possible.

TIA, and thanks so much for all your replies here.

The part about "the defendant knew, or should have known, that the victim would suffer" is the intention part. It is possible that the jury could find no cruelty (and thus that JA is not eligible for death) if they believe that she tried to kill him quickly and painlessly but failed.

 

[geevee]

The part about "the defendant knew, or should have known, that the victim would suffer" is the intention part. It is possible that the jury could find no cruelty (and thus that JA is not eligible for death) if they believe that she tried to kill him quickly and painlessly but failed.

But wouldn't she have to "remember" the entire murder in order to plead that she did it as swiftly and painlessly as possible?

 

[AZlawyer]

But wouldn't she have to "remember" the entire murder in order to plead that she did it as swiftly and painlessly as possible?

Well, that would be helpful, yes. Honestly, this "fog" has done her case more harm than good IMO.

The state does have the burden of proof to show that she should have known he was suffering, but the state can prove this through circumstantial evidence, including evidence showing that Travis must have been standing at the sink spurting blood, must have been grabbing at the knife, must have been very clearly and obviously in terrible pain, etc. IMO the state should also be able to argue that any statements she made about Travis's distress during the "ninja" attack are circumstantial evidence that she was aware of his distress during her own attack. The biggest question, though, will be whether Jodi was TRYING during this time to kill him with one blow, to end his suffering, etc. The "gunshot first" argument will likely come back into play.

Of course, Jodi's testimony did NOT include any "jammed gun"--in her version, she shot him once and then dropped the gun IIRC--so the jury will wonder, OK, if you've shot someone in the brain, after which he must have been pretty dang harmless, why not just pick up the (perfectly fine non-jammed) gun and do it again to put him out of his misery? IMO they will never believe that Travis was running around (naked on wet tile), screaming at her and threatening her after being shot.

 

[Zuri]

Sometime in April JA journals were seized from her cell, I think per prosecution motion. Why would that happen? Sorry if this has been asked and answered. Thank you so much for your insight.

 

[Jax49]

Only Kirk Nurmi is now listed as attorney for JA on the case history--does this mean Willmott is off the case? TIA

 

[kremsh]

Sorry if this has been asked before but I am still confused about the defense mitigation specialist role. My rudimentary understanding is that she has been present during the trial to observe and look for instances that defense could use to help during mitigation. Not sure if I have that right or not.

During the mitigation phase of the trial, does the mitigation specialist actually testify or is she there merely as an advisor?

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry if this has been asked before but I am still confused about the defense mitigation specialist role. My rudimentary understanding is that she has been present during the trial to observe and look for instances that defense could use to help during mitigation. Not sure if I have that right or not.

During the mitigation phase of the trial, does the mitigation specialist actually testify or is she there merely as an advisor?

The mitigation specialist does not testify. She is an investigator and an advisor--sort of a specialized paralegal.

Only Kirk Nurmi is now listed as attorney for JA on the case history--does this mean Willmott is off the case? TIA

I doubt it. Normally only one attorney is listed per party--are you sure JW was ever listed?

Sometime in April JA journals were seized from her cell, I think per prosecution motion. Why would that happen? Sorry if this has been asked and answered. Thank you so much for your insight.

I don't think there was a motion, but perhaps JM wanted to know what JA was writing about these days.

 

[fabvab]

Nurmi is the only lawyer listed in the next phase of the trial. Does JA need a lawyer who is qualified in death penalty for the next 2 phases of trial?

Also, would it be legal for JW to withdraw as her lawyer and speak for JA?