Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Will JM be able to cross examine CMJA's allocution?

No, but if she crosses the line into presenting mitigation evidence, he can ask to be allowed to cross-examine her on those issues.

Hi, AZ! You said in an earlier post, "All sentences deduct time served." So if she does get DP, does that mean it'll occur 5 years sooner to account for her jail time already served? (sorry...couldn't resist).

HAHA good try but no.

 

[Hannamerika]

The A/C relationship ends when the appeal is filed or the appeal time has expired. A new attorney will be appointed for the appeal.

I just want to thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, and doing so in a way that is actually understandable and makes sense. I wish I had found this place at the beginning of the JA trial rather than the end

 

[Hannamerika]

I just want to thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, and doing so in a way that is actually understandable and makes sense. I wish I had found this place at the beginning of the JA trial rather than the end

How long will it be before the first appeal and how much actual work will her current attorney's have to do to get to that point?

 

[Hannamerika]

Dave Hall getting on NG saying PW is a druggie and not reporting income....can he get in trouble for that?

 

[outofstatelawyer]

It's not against the rules to impeach a witness. Also, in a pre-testimony interview or deposition, you can ask a lot more than you can ask when the witness is on the stand, and that's OK too.

I always thought their "intimidation" argument was about JM's "tone" with witnesses (the tone of a passionate prosecutor who hates liars lol) rather than the substance of his questions, though. I haven't seen anything from JM in open court that would constitute "intimidation." I think the idea is that if the record is jam-packed with references to JM intimidating witnesses, it will start to seem true even if the backup evidence is not really there.

The defense can subpoena witnesses for the mitigation phase, but not from California. The defense could have, I suppose, started a separate proceeding in California to get a California judge to subpoena the witnesses to appear at, e.g., a California conference center from which they could call in to the Arizona court. It's probably not a great idea to force witnesses to testify in a mitigation hearing, though--if they don't volunteer, they may not be such great mitigation witnesses, unless they're just testifying to clear, demonstrable facts.

1. BBM. That "idea" is not how appellate courts review the record;

2. The defense could and should have slapped subpoenas on DB and Patti while they were both in the jurisdiction of the Phoenix court. Then, fleeing a valid subpoena would be a great deal easier to deal with. But we also now know that DB was sitting by in a hotel room this morning ready to testify. So, this was just staged drama.

 

[AZlawyer]

1. BBM. That "idea" is not how appellate courts review the record;

2. The defense could and should have slapped subpoenas on DB and Patti while they were both in the jurisdiction of the Phoenix court. Then, fleeing a valid subpoena would be a great deal easier to deal with. But we also now know that DB was sitting by in a hotel room this morning ready to testify. So, this was just staged drama.

1. Yes, I agree. I think it's a somewhat desperate move.

2. That would have been a good idea, as long as their proposed testimony would not require a cooperative attitude.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

2. That would have been a good idea, as long as their proposed testimony would not require a cooperative attitude.

Well, yeah, that goes for all witnesses you call as your own. But, say, they had subpoenaed them both for last Thursday, from "day to day, until finished", as most court subpoenas read, then they'd be in contempt if they fled the jurisdiction, making appearance easier to enforce. In point of fact, Patty was apparently prepared to testify that the Defendant did not have an abusive upbringing. And Brewer was cooling his jets, ready to go. These defense lawyers have just been so silly, to put it kindly.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Does the state get to review her allocution statement before she gives it?

 

[geevee]

If the jury returns with the death penalty, is there any likely motion or delay tactic KN/JW could use to try to keep the judge from sentencing her immediately?

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

Do we have evidence/testimony to the bbm portions above? If so could someone please direct me to it? My apologies, I know this isn't a question specific to the lawyers I just couldn't get those points out of my mind after reading them earlier. tia

There is evidence to that effect from Travis and others. It has been well established she hacked into his ATM/bank records, Facebook, emails. It was Travis himself who wrote this, including one where she broke into his Facebook and sent a message to herself. She also sent messages to Travis's female friends.

Most believe she arrived at about 4am, and the dog was "fenced off" if not closeted (heard both terms) from going upstairs to the bedroom.

Also a clarification, i forgot the word "no" in explaining the 2nd part of felony murder.

--Even if their is NO premeditation, she would lose her "invitation" as soon as she started stabbing Travis. (along with burglary, etc. mentioned in part-1)

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

Wonder what you thought AZ about Nurmi today, in my opinion he dropped the ball.

Crazy Attempted mistrials and appeals will fall short:

1. Judge told him that Womack COULD have testified in alternative way. Also it was the Defense that told her to plead the 5th in response to Juan's questions.
2. Brewer was actually ready to testify and was waiting for the call (per AZ republic/HLN). It was the defense that didn't call him.
3. Should have put Mom, dad, family on stand regardless of any childhood issues with spoon. it's still her mom.
4. Tell Arias when she talks be remorseful, don't blame anyone.
5. Nurmi should talk about mental illness--regardless of the defense or prosecution experts--- or previous stance. No one may agree on a diagnosis, everyone would probably agree she is mentally ill.


Any smart Appellate Court will see through this:

1. Attempted Mistrial (Not enough Sleep and Food, Jail calculates food at 2,600 Calories)
3.Attempted Mistrial (Jean Casarez wonders about juror seeing Martinez)
4.Attempted Mistrial (Defense references Katie Wick)
5.Attempted Mistrial (Juror-5 excused, Mistrial Denied)
6.Attempted Mistrial (Defense should have had sequestered Jury, (Sequestering Denied)
7. Laviolette gets sick.
8. Laviolette confronts one of Travis’s sisters.
9. Laviolette says she wants to put prosecutor in time-out.
10. Attempted mistrial, Wong is here.
11. Juror 11 gone.
12. Attempted mistrial Juan “The Great One” getting his pictured taken outside.
13. Attempted mistrial Juan was ‘mean’ to Laviolette.
14. Attempted mistrial Juan was intimidating Samuels during the interview
15. Attempted Mistrial, Juan being blamed for media Coverage and “Salem Witch Trial”.
16. Attempted mistrial, Jodi Has another Headache.
17. Leonora Walker says she IS still using her criteria, and Wilmott lied?
18. Defense files motion for manslaughter by sudden quarrel (An accident?)
19. Defense files motion for heat of passion.
20. Defense wants to call another counter witness, based on DeMarte’ “discovering” she doesn’t have PTSD and remembers everything. (Didn’t we already know that and called them –‘Jodi’s lies’?)
21. Juror -8 now gone.
22. Dr Geffner exposed by Juan Martinez (exaggeration or lies?)
23. Defense attorneys want out after Jodi's Fox interview. (Post guilty Verdict)
24. Attempted Mistrial : Womack being intimidated/death threats?(actually met with Juan then told to plead 5th Numri and Willmott)
25. Attempted Mistrial : Non-sequestered Jury and TV cameras present.
26. Attempted Mistrial: Prosecution intimidated witnesses.
27. Attempted Mistrial: Laviolette brought up yet again.
28. Defense asks to be removed from case, Judge denies. (Looking for Appeal?)
29. Defense says they will not put on witnesses. (Looking for Appeal?)

 

[rosalinda777]

Hello AZ LAWYER,

After Monday's proceedings coming to halt it seemed rather odd to not continue when DB was ready to testify even if PW was not. The DT decided NO ONE would be testifying on JAs behalf. From what I can understand the DT seems to be saying the States JM is to blame for this intimation of these witnesses therefore the DT cannot do their job properly? What happens if Jodi herself says she also will not be speaking on her own behalf? What would be the next phase to happen? I'm so confused. What would the jurys next course of action be? Since no one would speaking on JAs behalf. I hope my questions are not to dumb. Im just not understanding the delays when DB was ready and Jodi, well Jodi there being Jodi so she could have spoken right? As always thank you for always being kind when you reply.

 

[Arabian Girl]

TIA for all your help in explaining this very bizarre trial!!

Is there a remedy if an attorney(s) is PURPOSEFULLY ineffective? Seems almost farfetched but if this is an attempt to delay the inevitable or create reasons for appeal, is there something the JSS can do?

Thanks again!

 

[Alexander family fan]

At the end of court yesterday the judge said they had yet another ex parte hearing with the defence and Jodi , consequently court would begin this am and the defendant will then give her speech to the jury. What would happen if Jodi said to the judge she wanted to fire her lawyers? We know whatever she opined fell on deaf ears, as we are indeed going forward. I'm just curious.

 

[VictimsSide]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penalty Phase #13

 

[neesaki]

I pulled this over from the main thread to see if our legal eagles can shed any light on it. TIA

Posted by Katiekoolady from penalty phase #13 thread:

Daryl Brewer wanted to give his testimony about JA not under oath and not with cross examination. So the AZ Republic helped him do just that, at the bidding of Kirk Nurmi. It was a childish stunt, transparent, and will not save her life. It was just a FU to Juan Martinez. A slicker display of the temper tantrum we saw in the courtroom. And wonder exactly when this interview took place? I'm suspecting before court even started yesterday which is why it was all ready to fly yesterday afternoon. Edited and in 4 parts.

This tactic is beyond unethical imo, it's low, it's down and dirty, it's cheap, and I can't believe even Nurmi would pull this stunt. I agree, it's crystal clear what's going on. That whole DB interview reeked of a well orchestrated set up. His tone of voice and demeanor and his whitewashed version of JA are clear indicators that he had been coached, that he was not being truthful or sincere, and that there was an ulterior motive to the interview.

I now fully do not trust DB either, and have to wonder why he would stick his neck out this far for this deviant killer. He seemed pretty comfortable doing it too, smooth, slick, unfaltering, which also gives me pause. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, imo. Also, Juan and the judge have to know all of this.

So what I want to know, is if all of this can be verified, are there any legal ramifications for / against Nurmi ? TIA :wave:

 

[cocomod]

I wonder why the DT keeps requesting at this late stage to be removed as representation.

Is it because they know they have nothing and they want to give her more time to come up with something (if their bid to be removed would have worked)?

Or, are they possibly sick of her not listening to them? Maybe they have told her that it is time to finally say she is sorry for what she did, and she is refusing. She may have even told them they can't use her "mental illness" as a mitigating factor. I do think that she is very much "in control" and likely very bossy.

Could it also give additional cause for a mistrial because she can claim that they were not "adequate" representation because they wanted out? (I disagree with this and think she would lose this claim because they worked very hard pulling out all of the stops to get her out.)

 

[Nhic]

I pulled this over from the main thread to see if our legal eagles can shed any light on it. TIA

Posted by Katiekoolady from penalty phase #13 thread:

This tactic is beyond unethical imo, it's low, it's down and dirty, it's cheap, and I can't believe even Nurmi would pull this stunt. I agree, it's crystal clear what's going on. That whole DB interview reeked of a well orchestrated set up. His tone of voice and demeanor and his whitewashed version of JA are clear indicators that he had been coached, that he was not being truthful or sincere, and that there was an ulterior motive to the interview.

I now fully do not trust DB either, and have to wonder why he would stick his neck out this far for this deviant killer. He seemed pretty comfortable doing it too, smooth, slick, unfaltering, which also gives me pause. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, imo. Also, Juan and the judge have to know all of this.

So what I want to know, is if all of this can be verified, are there any legal ramifications for / against Nurmi ? TIA :wave:

I have said from day 1 that JA has major information on DB that would ruin his life and put him in prison.

 

[AZlawyer]

I pulled this over from the main thread to see if our legal eagles can shed any light on it. TIA

Posted by Katiekoolady from penalty phase #13 thread:

This tactic is beyond unethical imo, it's low, it's down and dirty, it's cheap, and I can't believe even Nurmi would pull this stunt. I agree, it's crystal clear what's going on. That whole DB interview reeked of a well orchestrated set up. His tone of voice and demeanor and his whitewashed version of JA are clear indicators that he had been coached, that he was not being truthful or sincere, and that there was an ulterior motive to the interview.

I now fully do not trust DB either, and have to wonder why he would stick his neck out this far for this deviant killer. He seemed pretty comfortable doing it too, smooth, slick, unfaltering, which also gives me pause. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, imo. Also, Juan and the judge have to know all of this.

So what I want to know, is if all of this can be verified, are there any legal ramifications for / against Nurmi ? TIA :wave:

Isn't this just speculation? I'm not going to assume that Nurmi set this up to avoid DB having to testify under oath and with cross-examination. For one thing, it would be insane to build your strategy around jurors violating their oaths. For another thing, DB would not have had any big problem with the oath and cross-examination, unlike the other mitigation witness perhaps.

If, for some reason, Nurmi did something like this, then of course the State Bar could take action against him. I just can't imagine the point of this supposed strategy.

 

[AZlawyer]

I wonder why the DT keeps requesting at this late stage to be removed as representation.

Is it because they know they have nothing and they want to give her more time to come up with something (if their bid to be removed would have worked)?

Or, are they possibly sick of her not listening to them? Maybe they have told her that it is time to finally say she is sorry for what she did, and she is refusing. She may have even told them they can't use her "mental illness" as a mitigating factor. I do think that she is very much "in control" and likely very bossy.

Could it also give additional cause for a mistrial because she can claim that they were not "adequate" representation because they wanted out? (I disagree with this and think she would lose this claim because they worked very hard pulling out all of the stops to get her out.)

They are not asking to be removed because she is bossy, etc. IMO they are asking for the usual reason appointed defense attorneys ask, which is that they are in some kind of tricky position under the ethics rules. Options might include that JA is insisting on a strategy that the attorneys feel is inconsistent with their obligation to provide effective counsel, or that they found out a planned witness was going to perjure him/herself at JA's request and so they were unable to present the witness (but JA could have done so pro per).

Hmmm. That second one is getting me thinking.... :waitasec:

No, requests to withdraw are not evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. To me, in fact, they are red flags that counsel is trying to be effective but is being thwarted by the client.