Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[kscornfed]

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.

i agree with KCL that neither of these witnesses were going to appear. at all. and that this whole thing was orchestrated to help JA in a future appeal. DB was collateral damage.
they named TWO witnesses----like let's say just to illustrate my point that one is jack the ripper and the other is darryl. they KNOW jack the ripper has problems in his background---this isn't news to them. they get pissy when JM goes into that area---but they call it 'intimidation' and say it's unfair to their client.

now come on. they KNEW patti had these issues and they knew they wouldn't use her. everything that happened with her was predictable, to put it mildly.

so it gives them the chance to ask to be heard in OPEN COURT (when every other hearing has been closed and sealed), chewing out the judge for allowing the trial to be televised and not sequestering the jury. then they move onto the 'intimidation' (actually cross examination and impeachment) of their witnesses. they pretty much say they're being PREVENTED from putting on mitigation due to the actions of the judge and the state, throw a fit, say fine, then we aren't calling ANY witnesses. they ask to be removed from the case and ask, again, for a mistrial.

and you really don't think this was their intention all along? so she can claim on appeal that her case was damaged by the media attention, an unsequestered jury, and 'witness intimidation?'

 

[AZlawyer]

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

If the jury is not unanimous, the judge decides between LWOP and 25-to-life. She will not know or consider what the split was among the jurors.

 

[Hope4More]

Two questions...

1. Although the DT rejected DeMarte's diagnosis of BPD and mental illness was not submitted as a mitigator, can the jury accept D's diagnosis and use it as a mitigator?

2. I'm expecting that whatever CMJA says today she's gonna sound nuts. Can the DT be considered ineffective counsel for:

..countering D's testimony, or not presenting psych testimony that woukd indicate she had a mental illness, even if the defendant didn't want them to, OR

....not presenting mental illness as a mitigator, even if the convicted didn't want them to?

 

[Hope4More]

PS.. if CMJA gets up and begs for the DP, what in the world can the DT say in closing? I'm guessing they are not allowed to say, yah, whatever she said, kill her. Right?

 

[AZlawyer]

Two questions...

1. Although the DT rejected DeMarte's diagnosis of BPD and mental illness was not submitted as a mitigator, can the jury accept D's diagnosis and use it as a mitigator?

2. I'm expecting that whatever CMJA says today she's gonna sound nuts. Can the DT be considered ineffective counsel for:

..countering D's testimony, or not presenting psych testimony that woukd indicate she had a mental illness, even if the defendant didn't want them to, OR

....not presenting mental illness as a mitigator, even if the convicted didn't want them to?

Yes, the jury could consider her mental brokenness as a mitigator, with or without a diagnosis.

No, counsel cannot be considered ineffective for countering DeMarte's testimony in thee guilt phase. They needed to counter that testimony. Also, they did present evidence of PTSD.

No, if JA refused to allow them to present a mental illness as a mitigator, they would not be ineffective for following that plan, although they might ask to withdraw to make sure everyone understood things were not going according to THEIR plan.

 

[AZlawyer]

PS.. if CMJA gets up and begs for the DP, what in the world can the DT say in closing? I'm guessing they are not allowed to say, yah, whatever she said, kill her. Right?

Well, they would probably ask to withdraw. And then perhaps waive closing arguments.

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad the DT brought up BPD in their presentation today. In all fairness to the process, I think it should be openly on the table. Also, putting it out there as a mitigator removes one avenue for appeal, anyway.

(Doubt the jury will buy it, btw)

 

[Shadowboy]

... if JA refused to allow them to present a mental illness as a mitigator, they would not be ineffective for following that plan, although they might ask to withdraw to make sure everyone understood things were not going according to THEIR plan.

Since the DT finally used the BPD diagnosis as a mitigating factor ... Do you think that's what all the grandstanding was about yesterday? Did they force JA into a corner, leaving her no option but to take their lead? {Of course, I know you can't read minds; just interested in your take on it.} Thanks, again, for answering our pestering questions!

 

[redbud]

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'm unclear. Did Jodi's defense tell DG he couldn't testify and then have him give an interview? It seems like DB doesn't know why he didn't testify in this phase and was prepared. The jury is still not allowed to watch or read media I thought. How would this help?

 

[AZlawyer]

Since the DT finally used the BPD diagnosis as a mitigating factor ... Do you think that's what all the grandstanding was about yesterday? Did they force JA into a corner, leaving her no option but to take their lead? {Of course, I know you can't read minds; just interested in your take on it.} Thanks, again, for answering our pestering questions!

I don't think so. It was a pretty obvious choice for a mitigating factor, since the evidence had already been presented, and by a witness who was apparently liked by the jury. Perhaps they just wanted to wait until the end to mention it, to avoid alerting JM that it was an issue.

 

[AZlawyer]

i agree with KCL that neither of these witnesses were going to appear. at all. and that this whole thing was orchestrated to help JA in a future appeal. DB was collateral damage.
they named TWO witnesses----like let's say just to illustrate my point that one is jack the ripper and the other is darryl. they KNOW jack the ripper has problems in his background---this isn't news to them. they get pissy when JM goes into that area---but they call it 'intimidation' and say it's unfair to their client.

now come on. they KNEW patti had these issues and they knew they wouldn't use her. everything that happened with her was predictable, to put it mildly.

so it gives them the chance to ask to be heard in OPEN COURT (when every other hearing has been closed and sealed), chewing out the judge for allowing the trial to be televised and not sequestering the jury. then they move onto the 'intimidation' (actually cross examination and impeachment) of their witnesses. they pretty much say they're being PREVENTED from putting on mitigation due to the actions of the judge and the state, throw a fit, say fine, then we aren't calling ANY witnesses. they ask to be removed from the case and ask, again, for a mistrial.

and you really don't think this was their intention all along? so she can claim on appeal that her case was damaged by the media attention, an unsequestered jury, and 'witness intimidation?'

I really don't think it was Nurmi's plan, although I know other lawyers disagree with me. Some in my own office. Based on Nurmi's irritation yesterday, compared to Jodi's complacent blankness, IMO it's much more likely that Jodi did something to sabotage Nurmi's plan.

 

[AZlawyer]

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!

This is something that some attorneys claim happens regularly, although IMO it would be an idiotic strategy. And yes, judges often prevent counsel from doing ineffective things. E.g., if the attorney says "no witnesses!" the judge might ask, "What happened to DB? Why isn't he here? What can we do?" and make sure that the attorneys weren't just "throwing" the mitigation phase.

And there were so many in-chambers and sidebar conferences that this conversation might, in fact, have taken place.

 

[Zuri]

Thank you AZlawyer for answering all our questions. You have been awesome throughout this trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

Oh sure, there are always motions to be filed. None of them are likely to work, though.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

No.

 

[qtrmlr]

Bringing Steelys question over here-"BTW, can one of our lawyers tell me why she was allowed to say her friend was too afraid to testify on her behalf?"

 

[Geri58]

Will media interviews on death row be allowed if a death verdict is rendered?

 

[JudyBolton]

Will media interviews on death row be allowed if a death verdict is rendered?

This is my questions as well... when (if ever) will she lose the ability to hold these media interviews? I mean she is technically a convicted murderer and yet she's planning her interviews, asking for hairstylists and make up artists!! (good grief) - I also know that occasionally even mass murderers give selective interviews but these seem very rare. Will she be limited in her ability to be on the news? Who will make these decisions and will it be different if she gets the DP as opposed to LWOP? Thanks in advance!

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

So watching the final close by Arias and Wilmott came to some conclusions and found out some facts. Wondering what AZ and others thought--

1. Arias could have easily saved her life based on four things:

A. Showed remorse---(she just couldn't do it).
B. Not relitigated and brought up domestic violence. (Couldn't help herself and blames the victim again.)
C. Brought up the 'Survivor' T-Shirt (Wrong on many levels).
D. Not brought up the intimidation of Womack (Jury already sees Arias as a liar)

Other things:
A. HLN checked and said she could NOT start a book club in prison.
B. It is possible to use her hair for charity.
C. The comment about her father crying was her strongest piece of evidence.

Wilmott was HORRIBLE:

A. This is not time to relitigate and talk abuse---try to get some compassion for your client via mental illness or family.
B. Don't throw the family under the bus when Arias is using the family and her father to keep her alive. (Weird that Wilmott did not think on her feet and adjust).
C. Wilmott almost seemed combative and agitiated and the 11-objections didn't help--all designed for appeal, but it looked silly.

JURY:

This decision is coming down to the Jury and their personal views about Death Penalty---and if they do give her life, it isn't because of Arias or Wilmott did anything to save her but quite the opposite--they either don't believe in killing someone, or they feel sorry for Arias (mental illness), or they feel sorry for Arias because Wilmott seemed incompetent and was arguing against the family.

AZ---your thoughts?

 

[aa9511]

Attorneys, please help, re: Appeals:

Is it just me or what, because I"m confused as to how an appeals board can possibly know the breadth of a case that was 5 months long? I mean, the jurors have been there day in and day out, they have seen Jodi up close and looked at her and listened to her. So IMO you're right, it would have to be some legal technicality, but even then how can they know the context? For example, if Jodi tries to say the witnesses were threatened....how can the appeals board know Jodi's manipulative ways, and that it could have been Jodi orchestrating these supposed death threats with her "friend" felon Donovan? I'm not understanding how an appeals board can get all of that information? I guess I should ask on the lawyer thread (here). And as for "ineffective counsel," I mean, is it really ineffective if they're forced to do what Jodi says, and what Jodi says is stupid and dumb? How is that ineffective counsel and how would the appeals board know that context?