Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

If the State decided to take the death penalty off the table, are there any sentencing guidelines the judge must abide that could result in life with parole after 25 years?

It's very discretionary--basically the judge is supposed to consider all the same factors that the jury is supposed to consider for death vs. life.

 

[Hope4More]

The DA has said the State is prepared to retry the penalty phase. How much weight is given to what the family wants? If they are willing to settle rather than retry, is the State likely to go forward anyway?

Despite what the DA said, are there politics involved that are likely to disuade the State from retrying? Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

The DA has said the State is prepared to retry the penalty phase. How much weight is given to what the family wants? If they are willing to settle rather than retry, is the State likely to go forward anyway?

Despite what the DA said, are there politics involved that are likely to disuade the State from retrying? Thanks.

JM seems very concerned about this family's feelings. I think if they say they just want to be done with it and will take LWOP, he would try to arrange that.

Yes, there will be some pressure re: the cost of the second penalty phase. It will be much longer than the first one, because lots of the evidence from the guilt and aggravation phase will also be relevant to the penalty phase.

 

[magnolia]

First of all, I can't even imagine that happening in AZ unless the death penalty is abolished nationwide, in which case they'll probably make it retroactive. But to answer your question, I think lawmakers could set it up either way.



Let me say first that we have no reason to think any juror is going back on his/her word in voir dire. It is simply not true that any juror who is willing to vote for death would vote for death in this case. There is a lot worse evil than Jodi Arias on AZ death row, believe me. My first job in law school included reviewing and cataloging every holding on every issue in every AZ death penalty case, and the nightmares were awful.

In the guilt phase, if the jury can't agree, it does not automatically make the verdict "not guilty." It means there is a hung jury and the case can be retried to a new jury--just like in this phase. So there's nothing unusual about that part of the process. What's unusual is that, until a few years ago when the Supreme Court came out with the Ring case, these decisions were made by judges, not by juries. At least that's how it worked in AZ--I don't know if other states were using juries for the penalty phase.

Thanks for the BBM AZ. :loser: It seems many people are having difficulty understanding that.

 

[dani]

1. If the County Attorney's Office decided to drop the DP would Jodi's defense team have to agree to this? (I don't see this as a real plea "offer".)

2.Could we then just skip the Penalty Phase (and a 2nd jury) and let the judge determine LWOP or LWP now?

3. Does Travis' family HAVE to agree to such a settlement? (Although I'm sure the County Attorney would present such a settlement to them out of courtesy.)

Thank you!

 

[AZlawyer]

1. If the County Attorney's Office decided to drop the DP would Jodi's defense team have to agree to this? (I don't see this as a real plea "offer".)

2.Could we then just skip the Penalty Phase (and a 2nd jury) and let the judge determine LWOP or LWP now?

3. Does Travis' family HAVE to agree to such a settlement? (Although I'm sure the County Attorney would present such a settlement to them out of courtesy.)

Thank you!

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. No.

And thank YOU for the simple yes-or-no questions.

 

[bparsons]

Since *advertiser censored* lied under oath, can she be prosecuted for perjury so she has a criminal background that is on record?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. No.

And thank YOU for the simple yes-or-no questions.

Hi AZ!

So Why not choose Door #2.
JSS would give LWOP and The Alexander family would get on with their lives.

I mean what are the odds this new EXTENDED penalty phase will bring a DP.
If the Alexander family will not accept that then I guess they know and can handle what they are about to go through again! UGH!

I have an uncle in New Jersey who could make JA go away for good--no needles involved! :blushing:

 

[AZlawyer]

Since *advertiser censored* lied under oath, can she be prosecuted for perjury so she has a criminal background that is on record?

Not before the second penalty phase.

Hi AZ!

So Why not choose Door #2.
JSS would give LWOP and The Alexander family would get on with their lives.

I mean what are the odds this new EXTENDED penalty phase will bring a DP.
If the Alexander family will not accept that then I guess they know and can handle what they are about to go through again! UGH!

I have an uncle in New Jersey who could make JA go away for good--no needles involved! :blushing:

Apparently the odds that the new jury will give death are 75%, based on the 3 out of 4 Maricopa County second penalty-phase juries that have done that. Of course, that's a small sample size, but still something to consider.

If the Alexander family was OK with LWOP, then I think JM would be OK with it also.

 

[Sustained]

A couple of questions please ....

I'm confused about probative versus prejudicial evidence and how it seems to favor the defense (at least in this case). For example, we all know from trial testimony that Travis was furious at Arias for something that went down on or around May 28th, 2008. All we were privy to in court were the text messages sent by Travis to Arias calling her a slew of names as obviously he was highly upset at something she had done. Why were Arias' text messages and or emails not made available to the jury ? Certainly, if they could retrieve Travis' texts, the cellular company could also have gotten the replies by Arias.

And a general question .... it seems that a lot of evidence is excluded based on the probative / prejudicial rule. But it seems to me that the jury never gets the entire story as evidenced by the fact the Arias jury foreman stated that he thought Arias suffered from emotional and verbal abuse from Travis. But she possibly did to cause that will never be known ...

Second question - assuming we proceed to another penalty phase, can JM introduce new evidence to refute Arias' claim of domestic violence and abuse. How much leeway would he have in the new penalty phase to present evidence that wasn't presented at the original trial ? Can he have investigators looking for additional evidence outside of what was brought forward at trial ?

Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

FYI to everyone who wondered about the "no provision for parole" issue. Apparently, AZ's "Truth in Sentencing" laws, effective 1994, abolished parole for everyone committing a crime after that time. Who knew? (Well, probably all the criminal lawyers, lol.) I can't find any AZ case assessing whether this was constitutional, but it probably is...UNLESS someone is given a sentence after 1994 that specifically says they are eligible for parole after X number of years. Then I think, as JM said, that person would have a right to FORCE the state to consider their application for parole after X years.

BUT when I look at the capital case sentencing statutes, they do NOT say that the "25-to-life" sentence means the defendant is eligible for parole after 25 years. They say, "If the defendant is sentenced to life, the defendant shall not be released on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years..." That, to me, does NOT grant the right to apply for parole. It just says that IF parole is ever an option in AZ again, then the defendant CANNOT get parole until 25 years are served.

So I think JM was wrong about this. He was arguing as though the sentence would be "life with eligibility for parole after 25 years" instead of "life with NO eligibility for parole until at least after 25 years."

 

[AZlawyer]

A couple of questions please ....

I'm confused about probative versus prejudicial evidence and how it seems to favor the defense (at least in this case). For example, we all know from trial testimony that Travis was furious at Arias for something that went down on or around May 28th, 2008. All we were privy to in court were the text messages sent by Travis to Arias calling her a slew of names as obviously he was highly upset at something she had done. Why were Arias' text messages and or emails not made available to the jury ? Certainly, if they could retrieve Travis' texts, the cellular company could also have gotten the replies by Arias.

And a general question .... it seems that a lot of evidence is excluded based on the probative / prejudicial rule. But it seems to me that the jury never gets the entire story as evidenced by the fact the Arias jury foreman stated that he thought Arias suffered from emotional and verbal abuse from Travis. But she possibly did to cause that will never be known ...

Second question - assuming we proceed to another penalty phase, can JM introduce new evidence to refute Arias' claim of domestic violence and abuse. How much leeway would he have in the new penalty phase to present evidence that wasn't presented at the original trial ? Can he have investigators looking for additional evidence outside of what was brought forward at trial ?

Thanks

IF JM had evidence (not speculation but, as you say, emails/texts--or witness testimony) showing WHY Travis was so angry on May 26, there is NO WAY NO HOW that evidence was excluded because it was too prejudicial. IMO he simply did not have the evidence on that point. Evidence is NEVER rejected as too prejudicial on the ground that it makes the defendant look guilty. Never. That is not the kind of prejudice the rule is talking about.

Why do you say a lot of evidence was excluded as too prejudicial? What do you think was excluded? I haven't heard of anything excluded for that reason, but perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention.

Yes, JM can continue to investigate and can present new evidence to rebut the abuse allegation. He may have to explain why he didn't know about the evidence earlier, but as long as the defense has enough time to do its own investigation about the evidence, it should be allowed in.

 

[Jenivere]

I'm a bit confused, and I hope you can clarify this for me. A lawyer on HLN (I know, I know) said there was no such thing as parole in AZ, anymore. Is that true? I see that there's the option for Life with Parole, so this has me questioning things.

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer our questions. You're greatly appreciated.

 

[Labadorable]

@AZLawyer

I lurk/stalk your posts ...

I want to thank you for taking time out of your valued schedule to efficiently and adequately answer all the legal questions on this forum.

ttfn

 

[Sustained]

IF JM had evidence (not speculation but, as you say, emails/texts--or witness testimony) showing WHY Travis was so angry on May 26, there is NO WAY NO HOW that evidence was excluded because it was too prejudicial. IMO he simply did not have the evidence on that point. Evidence is NEVER rejected as too prejudicial on the ground that it makes the defendant look guilty. Never. That is not the kind of prejudice the rule is talking about.

Why do you say a lot of evidence was excluded as too prejudicial? What do you think was excluded? I haven't heard of anything excluded for that reason, but perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention.

Yes, JM can continue to investigate and can present new evidence to rebut the abuse allegation. He may have to explain why he didn't know about the evidence earlier, but as long as the defense has enough time to do its own investigation about the evidence, it should be allowed in.

BBM - thanks AZLawyer for your responses ...

There's a whole thread on WS about what we know that the jury didn't ... but a few things come to mind.

1) Arias packed knives in he rental car when she was arrested
2) The interviews of Arias' parents with Detective Flores
3) Confrontation with Clancy Talbot demonstrating Arias' possessive behavior
4) Arias's willingness to plea to 2nd degree murder
5) Arias bank accounts and possibly hacking into Travis' accounts

There are many more, but I guess I just don't understand the rules of evidence.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm a bit confused, and I hope you can clarify this for me. A lawyer on HLN (I know, I know) said there was no such thing as parole in AZ, anymore. Is that true? I see that there's the option for Life with Parole, so this has me questioning things.

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer our questions. You're greatly appreciated.

I just posted this earlier today:

FYI to everyone who wondered about the "no provision for parole" issue. Apparently, AZ's "Truth in Sentencing" laws, effective 1994, abolished parole for everyone committing a crime after that time. Who knew? (Well, probably all the criminal lawyers, lol.) I can't find any AZ case assessing whether this was constitutional, but it probably is...UNLESS someone is given a sentence after 1994 that specifically says they are eligible for parole after X number of years. Then I think, as JM said, that person would have a right to FORCE the state to consider their application for parole after X years.

BUT when I look at the capital case sentencing statutes, they do NOT say that the "25-to-life" sentence means the defendant is eligible for parole after 25 years. They say, "If the defendant is sentenced to life, the defendant shall not be released on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years..." That, to me, does NOT grant the right to apply for parole. It just says that IF parole is ever an option in AZ again, then the defendant CANNOT get parole until 25 years are served.

So I think JM was wrong about this. He was arguing as though the sentence would be "life with eligibility for parole after 25 years" instead of "life with NO eligibility for parole until at least after 25 years."

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - thanks AZLawyer for your responses ...

There's a whole thread on WS about what we know that the jury didn't ... but a few things come to mind.

1) Arias packed knives in he rental car when she was arrested
2) The interviews of Arias' parents with Detective Flores
3) Confrontation with Clancy Talbot demonstrating Arias' possessive behavior
4) Arias's willingness to plea to 2nd degree murder
5) Arias bank accounts and possibly hacking into Travis' accounts

There are many more, but I guess I just don't understand the rules of evidence.

None of the things you listed would have been excluded as prejudicial IMO.

1) This, if true (I haven't looked at any forms from the arrest), is irrelevant in any event to the issues of guilt or cruelty. I doubt JM offered it as evidence.

2) These interviews are hearsay. I'm sure JM did not offer them as evidence, for that reason. However, if JA's parents had testified, these interviews could have been used if they said anything inconsistent or failed to remember something they remembered at the time. JM could have called them to the stand if there was anything really important in those interviews that was relevant to the issues. Was there? The main thing I heard about was that her parents basically thought there was something mentally wrong with her. JM presumably didn't want to bang the mental illness drum too hard.

3) IMO JM could have introduced this information as part of his theme that the motive for murder was jealousy. But I don't think we ever saw that this Clancy girl was on his witness list and then removed, so why do we think he was precluded from using her testimony?

4) Plea offers are not admissible, because if they were admissible no one would ever make a plea offer. Nothing to do with prejudice.

5) Her bank account information was admitted when it was relevant. As for the "hacking," was there any evidence of that to present? If so, I'm sure JM could have presented it as part of his theme of jealousy/overstepping boundaries.

 

[swan366]

I live in a large city in a different state. When my BIL was brutally murdered, the family was never consulted about sentencing matters for the killer (he got life with parole, though that will be unlikely in his case, I'm told). It was actually pretty difficult to get our DA's office to return calls on many matters during the year-long legal process. I am impressed with how closely JM consults with the Alexander family; is it the norm in Arizona to get the family's input during all legal phases?

 

[AZlawyer]

I live in a large city in a different state. When my BIL was brutally murdered, the family was never consulted about sentencing matters for the killer (he got life with parole, though that will be unlikely in his case, I'm told). It was actually pretty difficult to get our DA's office to return calls on many matters during the year-long legal process. I am impressed with how closely JM consults with the Alexander family; is it the norm in Arizona to get the family's input during all legal phases?

Yes, mostly due to our strong victim's rights laws.

 

[Wescott]

Could you please give an example of evidence that would be too prejudicial? Thank you.