Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[nwmouse]

Is there any possibility that the M1 conviction can be overturned at this point?

 

[cocomod]

I think that some of her last interviews while the jury was deliberating her penalty made he look worse. She seemed very flippant and still very confident for someone just convicted of murder.

Do you think any of those interviews will be used against her?

 

[AZlawyer]

I think that some of her last interviews while the jury was deliberating her penalty made he look worse. She seemed very flippant and still very confident for someone just convicted of murder.

Do you think any of those interviews will be used against her?

Not unless the actual words she said were relevant to something. I don't think JM can get them into evidence based on her attitude.

Is there any possibility that the M1 conviction can be overturned at this point?

On appeal, sure, but I can't think of any issue that would be likely to succeed on appeal at this point.

Re: the "rose colored glasses" video. Watching that, and assuming that the narrator was accurate (i.e., did not have an ulterior motive for making it sound worse than it is), why was Arias not aware of the realities of life in max M1 Perryville prison, so that she could make an informed decision about whether the DP (no appeals, please) might actually be preferable or easier?

The prison official in the video seemed surprised that Arias' lawyers have not told her the truth about LWOP. Maybe they did that to keep up her spirits or whatever. But if they kept that info from her deliberately, is that a ground for some type of appeal for inadequate counsel?

No, it would not be a ground for appeal or to argue IAC, but I am surprised that her attorneys allowed her to think that maximum security at Perryville was like county jail.

If you are familiar with civil court, you will know that settlement offers are not admissible to show liability, because otherwise people would not make settlement offers. It is the same with plea offers in criminal court.

Also, what JA said was not inconsistent with her plea offer. Her position with respect to the plea offer was that, without the plea, she would be forced against her will to trash Travis.


Thanks so much for the reply and insight!! I guess civil settlement offers/negotiations are handled a bit differently out there, as in all of the Jurisdictions I've had cases in, the only time there is a Court filing is AFTER all sides have agreed to the terms of the settlement and the final terms are approved by the Court, particularly if minor children are involved. With this being a formal Motion with an attached Affidavit from CMJA, I wondered if that might be a bit different and more useful to showing the depth of her sociopathy/psychopathy to the new jury.

Have a great Holiday weekend! And thanks again for always being so helpful when legal questions arise,

Westie Mom

I don't believe any affidavit from JA was involved. If there was an affidavit, she could be cross-examined about it.

do you know where the link is to see the actual document ... MOTION TO DISMISS STATES NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY.

No. AZ doesn't post court documents online, so it will be online only if someone paid for a copy and then posted it somewhere.

Living in Canada our Court System is very much different. My question is:

The TV interviews that she gave Thursday night, which were not favorable to Jodi in the least, can they be brought back into court for the new jury to view, just so that they can see her different responses to the media questions, and judge for themselves the type of person that she portrayed once she was on National TV, which certainly did not come across as a person wanting forgiveness, as many of her answers to the questions from the different interviewers were very flippant, and arrogant, and most importantly showed her true character as being very uncaring about others only herself.

I am not talking about wanting the sweater so the TV viewers would not see her jail outfit, or the make up as that only says that she is vain, but her answers out of her own mouth, just hours after her getting up in to plea, if you call it that for the jury not to give her the DP.

Thank you

Lynda from Ontario

Parts of the interviews could be used, if she said something relevant to the penalty phase.

 

[jabberwocky]

TIA AZlawyer.

I am curious... JA was convicted with a verdict of (M1 )premeditated murder w/ extreme aggravated circumstances. Then in an interview post verdict, she stated that she was no longer a threat unless someone abused her. Isn't that relevant as the jurors, in their verdict, showed that the supposed abuse did not justify her crime Why can that statement not be used against her in the next penalty phase? You have been a constant source of factual information, and much appreciated! Thank you so much.

 

[bettybaby00]

I think they don't like to put "if you can't agree" in the jury instructions, because it makes them think that's an option. Even the "hung jury" instruction, after they've already indicated they're having trouble agreeing, is worded to suggest that hanging the jury is not an option. But I think this is misleading, and at least at the "hung jury" instruction stage they ought to be told the effect of a hung jury.

Thank you!

BBM

IA, bc I think this is something that would effect deliberations, particularly in this case!

 

[BlackLabLover]

Thank you to all the lawyers who answer our questions! I have been reading a few posts about JSS being replaced for the redo of the penalty phase. We are talking hypothetically I hope.

Is this common? It worries me because if the jury does not agree, AGAIN, (please no) then it is up to the judge whether she gets LWOP or LWP, correct?

JSS knows every detail of this case and I feel should would be much more "qualified" to sentence CMJ. I feel confident she would give her LWOP. A new judge would not be privy to all the nuances of the case, etc.

 

[dcsmyth1]

AFAIK, most other states only give the state one shot at a DP verdict, and it goes right to life in prison. This double shot at the DP that AZ has---can it be challenged later as unconstitutional because of double jeopardy considerations?

Whether the answer is yes or no, to me it does seem unfair to give the state more than one shot at the DP. I think it should be assumed that the original jury has the best overall view of the case, as opposed to a new jury who only get an abridged version.

 

[iSleuth]

Has there ever been a case brought against a jury foreman?

State of az v. Jury Foreman

If ever, that man should have been disqualified for his abuses and usurpations, oh and biases. He clearly did not understand the mandate- the process- or his job. He was the mistrial. WTH? ::thud::

I am apoplectic. When I stop frothing at the mouth I may be able to be more articulate.
That guy...made it go his way. NO deliberations. ?

 

[pinkie60]

now that Ja is on lockdown 23/7, what are her visitation rights? Was she changed to lockdown because of the conviction or for safety reasons? Thanks in advance

 

[dcsmyth1]

As to what will come in to the new jury--this will just be about mitigation, right. So Arias will be ably to testify about the supposed abuse from Travis. But the jury apparently won't get anything "bad" to balance it out, such as the extreme brutality of his killing? They have to accept that an aggravator of extreme cruelty is present, but that's a lot different than hearing Juan describe the killing in moment to moment detail like he did in the guilt phase closing.

Or, do they get to hear about these details? If not, it seems that the new jury is less likely to vote for the DP by logic (even though the small sample of 3 out of 4 seems to suggest otherwise).

 

[AZlawyer]

TIA AZlawyer.

I am curious... JA was convicted with a verdict of (M1 )premeditated murder w/ extreme aggravated circumstances. Then in an interview post verdict, she stated that she was no longer a threat unless someone abused her. Isn't that relevant as the jurors, in their verdict, showed that the supposed abuse did not justify her crime Why can that statement not be used against her in the next penalty phase? You have been a constant source of factual information, and much appreciated! Thank you so much.

Hmmm yes, I think Juan could use that.

Thank you to all the lawyers who answer our questions! I have been reading a few posts about JSS being replaced for the redo of the penalty phase. We are talking hypothetically I hope.

Is this common? It worries me because if the jury does not agree, AGAIN, (please no) then it is up to the judge whether she gets LWOP or LWP, correct?

JSS knows every detail of this case and I feel should would be much more "qualified" to sentence CMJ. I feel confident she would give her LWOP. A new judge would not be privy to all the nuances of the case, etc.

No, there's no reason a new judge would be assigned.

AFAIK, most other states only give the state one shot at a DP verdict, and it goes right to life in prison. This double shot at the DP that AZ has---can it be challenged later as unconstitutional because of double jeopardy considerations?

Whether the answer is yes or no, to me it does seem unfair to give the state more than one shot at the DP. I think it should be assumed that the original jury has the best overall view of the case, as opposed to a new jury who only get an abridged version.

The process has been challenged in the AZ Supreme Court and upheld as being no different from retrying the guilt phase after a hung jury. The US Supreme Court hasn't taken a look at it yet, I don't think.

I see your point, but it seems like any unfairness is toward the state, not the defense, so no one will be arguing that on appeal. The state has no constitutional rights.

Has there ever been a case brought against a jury foreman?

State of az v. Jury Foreman

If ever, that man should have been disqualified for his abuses and usurpations, oh and biases. He clearly did not understand the mandate- the process- or his job. He was the mistrial. WTH? ::thud::

I am apoplectic. When I stop frothing at the mouth I may be able to be more articulate.
That guy...made it go his way. NO deliberations. ?

No, he can't be sued.

I only heard part of one interview he did, but I heard nothing about any abuses, usurpations, biases, misunderstanding of his job, failure to deliberate, or any of that. :waitasec: Can you PM me what I missed??

now that Ja is on lockdown 23/7, what are her visitation rights? Was she changed to lockdown because of the conviction or for safety reasons? Thanks in advance

Probably both reasons. I don't know what Sheriff Joe's visitation policies are for each level of custody, though--sorry.

As to what will come in to the new jury--this will just be about mitigation, right. So Arias will be ably to testify about the supposed abuse from Travis. But the jury apparently won't get anything "bad" to balance it out, such as the extreme brutality of his killing? They have to accept that an aggravator of extreme cruelty is present, but that's a lot different than hearing Juan describe the killing in moment to moment detail like he did in the guilt phase closing.

Or, do they get to hear about these details? If not, it seems that the new jury is less likely to vote for the DP by logic (even though the small sample of 3 out of 4 seems to suggest otherwise).

The penalty phase is all about balancing the good and bad. For this reason, the bad parts will, indeed, be presented again.

 

[kscornfed]

AZ, do you think the DT will bring back RS and ALV? they're stuck with the case they put on the first time, right? claiming DV and PTSD?

or can they shift gears, forget all that and go the personality disorder route, since they sure warmed up to that in this first penalty phase? and IF so, don't they have to find an expert to claim that?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, do you think the DT will bring back RS and ALV? they're stuck with the case they put on the first time, right? claiming DV and PTSD?

or can they shift gears, forget all that and go the personality disorder route, since they sure warmed up to that in this first penalty phase? and IF so, don't they have to find an expert to claim that?

Yes, they can shift gears. Perhaps they will ask the judge if they can use the video of Dr. DeMarte's testimony (except without the cross-examination lol). But they will probably want an abuse expert. I can't imagine they would put ALV on the stand again. Maybe that second guy who came in right at the end to critique DeMarte will morph into the abuse expert for this phase.

 

[AZlawyer]

By the way, if this makes anyone feel better, the more I've thought about it the more I think JM did cause reversible error in the last penalty phase by saying that if JA got 25-to-life she would have a vested right to a parole hearing in 25 years whether or not there was a procedure in place. At first, I thought JM was correct, but then (as I discussed a couple of pages back) I checked the statute and determined that the 25-to-life sentence did NOT provide for a right to a parole hearing after 25 years. It just provided that the defendant would have NO right to such a hearing, even if some procedure were in place, until at least 25 years had passed.

So if the jury had come back with a death sentence, IMO Jodi would have had a great appeal on that issue, and we would have been redoing this phase anyway, except about 2 years down the road.

 

[kscornfed]

By the way, if this makes anyone feel better, the more I've thought about it the more I think JM did cause reversible error in the last penalty phase by saying that if JA got 25-to-life she would have a vested right to a parole hearing in 25 years whether or not there was a procedure in place. At first, I thought JM was correct, but then (as I discussed a couple of pages back) I checked the statute and determined that the 25-to-life sentence did NOT provide for a right to a parole hearing after 25 years. It just provided that the defendant would have NO right to such a hearing, even if some procedure were in place, until at least 25 years had passed.

So if the jury had come back with a death sentence, IMO Jodi would have had a great appeal on that issue, and we would have been redoing this phase anyway, except about 2 years down the road.

can you help me understand this? i don't get the distinction. you don't have a right to a parole hearing after 25 years, but you can't get one until you've served 25 years? i don't get it.

 

[womblek]

AZlawyer, thank you so much for your contributions to my understanding about the law and this case in particular.
My question is about evidence that will be admitted in the retrial of the mitigation phase. Specifically, JSS ruled on the admissibility of many, many pieces of evidence. Are those judgements directed only to what the JURY willl see/hear, or if the judge is to decide on life or LWOP (hung jury on retrial) can she consider evidence that she knows about but ruled that the jury was not to see/hear?
Thanks for being awesome.:blushing:

 

[RR0004]

By the way, if this makes anyone feel better, the more I've thought about it the more I think JM did cause reversible error in the last penalty phase by saying that if JA got 25-to-life she would have a vested right to a parole hearing in 25 years whether or not there was a procedure in place. At first, I thought JM was correct, but then (as I discussed a couple of pages back) I checked the statute and determined that the 25-to-life sentence did NOT provide for a right to a parole hearing after 25 years. It just provided that the defendant would have NO right to such a hearing, even if some procedure were in place, until at least 25 years had passed.

So if the jury had come back with a death sentence, IMO Jodi would have had a great appeal on that issue, and we would have been redoing this phase anyway, except about 2 years down the road.

I must have read what you wrote 3 times. I see the "little" difference, but in my mind, they both sound basically like the same thing.

 

[Equinoxical]

By the way, if this makes anyone feel better, the more I've thought about it the more I think JM did cause reversible error in the last penalty phase by saying that if JA got 25-to-life she would have a vested right to a parole hearing in 25 years whether or not there was a procedure in place. At first, I thought JM was correct, but then (as I discussed a couple of pages back) I checked the statute and determined that the 25-to-life sentence did NOT provide for a right to a parole hearing after 25 years. It just provided that the defendant would have NO right to such a hearing, even if some procedure were in place, until at least 25 years had passed.

So if the jury had come back with a death sentence, IMO Jodi would have had a great appeal on that issue, and we would have been redoing this phase anyway, except about 2 years down the road.

Okay. So as it stands, 25-to-life is the minimum sentence for LWP, is that correct? And she doesn't automatically get a parole hearing after 25 years? If that's the case, would her lawyers have to petition to get a parole hearing at 25 years? (Ha! Imaging KN and JW working on this 25 years from now!) And that could be denied? Just trying to understand, because it seems like it's not so much life-with-parole as it is life-with-the-possibility-of-a-parole-hearing-after-25-years.

TIA!

 

[swan366]

So if the jury had come back with a death sentence, IMO Jodi would have had a great appeal on that issue, and we would have been redoing this phase anyway, except about 2 years down the road.

Thanks so much for this explanation. I got super-confused between the original complicated legalese and mix-up in the original jury instructions, and the way it sort of sounded to me in JM's closing argument that Jodi would for sure be eligible for parole in 25 years if she didn't get the DP. I hope the instructions and arguments are much clearer to all juries in all cases in the future.

 

[cosmos]

During the prosecutor's closing, Willmott objected when he started to say something about the juror questionnaire that they had filled out in December, 2012.

Then there was a sidebar.

After the sidebar, Martinez continued, and reminded the jurors that the questionnaire informed them that a person sentenced to life in Arizona is eligible to be released after 25 years.

What exactly is the error that Martinez made? Whatever it was, it only happened after the judge presumably overruled an objection and she knew what he was going to say. Did he mischaracterize what was written on the questionnaire, or are you saying he quoted the questionnaire correctly but it was an improper argument to make?