Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Can JA defense attorney introduce new evidence during the penalty retrial? New psych testimony etc.

Yes, the penalty phase will be retried from scratch, including anything relevant to penalty phase issues that had been presented in the guilt or aggravation phases last time.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, TIA for all your time in answering our questions!

I'm curious about the issue of lack of remorse. I understand there was a motion filed previously where JSS ruled it would be decided after(?) the guilt phase, or perhaps during the trial. Given JA never actually said the words she was sorry up until allocution, do you think JM will use the TV interview where she continues to blame the jury, JM, her DT?

Also, given the possible weakness of mitigating factors, will the DT attempt to cloud the jury's opinion of guilt or innocense and if so doesn't this mean basically retrying the entire case? How can this be expected to be completely in the 2 - 3 weeks I've heard suggested?

Lastly, why do you think JM didn't attempt to tie TA last text where he supposedly is shown to be so abusive to the fact JA admitted she had previously threatened TA she was going to expose their relationship to his Church? Although circumstantial, she now had the phone sex tape.

Thanks again

If Jodi claims remorse, I think JM can and should produce any evidence of lack of remorse. I don't believe anything in her interviews would qualify as evidence of lack of remorse, though.

The defense might hope to plant the idea that the guilty verdict was incorrect, but they will not be permitted to introduce evidence in this regard, unless the evidence is also relevant to the penalty phase.

Who suggested 2-3 weeks? I think this is a very short estimate of the time needed for the new penalty phase. I would expect more like 1 1/2 - 2 months. And that's assuming full court days.

I think JM does need to tie the text more strongly to something specific that JA did to Travis. I suppose he can try to do this during cross-ex if she testifies (which she probably will). I can't remember what she said re: threatening to go to Travis's bishop. Was that after she had the sex tape?? If so, JM should make the argument that she was going to go to the bishop with the sex tape. If he can dig up some more info re: the reason for that text, he should do so. IMO that was the one thing that made some jurors believe he was abusive.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you know the reason why the parents' police interviews were not admitted during trial by the prosecution... was it prosecution's decision, or were they deemed not-admissable in a prior motion?

Since Jodi discussed her parents on the stand, would that open the door for prosecution to bring in their statements in cross or rebuttal?

I'm wondering if we may see them in the next penalty phase.

Thanks

The recorded interviews would be hearsay. However, if the parents were called to the stand and said something different from what was said in the interviews, then that portion of the interview could be played in cross-examination. This is assuming, of course, that whatever the parents said in the interviews was relevant to some issue in the case.

So, if something relevant was said in those interviews, JM would have had no problem getting those statements in by calling the parents to the stand.

 

[AZlawyer]

LWOP and DP are are self explanatory.

If Jodi gets a life sentence, eventually she will be ELIGIBLE for parole. Is there a max on the sentence where Jodi would be released regardless of any prison record?

No, if she gets a life sentence, even if it is not "LWOP," she will never be eligible for parole IMO unless and until Arizona reinstates parole.

So..."LWOP"...no eligibility for parole. In prison until death.
"Death"...no eligibility for parole obviously. In prison until execution or other cause of death.
"Life without the possibility of release for 25 years"...no eligibility for parole even after 25 years, unless parole is reinstated in AZ. Currently, there is no parole system in AZ for crimes committed after 1993. In prison until death or until the law changes re: parole.

 

[prospektor]

I agree re: the abuse evidence. The only thing that might help is compelling evidence that Travis "snapped" due to some really awful provocation by Jodi.

Personally, I think she threatened to send the sex tape not only to his bishop, employers and/or future love interests, but also to his grandmother. Knowing that she was old and weak, JA probably hinted that Travis's sins would kill her or the like. Destroying his family.
But seeing as she seemed to handle such really "sensitive" matters over the phone or personal (and phone conversations, even when recorded, are conveniently edited), it will probably be nearly impossible to find proof. Can the prosecution develop such scenarios to the jury under the pretext of assumptions or will that be met with "Objection! Speculation!" from a jumping Willmott? (well, the objection would probably come anyway, but could it be successful?)

P.S.: Thanks for all the legal information, it's highly appreciated.

 

[lisasalinger]

The recorded interviews would be hearsay. However, if the parents were called to the stand and said something different from what was said in the interviews, then that portion of the interview could be played in cross-examination. This is assuming, of course, that whatever the parents said in the interviews was relevant to some issue in the case.

So, if something relevant was said in those interviews, JM would have had no problem getting those statements in by calling the parents to the stand.

BBM

Thanks for your response! In my mind, the two items from that tape that are relevant to the crime are:

1. The mom says that Jodi has had mental issues for a while. Since there were psychological experts for both the defense and the prosecution on the stand discussing Jodi's state of mind after the crime, and some speculating that the crime caused the mental issues (PTSD), wouldn't her state of mind prior to the crime also be important?

2. The mom states that she asked her daughter if she went to Mesa during her (Utah) trip, and said that Jodi answered "no, I even have the gas receipts to prove it". Paraphrasing a little bit, but Jodi did make direct mention of those receipts. That was a jaw dropping moment for me, as she obviously kept them as part of her alibi.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[dani]

For premeditated 1st degree murder LWOP or death are now the only options, yes. Jodi was "grandfathered in" to the old statute.

Just to be clear, when you state, "Jodi was "grandfathered in" to the old statute", does this mean:

1. If PAROLE is EVER reinstituted in Arizona, Jodi would not be eligible for parole.

2. And to be even MORE clear…Jodi Ann Arias is totally screwed and will NEVER leave Perryville prison unless it is in a pine box (or body bag or whatever is in vogue at the moment) no matter what happens in the courtroom from here on out.

Can you give me your answers as TRUE or FALSE, please?

Thank you so much!

 

[AZlawyer]

Personally, I think she threatened to send the sex tape not only to his bishop, employers and/or future love interests, but also to his grandmother. Knowing that she was old and weak, JA probably hinted that Travis's sins would kill her or the like. Destroying his family.
But seeing as she seemed to handle such really "sensitive" matters over the phone or personal (and phone conversations, even when recorded, are conveniently edited), it will probably be nearly impossible to find proof. Can the prosecution develop such scenarios to the jury under the pretext of assumptions or will that be met with "Objection! Speculation!" from a jumping Willmott? (well, the objection would probably come anyway, but could it be successful?)

P.S.: Thanks for all the legal information, it's highly appreciated.

He can't speculate, but he could use circumstantial evidence. I'm not aware of any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that she had threatened to say/send anything to employers, future love interests, or TA's grandmother, but I hope JM's still looking.

BBM

Thanks for your response! In my mind, the two items from that tape that are relevant to the crime are:

1. The mom says that Jodi has had mental issues for a while. Since there were psychological experts for both the defense and the prosecution on the stand discussing Jodi's state of mind after the crime, and some speculating that the crime caused the mental issues (PTSD), wouldn't her state of mind prior to the crime also be important?

2. The mom states that she asked her daughter if she went to Mesa during her (Utah) trip, and said that Jodi answered "no, I even have the gas receipts to prove it". Paraphrasing a little bit, but Jodi did make direct mention of those receipts. That was a jaw dropping moment for me, as she obviously kept them as part of her alibi.

What are your thoughts on this?

1. The PTSD was raised to explain the "fog." The BPD was raised as an alternative explanation for the symptoms used to diagnose Jodi with PTSD. The statement from mom could be used to support the diagnosis of BPD (because it shows problems existing prior to "abuse" from Travis), but Juan will NOT want to push the idea that Jodi has mental issues in the penalty phase! Mental issues mean mitigation.

2. The second statement could have been used to prove premeditation, but we're past that now. Premeditation has been proved.

Just to be clear, when you state, "Jodi was "grandfathered in" to the old statute", does this mean:

1. If PAROLE is EVER reinstituted in Arizona, Jodi would not be eligible for parole.

2. And to be even MORE clear…Jodi Ann Arias is totally screwed and will NEVER leave Perryville prison unless it is in a pine box (or body bag or whatever is in vogue at the moment) no matter what happens in the courtroom from here on out.

Can you give me your answers as TRUE or FALSE, please?

Thank you so much!

1. False.

By "grandfathered in," I mean that she is eligible for a sentence of "25-to-life" as well as sentences of natural life or death (the current options). If she does get that sentence, AND PAROLE IS REINSTITUTED IN ARIZONA sometime in the future, and 25 years pass, then she WOULD be eligible for parole. If she gets that sentence, and 25 years pass but parole is still abolished in Arizona, then IMO she will not be eligible for parole.

2. False but only technically.

First, as explained above, she could get a sentence of 25-to-life and then the AZ Legislature could reinstate parole and then she could actually be granted parole. Three hurdles, none of which IMO are likely to happen.

Second, there are other possible "outs"--reversal on appeal followed by a lower sentence being imposed or a prison escape come to mind. Also highly unlikely.

So IMO I would bet large amounts of money on her being in prison for the remainder of her natural life.

 

[SunnyinMO]

If a plea agreement was for LWOP does the Judge have to approve this? Or any plea agreement for that matter. Could she say no and change it to LWP or Natural Life? Also can an agreement for LWOP also include factors such as she has to agree to forego any appeals? Or she must admit to the murder...the hows, whys, where the weapons are etc. ? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

If a plea agreement was for LWOP does the Judge have to approve this? Or any plea agreement for that matter. Could she say no and change it to LWP or Natural Life? Also can an agreement for LWOP also include factors such as she has to agree to forego any appeals? Or she must admit to the murder...the hows, whys, where the weapons are etc. ? TIA

Natural life and LWOP are the same thing.

The judge would have to approve any fee agreement, but I am 100% certain she would approve an agreement for LWOP.

A plea agreement would automatically waive most appeal issues. There are some things that could still be argued, but that's a complicated and hypothetical issue that we don't need to get into yet.

No, she would not be required to admit anything in particular about the murder.

 

[Lark2]

Sorta of off-topic, but I just have to give props to AZ lawyer for the awesome detective work in the CA trial. She helped uncover a massive a surfing trail that showed that CA was searching for "foolproof" ways to kill her daughter on the day she went missing. Could have been a game changer.

I always wondered what the comment in your profile/posts meant. After I saw a post from Beach I had to check it out. Now I know.

 

[Jay]

From news article by Michael Kiefer, today in The Republic/azcentral.com:

It's up in the air if Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery will retry the penalty phase or negotiate a plea with Arias's lawyers for a life sentence.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20130530county-murder-cases-flux.html?nclick_check=1

As of now, he will go forward (for show, and better bargaining position I'm assuming) and make the decision to settle later, depending on the proffered arrangements.

Also reported, the July 18th trail date will likely be moved back, because Willmott has a conflict with the date.

As I stated earlier, I think the best solution for everyone - family, court, taxpayers, and those of us trapped in the mind-numbing frustrating morass of the trial -- is to let the judge decide on the penalty. Arias's time behind bars will be the same, no matter what sentence she gets: there's no parole in Arizona if she gets 25 to life; women murderers don't get executed in Arizona (not for the last 80 years); LWOP will equal the same incarceration time as the previous two.

So where's the incentive to proceed? The news article lists numerous other reasons not to. Really, isn't it better to settle it without trial, and move on?

 

[Jay]

Dear AZlawyer -

This may be OT and outside your legal expertise but could the jury foreman sue people for the slanderous comments they're making about him?

I feel sorry for this man. He donated months of his life, as a good American citizen, performing a public service -- voting guilty for first degree murder -- but now is being pilloried for not voting for the death penalty. Some of the things they're saying about him on blog sites, and in TV commentaries, seem slanderous.

Instead of feeling good about a job well done, now he probably feels like this: :gasp:

Does he have any legal recourse?

 

[brianmcdermott]

"IF" the gun and knife used by Jodi was located and found to be the registered gun from the buglary at her Grandfathers house and the knife was proven also to be a weapon that she had brought to the crime scene, could the prosecutor get this evidence submitted into the next penalty phase with the second jury?? "Please advise very important"

 

[AZlawyer]

"IF" the gun and knife used by Jodi was located and found to be the registered gun from the buglary at her Grandfathers house and the knife was proven also to be a weapon that she had brought to the crime scene, could the prosecutor get this evidence submitted into the next penalty phase with the second jury?? "Please advise very important"

I can't think how that would be relevant to the penalty phase. She's already been found guilty of premeditated 1st degree murder.

 

[AZlawyer]

Dear AZlawyer -

This may be OT and outside your legal expertise but could the jury foreman sue people for the slanderous comments they're making about him?

I feel sorry for this man. He donated months of his life, as a good American citizen, performing a public service -- voting guilty for first degree murder -- but now is being pilloried for not voting for the death penalty. Some of the things they're saying about him on blog sites, and in TV commentaries, seem slanderous.

Instead of feeling good about a job well done, now he probably feels like this: :gasp:

Does he have any legal recourse?

Slander is more within my day-to-day legal expertise than most of what we discuss here. But I would really need to know what people are saying about him. It would not be slander, for example, if people are speculating as to his motives (even if the speculation is irresponsible and unwarranted). It would also not be slander for people to express their opinions of him (even if their opinions are baseless). If people are making false statements of fact about him, that might be actionable.

 

[AZlawyer]

It's bored when I want to read about the case and nothing is going on right now
it sure is a long time until July...Where can I go to read about Perryville Prison
maybe I can look at it and see where JA will be spending the rest of her life.
Also I would like to know more about the Prison and find out what JA as in store for herself when she gets there

http://www.azcorrections.gov/prisons/Prisca_Prisons_Perryvil.aspx

 

[AZlawyer]

From news article by Michael Kiefer, today in The Republic/azcentral.com:

It's up in the air if Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery will retry the penalty phase or negotiate a plea with Arias's lawyers for a life sentence.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20130530county-murder-cases-flux.html?nclick_check=1

As of now, he will go forward (for show, and better bargaining position I'm assuming) and make the decision to settle later, depending on the proffered arrangements.

Also reported, the July 18th trail date will likely be moved back, because Willmott has a conflict with the date.

As I stated earlier, I think the best solution for everyone - family, court, taxpayers, and those of us trapped in the mind-numbing frustrating morass of the trial -- is to let the judge decide on the penalty. Arias's time behind bars will be the same, no matter what sentence she gets: there's no parole in Arizona if she gets 25 to life; women murderers don't get executed in Arizona (not for the last 80 years); LWOP will equal the same incarceration time as the previous two.

So where's the incentive to proceed? The news article lists numerous other reasons not to. Really, isn't it better to settle it without trial, and move on?

This is not really a legal question. If the county can possibly afford it, my own personal opinion is that the wishes of the victim's family should be given a lot of weight. But my opinion is not worth more than anyone else's opinion on this issue.

I certainly don't think we can say "women murderers don't get executed in Arizona." The sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.

 

[dcsmyth1]

Looking at that Perryville link, I have a question. It's been said many times that since there is no plans for changing the law on parole, that LWOP and LWP are effectively the same. But does that also include things like isolation, visitation, time out of cell, interaction with other inmates, work activity, etc.?
Is LWP a signicantly easier ride (or less cruel, if you ask me)?

 

[ncaapicks]

You've been very helpful answering questions in this thread and I just wanted to thank you.

A bit OT, but I just gotta know. Do you play fantasy football GB?