Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

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)?

No, I don't think LWP or LWOP would make any difference to the level of custody (maximum, medium, minimum, etc.).

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?

No, I know less than nothing about football.

 

[dcsmyth1]

AZlawyer said that LWOP or LWP won't make a difference in the level of custody. But it's sort of been my understanding that LWOP stay in maximum, but LWP can earn their way into lower levels of security thru good behavior. Not true?

 

[ncaapicks]

No, I know less than nothing about football.

Thanks for the response. Just curious. A sports site I visit has a thread on the trial and there's a lawyer from AZ contributing to the discussion as well. You've got remarkably similar writing styles, down to enclosing thoughts within parentheses. Perhaps it's just an attorney thing.

 

[brianmcdermott]

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

Would it not prove over 3000 counts of perjury while sworn in and under oath if the weapons (her grandfathers gun) were submitted in the next penalty phase.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer said that LWOP or LWP won't make a difference in the level of custody. But it's sort of been my understanding that LWOP stay in maximum, but LWP can earn their way into lower levels of security thru good behavior. Not true?

I think any life sentence prisoner can work down to the lower levels of security.

Thanks for the response. Just curious. A sports site I visit has a thread on the trial and there's a lawyer from AZ contributing to the discussion as well. You've got remarkably similar writing styles, down to enclosing thoughts within parentheses. Perhaps it's just an attorney thing.

I guess so. Sports is very much not my thing.

Would it not prove over 3000 counts of perjury while sworn in and under oath if the weapons (her grandfathers gun) were submitted in the next penalty phase.

Creative thinking. I don't think JSS would let JM prove acts of perjury by presenting new evidence at the penalty stage, though. It was different last time because all the necessary evidence happened to have been presented already to the jury. Normally, to rebut "no criminal history" mitigation you don't get to have little mini-trials to prove uncharged criminal acts.

 

[beach]

Do you have a legal question for our verified attorneys? Post them here for an answer. This is a *no discussion/ question and answer thread*

Friendly reminder re. the bold.

If you're missing a post, I removed a couple of discussion posts.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

>How many potential jurors for the next "death" penalty phase will be interviewed?

>When do you expect this process to start?

>Will this jury selection process be televised?

Thanks in advance...

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

Okay AZ, I've read back a few pages and am a little confused:

1. So you are saying Arizona doesn't have parole...

2...so ---she gets Death (with about 12-years of appeals)

3...OR.... she gets 25 to Life.

So--- can she get out in 25-years based on good behavior? You seem to say she can never get out.

Even there is no parole, why not just call in 'life with no parole'. Why do they throw in the 25-years?

 

[AZlawyer]

>How many potential jurors for the next "death" penalty phase will be interviewed?

>When do you expect this process to start?

>Will this jury selection process be televised?

Thanks in advance...

As many as necessary. Personally, I don't think it makes any difference if the jurors are prejudiced re: guilt and cruelty, as they will be instructed to accept those conclusions in any event, but I anticipate that JSS will disagree with me on that and will try to find 16-ish people who haven't heard much about the case and can promise to disregard whatever they've heard. IMO they will need about 200 people in the jury pool to start.

Apparently JW has a conflict with the July 18 start date, so I expect it will start around early August.

Jury selection was not televised last time (I assume to protect the identities of the jurors), so I don't expect it will be televised this time.

Okay AZ, I've read back a few pages and am a little confused:

1. So you are saying Arizona doesn't have parole...

2...so ---she gets Death (with about 12-years of appeals)

3...OR.... she gets 25 to Life.

So--- can she get out in 25-years based on good behavior? You seem to say she can never get out.

Even there is no parole, why not just call in 'life with no parole'. Why do they throw in the 25-years?

No. Arizona no longer has parole. She can get death (with, as you say, about 12 years of appeals), or natural life (no parole), or "25-to-life" (still no parole, because Arizona has no parole, but if the law changes to allow parole again she could get parole in 25 years). None of these sentences would allow her to get out of prison any other way except parole (if the law changes to allow parole again).

 

[Jay]

No. Arizona no longer has parole. She can get death (with, as you say, about 12 years of appeals), or natural life (no parole), or "25-to-life" (still no parole, because Arizona has no parole, but if the law changes to allow parole again she could get parole in 25 years). None of these sentences would allow her to get out of prison any other way except parole (if the law changes to allow parole again).

AZlawyer, even if parole was reestablished, isn't it extremely unlikely she'd get parole after 25 years? Aren't the chances of a first parole on a capital case slimmer then none? Isn't 40 or 50 years a more likely minimum for someone convicted of premeditated-aggravated homicide?

I still believe a LWOP sentence is the best option for everyone at this point. But I don't think Jodi Arias will negotiate a plea bargain for LWOP (no matter the downside, she's going to want another grande-performance in front of a jury). If the state decides not to proceed, I believe the judge will then decide on the sentence: LWOP or 25-to-Live.

You said previously you thought the judge would rule for a LWOP sentence. Is there any way, formal or informal, she could let the state know that? If LWOP was a sure thing, maybe the family would accept that outcome, and this messy retrial not have to go forward.

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide on the above.

 

[Jay]

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.

What about statements like these (as recent as today?)


"Too bad foreman Z would never admit that he could never impose any death penalty but lied to get on case."

"It’s too bad he can’t be sanctioned. Looks like he already had his mind made up when they started deliberations that he was going to save her from the death penalty and not engage in an honest deliberation. He ought to have to sit and explain what he did face to face to the Alexander siblings. Wonder if he was a stealth juror who knew from the beginning he was going to hang the jury so he could save her, and then make some money from interviews and a book? What a waste and miscarriage of justice."

Just a few of many continuing debasements of his motives and character.
The posters do t use their full or actual names, so it would be difficult to find them - assuming they're here in The US. But does the blog owner have any responsibility to stop or remove these kinds of comments?

 

[pferrin]

AZLawyer, Do you personally feel that the DA's office should pursue the DP or allow the judge to sentence at this time?

I am asking not because of what your beliefs of the DP might be..instead I am asking because the long tedious appeals process and since she would be facing natural death ..would it be that advantageous to procede with DP for the prosecutor?

Thanks so much for all you give.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, even if parole was reestablished, isn't it extremely unlikely she'd get parole after 25 years? Aren't the chances of a first parole on a capital case slimmer then none? Isn't 40 or 50 years a more likely minimum for someone convicted of premeditated-aggravated homicide?

I still believe a LWOP sentence is the best option for everyone at this point. But I don't think Jodi Arias will negotiate a plea bargain for LWOP (no matter the downside, she's going to want another grande-performance in front of a jury). If the state decides not to proceed, I believe the judge will then decide on the sentence: LWOP or 25-to-Live.

You said previously you thought the judge would rule for a LWOP sentence. Is there any way, formal or informal, she could let the state know that? If LWOP was a sure thing, maybe the family would accept that outcome, and this messy retrial not have to go forward.

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide on the above.

I still think JSS would give LWOP. There is really no way for her to tell the prosecutor that, but IMO he already knows.

I agree with you that she is unlikely to get parole in 25 years even if parole is reinstated and her sentence is 25-to-life. But of course the Alexanders would have to deal with the parole hearing process.

My understanding is that the family is very set on the death penalty.

What about statements like these (as recent as today?)


"Too bad foreman Z would never admit that he could never impose any death penalty but lied to get on case."

"It’s too bad he can’t be sanctioned. Looks like he already had his mind made up when they started deliberations that he was going to save her from the death penalty and not engage in an honest deliberation. He ought to have to sit and explain what he did face to face to the Alexander siblings. Wonder if he was a stealth juror who knew from the beginning he was going to hang the jury so he could save her, and then make some money from interviews and a book? What a waste and miscarriage of justice."

Just a few of many continuing debasements of his motives and character.
The posters do t use their full or actual names, so it would be difficult to find them - assuming they're here in The US. But does the blog owner have any responsibility to stop or remove these kinds of comments?

The first one is borderline--"he lied" seems to be a fact statement, but absent some claim to personal knowledge it could be read as opinion as well.

The second one is pretty obviously opinion (and therefore not actionable). "Looks like," "wonder if," etc.

If what you mean by "blog" is something like Websleuths, then generally speaking the posters, not the owners, are responsible for their own remarks.

AZLawyer, Do you personally feel that the DA's office should pursue the DP or allow the judge to sentence at this time?

I am asking not because of what your beliefs of the DP might be..instead I am asking because the long tedious appeals process and since she would be facing natural death ..would it be that advantageous to procede with DP for the prosecutor?

Thanks so much for all you give.

I personally feel that the prosecution should defer to the wishes of the family if possible. If the family would be OK with LWOP, I think the prosecution should drop the death penalty option. My understanding, however, is that the family would not be OK with LWOP.

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

While I have no real knowledge of the parole process, I don't see why Arias wouldn't be an excellent candidate for parole after 25 years in the slammer. She is well-spoken, and can probably impress the parole board, given the type of people they usually are dealing with. She has no prior criminal history. It is quite likely that this crime was a unique circumstance--if she had never met Travis, she would likely have never committed such a crime. And she would be IMO extremely unlikely to re-offend after 25 years. She will likely be a "good prisoner" and try to contribute positively (whether it is out of genuineness or out of a desire to build a good record). She will at that point be very convincing (and possibly very honest, who knows) in her remorse. Whatever the parole boards looks at, it seems like she will meet the test as well as anyone could be expected to. We frequently hear about "criminal types" and "low-lifes" who get parole and then re-offend. If they qualify, why not her. Unless, of course, the parole process is a sham, where she will not get parole only because of her notoriety.

I will be interesting to see AZ's legal take on this, but:

1. She is has been violent against a dog, her mother, her cell mate-so it isn't just Travis.

2. No prior criminal offense? Stolen gun, slashed tires, assaults on dog, mother, cell mate---broke into emails, Facebook, and ATM. Stalking of Travis and previous boyfriends, confronting girls in bathrooms, changed story several times (perjury).

3. She has ZERO remorse for Travis and now is the time it have it, not 25-years from now.

4. Her psychological problems would likely lead her to reoffend.

5. She has had six violations in Jail so far--that's not the record you want to build, and some were to smuggle in pens to forge pedophilia/abuse letters. That's not a good look.

I don't believe it a "unique" circumstance but a cross between mental illness and narcissistic evil.

 

[AZlawyer]

I will be interesting to see AZ's legal take on this, but:

1. She is has been violent against a dog, her mother, her cell mate-so it isn't just Travis.

2. No prior criminal offense? Stolen gun, slashed tires, assaults on dog, mother, cell mate---broke into emails, Facebook, and ATM. Stalking of Travis and previous boyfriends, confronting girls in bathrooms, changed story several times (perjury).

3. She has ZERO remorse for Travis and now is the time it have it, not 25-years from now.

4. Her psychological problems would likely lead her to reoffend.

5. She has had six violations in Jail so far--that's not the record you want to build, and some were to smuggle in pens to forge pedophilia/abuse letters. That's not a good look.

I don't believe it a "unique" circumstance but a cross between mental illness and narcissistic evil.

I really have no legal take on what might happen in 20 years if Jodi gets a sentence of 25-to-life (IMO highly unlikely) and if parole is reinstated in AZ by then (also speculative). We have no idea who will be on the parole board, what their general approach to parole will be, what guidelines might be in place for this new parole process, whether or not Jodi will start complying with prison rules after sentencing, etc.

 

[Jay]

I really have no legal take on what might happen in 20 years if Jodi gets a sentence of 25-to-life (IMO highly unlikely) and if parole is reinstated in AZ by then (also speculative). ...

Isn't that no-parole-board setup ripe for legal review?

If by law a sentence has a specific range, isn't the state required to have a mechanism in place to insure that lesser sentences than the maximum are sometimes doled out?

Have there been any legal challengers to no-parole hearings arrangement? Arizona has an active parole board operating, for offenses committed prior to January 1994. Are any of the felony prisoners convicted since 1994 close to the minimum sentence range, and do you think any of them will try to challenge Arizona in court for not going through the motions for parole?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

AZ. don't know if this has been asked, but if it could of been proved that Jodi (if granny didn't fold and say it was OK for Jodi to "take" the gun) stole the gun from her grandpa, would it of then been a federal crime when she murdered Travis?

 

[Marigold]

AZlawyer, I need to apologize in advance for posting what could be the dumbest post in this thread:

Since Travis was murdered in Mesa, why didn't they have the murder trial at the Maricopa County Superior Court in Mesa? The reason why I'm asking is, if the trial would've been in Mesa, do you think they would've been able to find a more conservative jury that would've been more willing to give out the death penalty? I apologize profusely if this has already been covered. I'm probably one of the few people in Arizona that didn't follow the trial and now I am playing catch-up. Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[Shadow5618]

I just heard that Jennifer Willmott has a "conflict" on July 18 and can't be available for this trial date.
Can Judge Sherry force her to rearrange this conflict and be present for this retrial? How about based on the Alexander family's right to a speedy trial and they've been waiting 5 yrs?

 

[AZlawyer]

Isn't that no-parole-board setup ripe for legal review?

If by law a sentence has a specific range, isn't the state required to have a mechanism in place to insure that lesser sentences than the maximum are sometimes doled out?

Have there been any legal challengers to no-parole hearings arrangement? Arizona has an active parole board operating, for offenses committed prior to January 1994. Are any of the felony prisoners convicted since 1994 close to the minimum sentence range, and do you think any of them will try to challenge Arizona in court for not going through the motions for parole?

Shorter sentences than the maximum are handed out all the time. That's not parole--that's just a shorter sentence.

I don't think there's any legal problem with not having parole. IIRC the case law is pretty clear that parole is a privilege and not a right.

AZ. don't know if this has been asked, but if it could of been proved that Jodi (if granny didn't fold and say it was OK for Jodi to "take" the gun) stole the gun from her grandpa, would it of then been a federal crime when she murdered Travis?

I don't think that would make it a federal crime. I don't believe just crossing a border in the process of two related crimes is enough to make the murder a federal crime. (Crossing a border with the victim would be different, as that would be an interstate kidnapping resulting in death.)

AZlawyer, I need to apologize in advance for posting what could be the dumbest post in this thread:

Since Travis was murdered in Mesa, why didn't they have the murder trial at the Maricopa County Superior Court in Mesa? The reason why I'm asking is, if the trial would've been in Mesa, do you think they would've been able to find a more conservative jury that would've been more willing to give out the death penalty? I apologize profusely if this has already been covered. I'm probably one of the few people in Arizona that didn't follow the trial and now I am playing catch-up. Thanks in advance for your reply.

The Mesa court is just another court building. It has the same jury pool. I don't think they do any adult criminal cases there--just juvenile, family and probate I believe.

I just heard that Jennifer Willmott has a "conflict" on July 18 and can't be available for this trial date.
Can Judge Sherry force her to rearrange this conflict and be present for this retrial? How about based on the Alexander family's right to a speedy trial and they've been waiting 5 yrs?

The Alexander family does not have a right to a speedy trial, and Jodi presumably has waived hers. Conflicts arise every day, and as long as another date can be picked in the near future this will not be an issue.