Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Dr. Know?]

Why doesn't the state have a right after 5 years for a speedy trial? Laws I presume that keeps the state fair and equal plus understanding? After 5 years, has the state been played at this point? TIA AZ.

 

[AZlawyer]

Why doesn't the state have a right after 5 years for a speedy trial? Laws I presume that keeps the state fair and equal plus understanding? After 5 years, has the state been played at this point? TIA AZ.

Because of the Constitution. The state does not have the same Constitutional rights as the defendant does.

No, the state has not been played. The state doesn't want to rush this either.

 

[Jay]

RE: Nurmi and Willmott's statement to The Arizona Republic yesterday -

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130604arias-lawyers-respond-to-montgomery.html

“If the diagnosis made by the State’s psychologist is correct, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is seeking to impose the death penalty upon a mentally ill woman who has no prior criminal history,” they wrote.

Two part question:
One, did Martinez make a tactical mistake allowing the BPD diagnosis into testimony? My jaw dropped when I heard Janine DeMarte say that; why would the state admit she was nutso (my 'technical' term for a slew of psychological disorders :crazy::crazy -- it offered a mitigation factor for the jury.

Two, any chance whatsoever any appeals court would overturn the death penalty for someone with Borderline Personalty Disorder?

 

[AZlawyer]

RE: Nurmi and Willmott's statement to The Arizona Republic yesterday -

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130604arias-lawyers-respond-to-montgomery.html

“If the diagnosis made by the State’s psychologist is correct, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is seeking to impose the death penalty upon a mentally ill woman who has no prior criminal history,” they wrote.

Two part question:
One, did Martinez make a tactical mistake allowing the BPD diagnosis into testimony? My jaw dropped when I heard Janine DeMarte say that; why would the state admit she was nutso (my 'technical' term for a slew of psychological disorders :crazy::crazy -- it offered a mitigation factor for the jury.

Two, any chance whatsoever any appeals court would overturn the death penalty for someone with Borderline Personalty Disorder?

1. JM needed to offer an alternative explanation for the "fog," so he needed someone to say there was no PTSD. He also needed someone to rebut the "symptoms of abuse." However, IMO it might not have been a bad idea to tell Dr. DeM that there was no need to do a full psych exam until and unless she determined that a psychological issue would be the only explanation for JA's "symptoms." Of course, Dr. DeM still might have come back saying, "I really think the only explanation is BPD, so I need to test her for that."

2. A death verdict wouldn't be overturned for that reason alone, no.

Good, let the defense use Dr Demartes diagnoses! Then we will get to hear way more about the T scale that measured her psychopathic traits


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, we won't, because that scale is normally elevated for inmates fighting against serious criminal charges anyway.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

Would you please explain to me what I think I understood from AZ Statues:

1. Natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis ... they die in prison.

I understand Natural Life.

What I don't understand is Life -25 and people saying Arias would be eligible for parole and then newspapers and TV say Arizona discontinued parole for first-degree murderers in 1994 even if they received the Life to 25.

2. Life the defendant shall not be released on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years.

Now I am reading in newspapers and seeing on TV; including local Az newspapers reporting #2.“Life with chance of parole after 25 years, is a misnomer often used even during court proceedings."

"Arizona discontinued parole for first-degree murderers in 1994. Anyone sentenced since then might be sentenced to life with possibility of release after 25 years. Parole is only available for those who committed murders before 1994."

So it comes down to for Arias is either the death penalty or Natural Life since she has been convicted of first-degree murder, am I wrong?

Finally can defendant appeal the life sentence?

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

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.

Exactly---which is the answer I actually expected.

 

[cosmos]

This opinion from the Arizona Supreme Court explains how mental illness -- borderline personality disorder in this particular case -- enters into the penalty phase of a death penalty case.

State v. Prince, 250 P. 3d 1145 - Ariz: Supreme Court 2011

The following two points are heavily edited by me to make them more readable. But feel free to read the whole opinion yourself:

* First, significant impairment can constitute statutory mitigation. Personality or character disorders, however, usually are insufficient to establish this mitigator.

* Second, poor mental health that does not rise to the level of statutory mitigation may nonetheless be a non-statutory mitigating factor. At most, the defendant proved that he has borderline personality disorder. Because the defendant has failed to establish a causal nexus between his poor mental health and the murder, we give this factor little mitigating weight.

If judge Stevens gets to rule on life versus natural life, it's likely (imo) that she'll be thinking the same way the appeals court did and give Arias the harshest penalty.

Keep in mind that that opinion is written by judges but jurors are required to assign their own weights to non-statutory mitigating factors and they might well weight them differently from the way judges do, resulting in a different outcome. And that is the intent of the death penalty law. imo

Anyway, that Supreme Court opinion helped me understand things better, so I offer it here in case it helps anybody else.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would you please explain to me what I think I understood from AZ Statues:

1. Natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis ... they die in prison.

I understand Natural Life.

What I don't understand is Life -25 and people saying Arias would be eligible for parole and then newspapers and TV say Arizona discontinued parole for first-degree murderers in 1994 even if they received the Life to 25.

2. Life the defendant shall not be released on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years.

Now I am reading in newspapers and seeing on TV; including local Az newspapers reporting #2.“Life with chance of parole after 25 years, is a misnomer often used even during court proceedings."

"Arizona discontinued parole for first-degree murderers in 1994. Anyone sentenced since then might be sentenced to life with possibility of release after 25 years. Parole is only available for those who committed murders before 1994."

So it comes down to for Arias is either the death penalty or Natural Life since she has been convicted of first-degree murder, am I wrong?

Finally can defendant appeal the life sentence?

The reason you don't understand is because the AZ Legislature can't legislate its way out of a paper bag. Yes, JA can still be sentenced to "25-to-life" even though parole has been abolished. So, unless the law changes, "25-to-life" in AZ is the same thing as natural life.

And yes, any sentence can be appealed.

 

[Equinoxical]

From the State Bar of Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct:

ER 3.6. Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

Given this, how could JW and KN have made their statement without violating the state's rules of conduct?

 

[jacalyn]

Your legal input helps and just a quick thank-you for your input and time. No questions, just check in and read questions and reply's.

 

[AZlawyer]

From the State Bar of Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct:

ER 3.6. Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

Given this, how could JW and KN have made their statement without violating the state's rules of conduct?

Because it will not likely prejudice any court proceeding. What they're trying to do is to get JM to drop the death penalty. That's a decision that will be made by JM and his colleagues, not by the judge or jury.

 

[Karmady]

Hey, AZ, can you please comment on Wilmott's conflict with the new penalty phase trial date, including the "on her feet" trial schedule and/or her notice(s) of unavailability. Normal/unusual? etc.

 

[nells]

Have you read the recently released side bars? (there is a thread with links for them) If so, I have a question that I think goes back to an earlier question I had about Willmott and female lawyers.

I love JM as much as any other Websleuther... but some of the comments he made to Willmott did sound offensive to me ("go back to law school")... As a lawyer, what's your take?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hey, AZ, can you please comment on Wilmott's conflict with the new penalty phase trial date, including the "on her feet" trial schedule and/or her notice(s) of unavailability. Normal/unusual? etc.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "on her feet" trial schedule.

It is normal, of course, to have conflicts with court dates, and to file notices of dates on which you are unavailable due to other trials, etc.

Have you read the recently released side bars? (there is a thread with links for them) If so, I have a question that I think goes back to an earlier question I had about Willmott and female lawyers.

I love JM as much as any other Websleuther... but some of the comments he made to Willmott did sound offensive to me ("go back to law school")... As a lawyer, what's your take?

I have read them, yes. His comments were very unprofessional.

 

[Karmady]

I'm not sure what you mean about the "on her feet" trial schedule.

It is normal, of course, to have conflicts with court dates, and to file notices of dates on which you are unavailable due to other trials, etc.



I have read them, yes. His comments were very unprofessional.

Just a phrase I've heard used before by trial lawyers to mean they're actually trying another case on a particular date. Maybe I heard it in a Perry Mason re-run lol

 

[fruity]

Do I have my head in the sand with regards to her being mentally ill? It's obvious, imo, that she's mentally unwell, but there's a big difference between mental illness and insanity. Having a mental illness doesn't mean you're insane at all. There are many people in prison (and on death row) who suffer from a range of mental illnesses. Isn't criminal insanity (or 'not guilty by reason of insanity') the only thing that can be used to get her out of prison and into a mental health facility?

Just the fact that she kept everything a secret (hid the car, dyed her hair etc) is proof that she knew what she was doing was wrong, imo, and shatters any answer to the 'policeman at the elbow' question that she would give.

In your opinion, what are her lawyers hoping to do by saying she's mentally unwell? Could it actually have an impact on her sentence?

 

[AZlawyer]

Do I have my head in the sand with regards to her being mentally ill? It's obvious, imo, that she's mentally unwell, but there's a big difference between mental illness and insanity. Having a mental illness doesn't mean you're insane at all. There are many people in prison (and on death row) who suffer from a range of mental illnesses. Isn't criminal insanity (or 'not guilty by reason of insanity') the only thing that can be used to get her out of prison and into a mental health facility?

Just the fact that she kept everything a secret (hid the car, dyed her hair etc) is proof that she knew what she was doing was wrong, imo, and shatters any answer to the 'policeman at the elbow' question that she would give.

In your opinion, what are her lawyers hoping to do by saying she's mentally unwell? Could it actually have an impact on her sentence?

She is obviously mentally ill, yes. She is obviously not insane, and her lawyers have never suggested that she is insane or that she belongs in a mental health facility.

I think they are trying to do exactly what they say they are trying to do: they are trying to get the State to drop the death penalty and have her sentenced to life in prison.

 

[fruity]

She is obviously mentally ill, yes. She is obviously not insane, and her lawyers have never suggested that she is insane or that she belongs in a mental health facility.

I think they are trying to do exactly what they say they are trying to do: they are trying to get the State to drop the death penalty and have her sentenced to life in prison.

Is there something in AZ law that says people with a mental illness can't be sentenced to death? Is that why they're trying this angle?

 

[dcsmyth1]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but do the lawyers (or anyone else) know if there are significant differences between life on death row vs. the life she would have in max security (for the first few years at least)?

And whether one wants to characterize the condition of Jodi Arias' mind as "mental illness" or simply a "bad personality" (or some such) is, to me, just the flip of a coin.

 

[Jay]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but do the lawyers (or anyone else) know if there are significant differences between life on death row vs. the life she would have in max security (for the first few years at least)?

Death row inmates are placed in maximum custody. Here's a description:
http://www.azcorrections.gov/dr_faq.aspx

Prisoners sentenced to life generally serve two years in maximum custody, then three years in "close" custody before they are eligible for medium custody. (per Barrett Marson, former DOC spokesman).

Close custody is one level below maximum and just above medium custody and is reserved for those inmates who pose a high risk to prison staff.
Those serving life sentences can never be reduced to below the medium custody level.