Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

How specific does evidence of threat to a witness have to be?
And what about an atmosphere of threat?
Nurmi could have shown the judge hundreds of threatening web postings, directed at both potential mitigation witnesses. With research time, he could produce thousands.
Aren't threats on the Internet as real as anonymous threatening phone calls or letters?

Sure, I think Internet threats count as threats. From the judge's comments in this case, though, I think her point was that there was no evidence presented that the threats, in whatever form, were the REASON for any witness not appearing in court.

 

[dcsmyth1]

This is just a comment on the trial system (for the lawyers to respond to), where each side can put forth a scenario of the events for the jury, neither of which is in full accord with the evidence and/or with common sense. And it's left for the jury to see where each side is trying to mislead them.

On the defense side, we have the Arias version of events on June 4, which obviously doesn't hold water. But they are the defense. Supposedly (or hopefully) the State is held to a higher standard of forthrightness. But such was not really the case here. Martinez, in his very effective closing argument (brought me to tears), put forth a detailed scenario of the events of June 4 which also does not ultimately hold water. Nurmi pointed some of these things out in his closing argument. She apparently had multiple opportunities to shoot him earlier, such as when she was watching him in his office, or when he was asleep, or when his back was turned in the shower. Yet, even though she had planned to kill him for a week, she let those go by. Then she has him seated in the shower, and she still avoids using the gun. She instead chooses to engage this strong male in hand-to-hand combat to the death with a knife, for some illogical reason. Even though she has coldly been planning it for a week, she stupidly takes this huge risk just to make the killing more 'personal' with a knife, or some such reason, and happens to get lucky with a strike to his vena cava. (Yeah, she studied how to get a knife strike right between the ribs or whatever, haha.) This is, IMO, not what really happened, because it doesn't really make sense. The real truth is probably somewhere between Arias' and the State's versions. And if so, how would that match up to the definitions of the various crime designations?

So, IMO, neither the State's nor the defense's proposed versions of the events are likely accurate, and they had to realize that. Yet, because Martinez was simply a more effective storyteller than Nurmi, his questionable version is accepted by the jury. Remember that when JM gave his rebuttal to Nurmi's closing, he avoided dealing with these issues I have discussed above. He didn't talk about why she didn't shoot Travis while he was sleeping, or with his back turned in the shower. (Yes I realize that the evidence of the pre-June 4 things that JA did is also important. I am only speaking here to the events at Travis' house on June 4.)

Why is the State allowed to be an obvious advocate and give a version which has obvious logical holes in it, instead of being an unbiased reporter and interpreter of events?

 

[Bluewater_Girl]

Respectfully snipped from dcsmyth1; Yesterday at 06:40 PM:

"Yet, even though she had planned to kill him for a week, she let those go by. Then she has him seated in the shower, and she still avoids using the gun. She instead chooses to engage this strong male in hand-to-hand combat to the death with a knife, for some illogical reason. Even though she has coldly been planning it for a week, she stupidly takes this huge risk just to make the killing more 'personal' with a knife, or some such reason, and happens to get lucky with a strike to his vena cava. (Yeah, she studied how to get a knife strike right between the ribs or whatever, haha.) This is, IMO, not what really happened, because it doesn't really make sense."


BBM: Respectfully, I completely disagree. Jodi is personality disordered. What she did do on June 4th may not seem logical to you (or me), but it was probably logical to her due to her disorder. I do believe that she felt abused by Travis, even though she wasn’t. Her perception is distorted from reality, so you can’t view her actions/reactions by the standards applied to a non-personality disordered (normal) individual. The murder was very personal to her and so was using a knife. She had experience with “a knife” on previous occasions (tire slashings, albeit unproven by legal standards). We have never heard she had any experience with guns prior to June 4th, except for what Jodi has said on the stand. I’ll take that with a grain of salt.

Yes, Nurmi did try to poke holes in the prosecutors case in closing, but to accept that he was successful, you’d have to believe that Jodi has a normal thought process and she does not (look at video of her in court during the trial proceedings). The scenario presented by Martinez is far more believable, even though we don’t know exactly what Jodi did minute by minute. The pictures help with the sequence though. Jodi let loose the rage that had been building in her for some time.

I look forward to AZ’s response. I don’t think the state was misleading in their case. The defense on the other hand……..

 

[AZlawyer]

This is just a comment on the trial system (for the lawyers to respond to), where each side can put forth a scenario of the events for the jury, neither of which is in full accord with the evidence and/or with common sense. And it's left for the jury to see where each side is trying to mislead them.

On the defense side, we have the Arias version of events on June 4, which obviously doesn't hold water. But they are the defense. Supposedly (or hopefully) the State is held to a higher standard of forthrightness. But such was not really the case here. Martinez, in his very effective closing argument (brought me to tears), put forth a detailed scenario of the events of June 4 which also does not ultimately hold water. Nurmi pointed some of these things out in his closing argument. She apparently had multiple opportunities to shoot him earlier, such as when she was watching him in his office, or when he was asleep, or when his back was turned in the shower. Yet, even though she had planned to kill him for a week, she let those go by. Then she has him seated in the shower, and she still avoids using the gun. She instead chooses to engage this strong male in hand-to-hand combat to the death with a knife, for some illogical reason. Even though she has coldly been planning it for a week, she stupidly takes this huge risk just to make the killing more 'personal' with a knife, or some such reason, and happens to get lucky with a strike to his vena cava. (Yeah, she studied how to get a knife strike right between the ribs or whatever, haha.) This is, IMO, not what really happened, because it doesn't really make sense. The real truth is probably somewhere between Arias' and the State's versions. And if so, how would that match up to the definitions of the various crime designations?

So, IMO, neither the State's nor the defense's proposed versions of the events are likely accurate, and they had to realize that. Yet, because Martinez was simply a more effective storyteller than Nurmi, his questionable version is accepted by the jury. Remember that when JM gave his rebuttal to Nurmi's closing, he avoided dealing with these issues I have discussed above. He didn't talk about why she didn't shoot Travis while he was sleeping, or with his back turned in the shower. (Yes I realize that the evidence of the pre-June 4 things that JA did is also important. I am only speaking here to the events at Travis' house on June 4.)

Why is the State allowed to be an obvious advocate and give a version which has obvious logical holes in it, instead of being an unbiased reporter and interpreter of events?

Respectfully snipped from dcsmyth1; Yesterday at 06:40 PM:

"Yet, even though she had planned to kill him for a week, she let those go by. Then she has him seated in the shower, and she still avoids using the gun. She instead chooses to engage this strong male in hand-to-hand combat to the death with a knife, for some illogical reason. Even though she has coldly been planning it for a week, she stupidly takes this huge risk just to make the killing more 'personal' with a knife, or some such reason, and happens to get lucky with a strike to his vena cava. (Yeah, she studied how to get a knife strike right between the ribs or whatever, haha.) This is, IMO, not what really happened, because it doesn't really make sense."


BBM: Respectfully, I completely disagree. Jodi is personality disordered. What she did do on June 4th may not seem logical to you (or me), but it was probably logical to her due to her disorder. I do believe that she felt abused by Travis, even though she wasn’t. Her perception is distorted from reality, so you can’t view her actions/reactions by the standards applied to a non-personality disordered (normal) individual. The murder was very personal to her and so was using a knife. She had experience with “a knife” on previous occasions (tire slashings, albeit unproven by legal standards). We have never heard she had any experience with guns prior to June 4th, except for what Jodi has said on the stand. I’ll take that with a grain of salt.

Yes, Nurmi did try to poke holes in the prosecutors case in closing, but to accept that he was successful, you’d have to believe that Jodi has a normal thought process and she does not (look at video of her in court during the trial proceedings). The scenario presented by Martinez is far more believable, even though we don’t know exactly what Jodi did minute by minute. The pictures help with the sequence though. Jodi let loose the rage that had been building in her for some time.

I look forward to AZ’s response. I don’t think the state was misleading in their case. The defense on the other hand……..

I agree that most likely neither the state nor the defense gave the "true story." On the state's side, though, that's because the evidence did not fully expose the true story. We would need Jodi's true confession for that. I have no doubt JM would have told the true story if he'd known it. His story had what you call "logical holes" because the EVIDENCE had logical holes--e.g., the evidence suggested that Jodi DID stab him first, even though that's ridiculous. The evidence further strongly suggests that Jodi went to AZ with a gun that she didn't want connected to her and a plan to leave no evidence behind of her presence in the state, but yet did not use the gun at the first opportunity. If that's a "logical hole," what is JM supposed to do about it? It really happened.

If JM had a confession from Jodi that was consistent with the evidence and was more like, e.g., second-degree murder than first-degree, then IMO Jodi would have been charged with second-degree murder.

We have an adversary system in which the state explains how the evidence shows guilt, the defense tries to introduce reasonable doubt, and the jury is trusted to work it all out. The jury can use their own common sense to say "no way would she use the knife instead of the gun first," or "she's crazy, though, so maybe she would." Of course, it was not necessary for the jury to figure out the details of what exactly happened, just to decide if WHATEVER happened was first-degree premeditated murder.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I agree that most likely neither the state nor the defense gave the "true story." On the state's side, though, that's because the evidence did not fully expose the true story. We would need Jodi's true confession for that. I have no doubt JM would have told the true story if he'd known it. His story had what you call "logical holes" because the EVIDENCE had logical holes--e.g., the evidence suggested that Jodi DID stab him first, even though that's ridiculous. The evidence further strongly suggests that Jodi went to AZ with a gun that she didn't want connected to her and a plan to leave no evidence behind of her presence in the state, but yet did not use the gun at the first opportunity. If that's a "logical hole," what is JM supposed to do about it? It really happened.

If JM had a confession from Jodi that was consistent with the evidence and was more like, e.g., second-degree murder than first-degree, then IMO Jodi would have been charged with second-degree murder.

We have an adversary system in which the state explains how the evidence shows guilt, the defense tries to introduce reasonable doubt, and the jury is trusted to work it all out. The jury can use their own common sense to say "no way would she use the knife instead of the gun first," or "she's crazy, though, so maybe she would." Of course, it was not necessary for the jury to figure out the details of what exactly happened, just to decide if WHATEVER happened was first-degree premeditated murder.

I am amazed that it is really so hard for someone to imagine Jodi wanting to inflict severe pain to Travis while he was naked and vulnerable and yes, she planned it that way. I always believed the stabbing came first before the trial started. She is a mean psycho who wanted and needed to kill him over and over. The fact that she lies unto this day just proves it even more.

 

[Kaddy Wonders]

The scheduling conflicts won't postpone the case for long. Once the JA retrial is set, the defense team will have to tell other judges in other cases that they have a conflict if those other judges try to set things for the same dates.

This may not fit here, but if the penalty phase is retried, and is delayed until next year, does CMJA stay in the same 23/7 cell until then? TIA.

 

[AZlawyer]

This may not fit here, but if the penalty phase is retried, and is delayed until next year, does CMJA stay in the same 23/7 cell until then? TIA.

It depends on why the Sheriff put her on that restriction in the first place. If it was because she had been found guilty of murder, I assume she'll stay on the same level of custody until she's transferred to prison.

 

[Ammonitida]

This is just a comment on the trial system (for the lawyers to respond to), where each side can put forth a scenario of the events for the jury, neither of which is in full accord with the evidence and/or with common sense. And it's left for the jury to see where each side is trying to mislead them.

On the defense side, we have the Arias version of events on June 4, which obviously doesn't hold water. But they are the defense. Supposedly (or hopefully) the State is held to a higher standard of forthrightness. But such was not really the case here. Martinez, in his very effective closing argument (brought me to tears), put forth a detailed scenario of the events of June 4 which also does not ultimately hold water. Nurmi pointed some of these things out in his closing argument. She apparently had multiple opportunities to shoot him earlier, such as when she was watching him in his office, or when he was asleep, or when his back was turned in the shower. Yet, even though she had planned to kill him for a week, she let those go by. Then she has him seated in the shower, and she still avoids using the gun. She instead chooses to engage this strong male in hand-to-hand combat to the death with a knife, for some illogical reason. Even though she has coldly been planning it for a week, she stupidly takes this huge risk just to make the killing more 'personal' with a knife, or some such reason, and happens to get lucky with a strike to his vena cava. (Yeah, she studied how to get a knife strike right between the ribs or whatever, haha.) This is, IMO, not what really happened, because it doesn't really make sense. The real truth is probably somewhere between Arias' and the State's versions. And if so, how would that match up to the definitions of the various crime designations?

So, IMO, neither the State's nor the defense's proposed versions of the events are likely accurate, and they had to realize that. Yet, because Martinez was simply a more effective storyteller than Nurmi, his questionable version is accepted by the jury. Remember that when JM gave his rebuttal to Nurmi's closing, he avoided dealing with these issues I have discussed above. He didn't talk about why she didn't shoot Travis while he was sleeping, or with his back turned in the shower. (Yes I realize that the evidence of the pre-June 4 things that JA did is also important. I am only speaking here to the events at Travis' house on June 4.)

Why is the State allowed to be an obvious advocate and give a version which has obvious logical holes in it, instead of being an unbiased reporter and interpreter of events?

Her hesitation on June 4th is not a "logical hole". Given the circumstances, it was likely to occur.

1) Jodi was not a professional assassin hired by the mob to take out a target with whom she was not emotionally attached to. Her emotions concerning Travis on June 4th were likely conflicted, with a demon sitting on her left shoulder saying, "Do it, Jodi! KILL HIM!", while an angel sat on her right shoulder, saying "Don't do it, Jodi! You'll regret this". Ok, not like that, but my point is, because of their prior relationship and the fact that she had never killed anyone before, it is not surprising that she hesitated to kill him. Had she been a professional assassin and Travis been a stranger, then it would be a "logical hole".

2) She had a small, toy-like gun and Travis was a big man. She likely lacked confidence in its ability to do the job, further contributing to her state of homicidal hesitation.

3) The roommates presented additional complications. Zack, for example, had a day off from work and was in and out of the house.

4) There is no evidence beyond Jodi's word that Travis ever fell asleep and presented her with that opportunity (and if he had, Zack could have still been home and she may have been afraid that a gunshot would alert him, or she was still hesitating due to conflicting emotions). As for his back being turned to her in the shower, that could have been for a few seconds, again not presenting a VIABLE opportunity. He was also standing which posed a threat. Travis was at his most vulnerable when he was sitting down and no longer moving unpredictably, essentially giving Jodi the higher ground advantage.

 

[dcsmyth1]

Ammonitida, some of what you write makes perfect sense. But let's not forget that JM didn't mention any of these possibilities in his closing argument. Instead, he presented a scenario of her coldly pre-planning the murder, and then carrying it out right according to plan. He said/implied that she intended all along to attack TA when he was seated and in an 'inferior' position. He said/implied that she intended all along to use the knife as her primary weapon. Surely, he saw the 'logical holes' and may have come up with the same explanations that you did--but he chose to go full speed ahead with his own scenario, to try to make the events more certain than they likely really were. Is this simply the 'adversary' system at its best, or is he going a bit too far and trying to mislead the jury?

What if he had tried his best to honestly come up with a possible scenario that better explains the logical holes? What if he had posited to the jury that, yes, due to the way Travis wrote to her on May 26, she was so angry and hurt that she decided to kill him, and did all those things. But, before getting to Mesa, she started having second thoughts, and decided to give him another chance. I mean, what if they could actually patch it up and get back together, stronger than ever before, due to working through a crisis? But by 5 PM on the 4th, that hope had failed miserably. Not only had he indicated that there was no future for them-- he didn't even do it in a loving or considerate manner, as maybe had happened with D Brewer. Instead, he got just as furious and rude as he was on May 26 and told her to "get your as$ out of my life forever, you stalker b*tch. And thanks for this last f*ck that I got from you, Hodi!" So, she comes back in while he's in the shower, and she's angrier than ever, and she thinks, "Gun and caution be damned, I'm gonna make it as painful and personal as I can. Say hello to this here knife, Traven!" And----it worked.

What do the lawyers think about this? Even though it may (may not?) invalidate the prior pre-planning because she 'suspended' her plan to slay him, it also has (I think) a better matchup to what likely happened. And it still keeps premeditation as an element, even though it may be the shorter-term variety of premeditation.

 

[AZlawyer]

Ammonitida, some of what you write makes perfect sense. But let's not forget that JM didn't mention any of these possibilities in his closing argument. Instead, he presented a scenario of her coldly pre-planning the murder, and then carrying it out right according to plan. He said/implied that she intended all along to attack TA when he was seated and in an 'inferior' position. He said/implied that she intended all along to use the knife as her primary weapon. Surely, he saw the 'logical holes' and may have come up with the same explanations that you did--but he chose to go full speed ahead with his own scenario, to try to make the events more certain than they likely really were. Is this simply the 'adversary' system at its best, or is he going a bit too far and trying to mislead the jury?

What if he had tried his best to honestly come up with a possible scenario that better explains the logical holes? What if he had posited to the jury that, yes, due to the way Travis wrote to her on May 26, she was so angry and hurt that she decided to kill him, and did all those things. But, before getting to Mesa, she started having second thoughts, and decided to give him another chance. I mean, what if they could actually patch it up and get back together, stronger than ever before, due to working through a crisis? But by 5 PM on the 4th, that hope had failed miserably. Not only had he indicated that there was no future for them-- he didn't even do it in a loving or considerate manner, as maybe had happened with D Brewer. Instead, he got just as furious and rude as he was on May 26 and told her to "get your as$ out of my life forever, you stalker b*tch. And thanks for this last f*ck that I got from you, Hodi!" So, she comes back in while he's in the shower, and she's angrier than ever, and she thinks, "Gun and caution be damned, I'm gonna make it as painful and personal as I can. Say hello to this here knife, Traven!" And----it worked.

What do the lawyers think about this? Even though it may (may not?) invalidate the prior pre-planning because she 'suspended' her plan to slay him, it also has (I think) a better matchup to what likely happened. And it still keeps premeditation as an element, even though it may be the shorter-term variety of premeditation.

He couldn't have proposed the story you offer, because it is total speculation. There is no evidence to support it at all. It might be true--but there's no evidence of it.

 

[dcsmyth1]

Right, just like it's total speculation on Juan's part that she executed her plan without a hitch from start to finish. That's how he made it sound in his closing argument. And he did that, IMO, to make his case for the direct, uninterrupted connection between the pre-planning on May 28 to the actual killing stronger than it really is, to make this look more like a total "fatal attraction" scenario. And he did it in such a way that he could get away with it legally and (apparently) ethically, by making it look like he was just presenting the known facts, no more and no less. JMO, of course.

 

[AZlawyer]

Right, just like it's total speculation on Juan's part that she executed her plan without a hitch from start to finish. That's how he made it sound in his closing argument. And he did that, IMO, to make his case for the direct, uninterrupted connection between the pre-planning on May 28 to the actual killing stronger than it really is, to make this look more like a total "fatal attraction" scenario. And he did it in such a way that he could get away with it legally and (apparently) ethically, by making it look like he was just presenting the known facts, no more and no less. JMO, of course.

JM said what the evidence showed. Nurmi pointed out the potential "hitches." JM didn't speculate one way or the other about the hitches, because he had no evidence one way or the other. You believe he should have invented a story from his own imagination to explain the hitches, just like Jodi invented a story from her own imagination to explain the evidence, but I fail to see how this would have been LESS misleading to the jury as you say.

 

[beach]

Reminder:

This is a legal Q & A thread.

It's not a theory thread or speculation abound type thread.

Our attorneys generously donate their time and expertise here. Please don't make them sift through a variety of posts.

Post a LEGAL question and patiently wait for a response.

:tyou:

*this post falls at random*

 

[skab]

I haven't seen this question so: why all the delays? I read here and sidebar that the delays are because the judge is for the defense and I don't believe it but it is so frustrating. What explanation could you guess caused the judge to make the ruling she did today and specifically, what did the ruling mean to this non-attorney? Thanks for your information.

 

[AZlawyer]

I haven't seen this question so: why all the delays? I read here and sidebar that the delays are because the judge is for the defense and I don't believe it but it is so frustrating. What explanation could you guess caused the judge to make the ruling she did today and specifically, what did the ruling mean to this non-attorney? Thanks for your information.

From the point of view of an attorney practicing in the Maricopa County Superior Court, my response to this question is always, "what delays?" :waitasec: This is normal. A motion is filed, a response is filed 2 weeks or so later, a reply is filed a week or so after that, a hearing is scheduled a month or two after that, the hearing is held...isn't it the same everywhere? I guess I don't know.

My assumption is that she set the hearing for another day because the reply brief hasn't been filed (and isn't due for some time yet probably), and the hearing wasn't set for today to begin with. This was just a status conference. The status was that a motion had been filed and the judge needed to set a hearing on it. So she did.

The judge is very clearly NOT biased in favor of the defense. She is not. I have no idea why anyone thinks this.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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.



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.)



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.



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.

I had just finished reading Every Breath You Take by Ann Rule and Alan Blackthorn was facing a new federal law of traveling interstate to cause domestic violence, and didn't know if that would apply to Jodi and could be prosecuted under it that in the event of Jodi getting off or would it be double jeopardy to try her on those charges?

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

AZ Lawyer: Since JSS didn't make a decision on the continuance or delay of the second death penalty phase in the trial today, do you think she wants to study previous cases and such in order to avoid appellate issues? JSS has scheduled another hearing for July 18 thus cancelling out the originally planned second death penalty trial. I would like to hear your opinion. TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

I had just finished reading Every Breath You Take by Ann Rule and Alan Blackthorn was facing a new federal law of traveling interstate to cause domestic violence, and didn't know if that would apply to Jodi and could be prosecuted under it that in the event of Jodi getting off or would it be double jeopardy to try her on those charges?

18 USC 2261 would not apply to Jodi because she never resided with Travis. In any event, Jodi has already been found guilty of first-degree murder, and IMO there are no issues that will result in a reversal on appeal. In the unlikely event that something like that does happen, it would not be double jeopardy to try her on a federal charge, but I don't believe there are any that apply. Also, the statutes of limitation may have passed already.

AZ Lawyer: Since JSS didn't make a decision on the continuance or delay of the second death penalty phase in the trial today, do you think she wants to study previous cases and such in order to avoid appellate issues? JSS has scheduled another hearing for July 18 thus cancelling out the originally planned second death penalty trial. I would like to hear your opinion. TIA

No, I don't think JSS is having trouble making the decision. The motion to delay hasn't been fully briefed yet, and no hearing had been set. So she set a hearing at the earliest opportunity, and then she'll make the decision after the hearing. It is very, very normal for a trial date to be replaced by a motion hearing if significant motions are pending just before trial.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

OK, we are getting down to the nitty-gritty here...In what circumstance could the Judge rule that the State Prosecution cannot go forward with a second Death Penalty Phase trial as it is planned right now? TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

OK, we are getting down to the nitty-gritty here...In what circumstance could the Judge rule that the State Prosecution cannot go forward with a second Death Penalty Phase trial as it is planned right now? TIA

Um...apocalypse? JA's death in jail? Did you have any particular circumstance in mind?