Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[MeeBee]

I just read on the sidebar thread that it was indeed that Juan was going to bring up Patti's drug use, her unclaimed income to welfare, among other things, that prevented her from testifying. It would seem to me that the real reason the defense didn't put any witnesses up is because 1.) they would get shredded by Juan (at least Patti would) and 2.) no matter who they called, his rebuttal witnesses would paint a different picture of Jodi that would cra* all over the defense's picture which would include her bizarre behavior being present from childhood, long before she met Travis, an expounded upon Christmas tree story, and more about her slashing his tires, among other stalker-y things she did to him, I'm sure. So they just threw in the towel in frustration and authored a whole death threat narrative to distract from the real reason they didn't call anyone and make, once again, Jodi out to be the persecuted victim.

What's your thoughts on that and how ethical is that as defense lawyers? I don't want to say that it's unethical if it's a common tactic or an accepted tactic, it just seems that after five years of representing Jodi, they should have had their act together and they still want until January. Juan predicts a fall start and I saw you also thought the judge would not give them that long to get it together.

Also, if you don't mind but I understand if you don't want to go there, but what are your thoughts or what's your opinion on Juan as a prosecutor, in general? I was watching the Zimmerman trial and I was watching other trials on youtube imo at least, as a prosecutor, he seems like one of the best. Also, how do you feel about his attitude during the sidebars and chambers meetings? Is that probably just his way or was it perhaps a tactical thing on his part to rile up the defense lawyers and get them flustered since they already didn't like him?

Thanks AZ. Love love love reading your posts.

 

[Cherry]

does anyone know if it will start at 9am or at 8:30 PT, or if there will be coverage?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, I see that the status conference is scheduled for Tuesday. Do you have any idea when jury selection will begin? (in a few weeks, a few months) A week or two ago, I think someone mentioned that Juan is in another trial now. Some people also mentioned vacation time for the lawyers.

Stupid question or not, what exactly happens during a "Status Conference" in the State of Arizona? TIA

A status conference normally focuses on scheduling. So to answer Wolfpack Fan's question, we should know tomorrow when jury selection will begin.

I just read on the sidebar thread that it was indeed that Juan was going to bring up Patti's drug use, her unclaimed income to welfare, among other things, that prevented her from testifying. It would seem to me that the real reason the defense didn't put any witnesses up is because 1.) they would get shredded by Juan (at least Patti would) and 2.) no matter who they called, his rebuttal witnesses would paint a different picture of Jodi that would cra* all over the defense's picture which would include her bizarre behavior being present from childhood, long before she met Travis, an expounded upon Christmas tree story, and more about her slashing his tires, among other stalker-y things she did to him, I'm sure. So they just threw in the towel in frustration and authored a whole death threat narrative to distract from the real reason they didn't call anyone and make, once again, Jodi out to be the persecuted victim.

What's your thoughts on that and how ethical is that as defense lawyers? I don't want to say that it's unethical if it's a common tactic or an accepted tactic, it just seems that after five years of representing Jodi, they should have had their act together and they still want until January. Juan predicts a fall start and I saw you also thought the judge would not give them that long to get it together.

Also, if you don't mind but I understand if you don't want to go there, but what are your thoughts or what's your opinion on Juan as a prosecutor, in general? I was watching the Zimmerman trial and I was watching other trials on youtube imo at least, as a prosecutor, he seems like one of the best. Also, how do you feel about his attitude during the sidebars and chambers meetings? Is that probably just his way or was it perhaps a tactical thing on his part to rile up the defense lawyers and get them flustered since they already didn't like him?

Thanks AZ. Love love love reading your posts.

I'm sure that there were multiple concerns about the potential defense witnesses. Knowing certain online communities, I am 100% sure Patti's life was threatened, but that may not have been the only concern about having her testify.

It is perfectly ethical to not mention to the court that you have undisclosed strategic reasons for an argument you're making. It is not ethical to make false statements of fact to the court, however. I am confident that the defense team did have some facts suggesting that her life was threatened. No one is going to put his/her law license on the line for Jodi Ann Arias. But I am equally confident that there was some other undisclosed strategy going on behind the scenes.

I think Juan has an incredible talent for cross-examination, although he does still make mistakes. He also has an incredible ability to work without notes. As I've said before, I think some of the things he said outside the jury's hearing were unprofessional and he shouldn't have said them.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

A status conference normally focuses on scheduling. So to answer Wolfpack Fan's question, we should know tomorrow when jury selection will begin.



I'm sure that there were multiple concerns about the potential defense witnesses. Knowing certain online communities, I am 100% sure Patti's life was threatened, but that may not have been the only concern about having her testify.

It is perfectly ethical to not mention to the court that you have undisclosed strategic reasons for an argument you're making. It is not ethical to make false statements of fact to the court, however. I am confident that the defense team did have some facts suggesting that her life was threatened. No one is going to put his/her law license on the line for Jodi Ann Arias. But I am equally confident that there was some other undisclosed strategy going on behind the scenes.

I think Juan has an incredible talent for cross-examination, although he does still make mistakes. He also has an incredible ability to work without notes. As I've said before, I think some of the things he said outside the jury's hearing were unprofessional and he shouldn't have said them.

BBM - You have evidence, then, that her life was threatened...???

 

[MeeBee]

7/9/2013 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 7/10/2013
NOTE: OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER FOR RETENTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERTS WHO TESIFIED IN THE FIRST TRIAL AS WELL AS PROSPECTIVE ORDER FOR THOSE WHO WILL TESTIFY IN THE UPCOMING PENALTY PHASE

What does this mean?

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - You have evidence, then, that her life was threatened...???

Sure, various idiots had posted online the same things they posted for other defense witnesses, which could reasonably be read as threats. Now, IMO 99.9% of the people who post such nonsense have no intention of carrying out their threats, but are just seeking attention due to their own psychological problems. But when you are on the receiving end of the threats, they can seem more real than they seem to an independent observer.

7/9/2013 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 7/10/2013
NOTE: OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER FOR RETENTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERTS WHO TESIFIED IN THE FIRST TRIAL AS WELL AS PROSPECTIVE ORDER FOR THOSE WHO WILL TESTIFY IN THE UPCOMING PENALTY PHASE

What does this mean?

Tough to tell from just a title. If I had to guess, I would say that one or more defense psych experts who already testified had not officially been approved for retention by the court, and that approval is also sought for psych experts who will testify in the penalty phase. And that Juan objects to some aspect of this for some reason. But that's just a guess.

 

[dcsmyth1]

This is a hypothetical question. JM mentioned the 'longer' and 'shorter' aspects to the premeditation in this case. I am not disputing that she is guilty of the latter, say in the moment when she decided to make sure he dies by slitting his throat (among other possible moments).

But let's say that JA took some truth serum, and told us that at the time of the pre-planning steps, she had not decided to kill TA. In fact, she was hoping it wouldn't come to that. She was hoping they would reconcile. She had only decided to come prepared for the possibility of choosing to kill TA if things went very poorly between them, as they had in the May 26 text conversation. Would that still be technically legal 'long form' premeditation--coming prepared but not making the actual decision to kill until right before she did it?

I do realize that there is technically not these shorter and longer varieties of premeditation. There is only premeditation. But I'm just trying to learn, if it went down like I theorized, when did the premeditation legally occur?

 

[AZlawyer]

This is a hypothetical question. JM mentioned the 'longer' and 'shorter' aspects to the premeditation in this case. I am not disputing that she is guilty of the latter, say in the moment when she decided to make sure he dies by slitting his throat (among other possible moments).

But let's say that JA took some truth serum, and told us that at the time of the pre-planning steps, she had not decided to kill TA. In fact, she was hoping it wouldn't come to that. She was hoping they would reconcile. She had only decided to come prepared for the possibility of choosing to kill TA if things went very poorly between them, as they had in the May 26 text conversation. Would that still be technically legal 'long form' premeditation--coming prepared but not making the actual decision to kill until right before she did it?

I do realize that there is technically not these shorter and longer varieties of premeditation. There is only premeditation. But I'm just trying to learn, if it went down like I theorized, when did the premeditation legally occur?

Yes, deciding that you will kill someone IF they don't do whatever it is you want/hope counts as premeditation.

 

[blefuscu]

When will the punishment part of the trial be held? I'm in England and there is zero coverage if the trial over here.

 

[AZlawyer]

When will the punishment part of the trial be held? I'm in England and there is zero coverage if the trial over here.

The date hasn't been set yet. There's a status conference set for 8/26/13--hopefully the date for the penalty phase will be set then.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

When I checked yesterday it does not say status conference. It says something else. I can't remember now but I'm on my phone. Something more specific.

 

[Tuba]

Judge Stephens called a pretrial conference for that date, August 26.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I know but status conferences usually say that this says criminal court or something like that v

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

8/26/2013 8:30 Complex / Capital Case

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

 

[mjkins]

8/26/2013 8:30 Complex / Capital Case

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

Interesting.

 

[grammieto5]

Since JA has been convicted, why isn't she in prison waiting for the penalty phase instead of waiting in jail for it? Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

8/26/2013 8:30 Complex / Capital Case

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

Interesting.

It doesn't mean anything--just that more time has been set aside than for the normal status/pretrial conference, because the case is complex or the death penalty is being sought.

Since JA has been convicted, why isn't she in prison waiting for the penalty phase instead of waiting in jail for it? Thanks

Technically, she hasn't been "convicted" until she's sentenced. Technically. At this point, she hasn't been sentenced to even 1 day in prison, so on what authority could they transport her there?

 

[ohiogirl]

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Arias MOT 8_21_13.pdf
What do the attorneys think of this motion? Jurors are supposed to stay away from the media during a trial, and the defense has no more expectation to monitor their twitter accounts than they would expect to monitor a juror's email. Pretty brazen if you ask me, although no one did.

 

[AZlawyer]

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Arias MOT 8_21_13.pdf
What do the attorneys think of this motion? Jurors are supposed to stay away from the media during a trial, and the defense has no more expectation to monitor their twitter accounts than they would expect to monitor a juror's email. Pretty brazen if you ask me, although no one did.

I think the motion is bizarre. Why just Twitter and not, well, everything else? And why pretend the former juror was doing something wrong when it is crystal clear from the attachments that she was not? My best guess is that the motion is just a vehicle to get the info about the former juror in front of the judge, in hopes that she will get nervous about how easy it would be for someone to communicate with a juror and reconsider a request to sequester the jury. Perhaps the judge should just order all the jurors to place their social media accounts on "private" and to post an announcement that anyone mentioning the case will be deleted immediately.

 

[geevee]

I have a legal question and although it doesn't involve this case specifically, it does involve JM. In the case he's prosecuting now, his first witness was on the stand being cross examined and the point came up that JM did not have this officer's deposition before trial began. Now I see on the docket that last Thur. JM filed a motion to compel depositions of the defense witnesses who will be testifying beginning on Monday. Don't these depositions fall under discovery? How can a prosecutor go to trial without depositions, esp. of his own witness? Is this unusual?

Thanks