There have been 28 executions in Arizona since 1976, when capital punishment was resumed in the US. All of whom have been men, and about half of these defendants murdered two or more individuals. There are currently 138 convicts on death row in AZ now. AZ ranks 12th in the US out of the states that currently has the death penalty, and seems to have an average number of convicts on death row.
To contrast, California ranks 17th in the US, has executed less than half individuals since 1976, but holds over 700 convicts on death row!
So, right off the bat, even statistically speaking, it appears to me that Jodi's chance of getting the death penalty is rather slim. It would be interesting to see how many other people are serving life sentences in AZ. I think it would be safe to say that Jodi, even under the worst defense scenario, would never see the death penalty, even if she was sentenced, and in my opinion even that seems implausible.
It is clear that she screwed herself by talking to the media and changing her story, but as we saw in the CA trial, even a terrible attorney can explain this behavior away rather quickly, and deflate the prosecution's ballon somewhat. We already know she is a liar, but so what. The evidence in the crime is very strong against her, but that does not mean that the self-defense scenario cannot be presented, or at least cast in the minds of the jury that it was possible. Abuse can take many forms-- I think a well-crafted defense might be able to show some flimsy evidence of emotional and psychological abuse. Sexual or physical-- not so much, but maybe at least enough to cast some reasonable doubt. Even throwing it out there might cast doubt (i.e. Scott Peterson's jury considered the satanic ritual abduction theory that Geragos threw out there as a possibility, although this evaporated once their defense was put on).
With the defense playing the self-defense card, I think it puts the prosecution in the place of proving that self-defense DID NOT occur, to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting on a self-defense theory defense, could very well at least change the jury instruction to consider convicting her of a lesser charge.
Now here is an example, although the elements of a crime are quite different: Andrew Wirth (look up the case, it is not that interesting, but nonetheless). Wirth was charged with First Degree murder for the fatal shooting of an off duty female police officer who pinched his butt at a bar, as well as her boyfriend. Let's just say Wirth brought a gun to a knife fight, and shot the cop's boyfriend. The defense presented a very flimsy self-defense theory (it was on truTV), and the first degree murder charge did not stick at all. He was convicted of two counts of "homicide by the negligent handling of a firearm," faced 20 years max, and even with a previous record, received 10 years in the clink and 10 years probation.
So, Jodi Arias should be banging her head against the wall by now :banghead: because she talked too much and didn't claim self-defense all along-- because it is her best chance to avoid a life sentence, and possibly get out in 20-30 years or so. This being, just my two cents.
To contrast, California ranks 17th in the US, has executed less than half individuals since 1976, but holds over 700 convicts on death row!
So, right off the bat, even statistically speaking, it appears to me that Jodi's chance of getting the death penalty is rather slim. It would be interesting to see how many other people are serving life sentences in AZ. I think it would be safe to say that Jodi, even under the worst defense scenario, would never see the death penalty, even if she was sentenced, and in my opinion even that seems implausible.
It is clear that she screwed herself by talking to the media and changing her story, but as we saw in the CA trial, even a terrible attorney can explain this behavior away rather quickly, and deflate the prosecution's ballon somewhat. We already know she is a liar, but so what. The evidence in the crime is very strong against her, but that does not mean that the self-defense scenario cannot be presented, or at least cast in the minds of the jury that it was possible. Abuse can take many forms-- I think a well-crafted defense might be able to show some flimsy evidence of emotional and psychological abuse. Sexual or physical-- not so much, but maybe at least enough to cast some reasonable doubt. Even throwing it out there might cast doubt (i.e. Scott Peterson's jury considered the satanic ritual abduction theory that Geragos threw out there as a possibility, although this evaporated once their defense was put on).
With the defense playing the self-defense card, I think it puts the prosecution in the place of proving that self-defense DID NOT occur, to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting on a self-defense theory defense, could very well at least change the jury instruction to consider convicting her of a lesser charge.
Now here is an example, although the elements of a crime are quite different: Andrew Wirth (look up the case, it is not that interesting, but nonetheless). Wirth was charged with First Degree murder for the fatal shooting of an off duty female police officer who pinched his butt at a bar, as well as her boyfriend. Let's just say Wirth brought a gun to a knife fight, and shot the cop's boyfriend. The defense presented a very flimsy self-defense theory (it was on truTV), and the first degree murder charge did not stick at all. He was convicted of two counts of "homicide by the negligent handling of a firearm," faced 20 years max, and even with a previous record, received 10 years in the clink and 10 years probation.
So, Jodi Arias should be banging her head against the wall by now :banghead: because she talked too much and didn't claim self-defense all along-- because it is her best chance to avoid a life sentence, and possibly get out in 20-30 years or so. This being, just my two cents.
