Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion* #2

[Hope4More]

AZL....Nurmi says Geffner can't return to testify until the 25th. What if anything can JSS (theoretically) do to force an earlier return?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL....Nurmi says Geffner can't return to testify until the 25th. What if anything can JSS (theoretically) do to force an earlier return?

JSS can call him personally to ask him if he's really not free, why he's really not free, if something can be moved around to make himself free, etc. Normally witnesses who are claiming they are not free will back down if a judge is asking tough questions about their schedule.

 

[tlckgram]

Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place. Anyway, what I would like to know is

(1) In Juans closing will he be allowed to touch on the slaughter factor of the murder and the steps of premeditation JA did. I am assuming they don't know the details of all that as they are supposedly pretty ignorant about the guilt phase. Without Juan being able to refresh their memories and show the slaughter pics, they really wont understand the scope of what she did and how it merits the DP. Technically, is it considered "evidence not introduced in this phase" and they just have to tell themselves "well, she got capital murder and it was bad enough for the DP" ?

(2) regardless of what the actual penalty is, does JA get to go to all the appeals hearings in person? I was wondering about that because in reading the omnibus motion, it said all the petitioners get to be at that hearing.

(3) I do understand that the appeals are paid for by the state if a DP is handed down. I believe I read that the initial appeal on Life sentence is also paid for by the state. At what point do the legal steps become a convicted felons responsibility instead of the taxpayers?

 

[Colie]

The evidence brought in on the lost Helio phone : sex tape and texts. How is it possible without the MCPD never has had the phone in their possession?

 

[Midnight Rambler]

About the in chambers individual juror questioning the other day. Is this only done when there is a problem with a juror, or can the judge use this as a means to notify the jurors of the schedule and ask the them if they have any problems with the schedule. It seemed odd to take them in there individually.

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place. Anyway, what I would like to know is

(1) In Juans closing will he be allowed to touch on the slaughter factor of the murder and the steps of premeditation JA did. I am assuming they don't know the details of all that as they are supposedly pretty ignorant about the guilt phase. Without Juan being able to refresh their memories and show the slaughter pics, they really wont understand the scope of what she did and how it merits the DP. Technically, is it considered "evidence not introduced in this phase" and they just have to tell themselves "well, she got capital murder and it was bad enough for the DP" ?

(2) regardless of what the actual penalty is, does JA get to go to all the appeals hearings in person? I was wondering about that because in reading the omnibus motion, it said all the petitioners get to be at that hearing.

(3) I do understand that the appeals are paid for by the state if a DP is handed down. I believe I read that the initial appeal on Life sentence is also paid for by the state. At what point do the legal steps become a convicted felons responsibility instead of the taxpayers?

1) This jury heard the cruelty and premeditation evidence from Juan at the beginning of this retrial. He will certainly reiterate that evidence in closing.

2) JA will not attend appellate oral arguments.

3) After the initial appeal (regardless of sentence), the state is not constitutionally required to pay for anything else. I don't know if AZ nevertheless does pay for more in a DP case. KCL says so, but a lot has changed since her sister's case.

The evidence brought in on the lost Helio phone : sex tape and texts. How is it possible without the MCPD never has had the phone in their possession?

The prosecution could have asked to examine the phone once they knew the defense planned to use it as evidence. Perhaps there was no need at the time because the prosecution was not denying that JA and TA had sex etc.--there were pictures, after all. It may only have occurred to JM recently that JA could have faked that text.

About the in chambers individual juror questioning the other day. Is this only done when there is a problem with a juror, or can the judge use this as a means to notify the jurors of the schedule and ask the them if they have any problems with the schedule. It seemed odd to take them in there individually.

I'm sure they were being questioned about whether they'd seen any of the "racial harassment" on the courthouse steps.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

Thanks AZ. I've read a lot of conflicting stories about that situation.

 

[Colie]

If family or friends make statement for Jodi reguarding saving her life. To what extent can Juan use those statement in closing? Thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

If family or friends make statement for Jodi reguarding saving her life. To what extent can Juan use those statement in closing? Thanks

The whole procedure of using a jury for sentencing instead of a judge is pretty new, at least in AZ, but I don't believe her family can make statements unless they are witnesses (subject to cross-examination). But either way, Juan could talk about those statements in closing.

 

[Val1]

1) This jury heard the cruelty and premeditation evidence from Juan at the beginning of this retrial. He will certainly reiterate that evidence in closing.

2) JA will not attend appellate oral arguments.

3) After the initial appeal (regardless of sentence), the state is not constitutionally required to pay for anything else. I don't know if AZ nevertheless does pay for more in a DP case. KCL says so, but a lot has changed since her sister's case.

The prosecution could have asked to examine the phone once they knew the defense planned to use it as evidence. Perhaps there was no need at the time because the prosecution was not denying that JA and TA had sex etc.--there were pictures, after all. It may only have occurred to JM recently that JA could have faked that text.

I'm sure they were being questioned about whether they'd seen any of the "racial harassment" on the courthouse steps.

BBM - Hi AZ, is there some way to find out whether the reason this sex tape evidence was admitted was due to some stipulation(likely sealed but we can hope) by JW that it wasn't "for the truth of the matter", but for some other nebulous reason and due to JM agreeing that it was TA's voice JSS went along with it?

 

[Midnight Rambler]

AZ, What will happen tomorrow if Stephens determines that Juan has indeed committed misconduct. What ramifications are possible. And was the "flailing of the arms" a legitimate claim or just another whine by the defense. Could the COA's determination of no secrecy play a role in the "inadvertent" speaking of the witnesses name.

 

[Val1]

BBM - Hi AZ, is there some way to find out whether the reason this sex tape evidence was admitted was due to some stipulation(likely sealed but we can hope) by JW that it wasn't "for the truth of the matter", but for some other nebulous reason and due to JM agreeing that it was TA's voice JSS went along with it?

BBM - Sorry can't edit this for some reason... anyway, I may have found my answer, kind of(I haven't read the whole transcript yet, but we know JSS let the tape in and we saw what it was used for, just like JM said it would be.).

http://mixedbagblog.com/2013/06/09/transcript-re-sex-tape/
"On page 6 is the first time Willmott asserts: “None of it (the sex tape) is for the truth of the matter asserted, we’re talking about the particular statements. So the statement that he’s going to come and stick it up wherever is not for the truth of whether he was actually going to do that. They’re not assertions.” On page 10 Martinez makes the comment: “In terms of the sexual knowledge, they’re offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And their experts rely on it as truthful."

http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - Hi AZ, is there some way to find out whether the reason this sex tape evidence was admitted was due to some stipulation(likely sealed but we can hope) by JW that it wasn't "for the truth of the matter", but for some other nebulous reason and due to JM agreeing that it was TA's voice JSS went along with it?

The transcript of at least part of the argument on that issue was released. It didn't look like any stipulation was likely. From the transcript, IIRC it did appear that JM was fuzzy on what "the truth of the matter" really means. At the end of the transcript, JSS says she's going to have to listen to the tape and make her decision. I think it was admitted because it was relevant to JA's argument about her secret double-life relationship with TA, the strain of which caused chaos and ultimately domestic violence, leading to her need to kill him in self-defense. I think.

AZ, What will happen tomorrow if Stephens determines that Juan has indeed committed misconduct. What ramifications are possible. And was the "flailing of the arms" a legitimate claim or just another whine by the defense. Could the COA's determination of no secrecy play a role in the "inadvertent" speaking of the witnesses name.

She won't. The arm-flailing is a silly argument, and nothing in that motion was as serious as the arguments the judge has already rejected.

I think the defense is asking for a mistrial, which if caused by prosecutorial misconduct would mean that the DP would be off the table at this point and JA would be sentenced to life. But again, this motion will not be granted.

The "no secrecy" ruling would have no effect on the issue of JM accidentally saying Modsnip McGee's name. The ruling was about public access to the trial, not about the public being able to identify and track down witnesses.

BBM - Sorry can't edit this for some reason... anyway, I may have found my answer, kind of(I haven't read the whole transcript yet, but we know JSS let the tape in and we saw what it was used for, just like JM said it would be.).

http://mixedbagblog.com/2013/06/09/transcript-re-sex-tape/
"On page 6 is the first time Willmott asserts: “None of it (the sex tape) is for the truth of the matter asserted, we’re talking about the particular statements. So the statement that he’s going to come and stick it up wherever is not for the truth of whether he was actually going to do that. They’re not assertions.” On page 10 Martinez makes the comment: “In terms of the sexual knowledge, they’re offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And their experts rely on it as truthful."

http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf

OK, yes, this is what I was talking about. If TA said, for example, "I want to do XYZ to you," and the defense is offering it to show "sexual knowledge" as JM says, then that's NOT the same as offering it for "the truth of the matter asserted," and therefore it's NOT hearsay.

Offering it for the truth of the matter asserted would mean that the defense was trying to show he really DID want to do XYZ and wasn't just engaging in sex talk. And actually there's an exception to the hearsay rule that would cover that option as well, so it would be hearsay but it would be admissible hearsay. And now that I look at the transcript, I see that the judge mentioned that exception near the end.

The only way to keep the sex tape out, IMO, would have been to argue Rule 403 (the "probative value"--meaning how important it is to the defense's argument--is outweighed by the prejudice--meaning the chance that the jury will decide based on something that's not in the instructions). It doesn't look like JM made that argument. He might have been concerned because 403 rulings are more likely to be overturned on appeal than other more "clear-cut" evidentiary rulings, on the ground that the defense was hampered in explaining the defendant's full story to the jury.

 

[My-Future-Ex-Husband]

Hi AZL. Is the sentence of natural life=lwop?

Seeing as MDLR has been photographed talking to the evil media (BK and some guy) can she be brought up on sanctions due to the gag order?

Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

I

Hi AZL. Is the sentence of natural life=lwop?

Seeing as MDLR has been photographed talking to the evil media (BK and some guy) can she be brought up on sanctions due to the gag order?

Thanks.

Yes, natural life means life without parole.

I'm not aware of any gag order.

 

[grammieto5]

Hello AZL If the jury returns with the DP is there a time limit for an appeal to be made? How many appeals can be made? Thank you for all your time spent here on WS!

 

[Midnight Rambler]

AZ, If this jury hangs and the penalty is left for Stephens to impose will she do it the same day or take six months to mull it over.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hello AZL If the jury returns with the DP is there a time limit for an appeal to be made? How many appeals can be made? Thank you for all your time spent here on WS!

If the verdict is DP, the judge will then schedule a sentencing hearing. She could do it right away, but I think she will need a hearing to see if there should be victim compensation included (funeral expenses, etc.). That should be scheduled 1-2 months after the verdict. After the sentence is actually imposed, the clerk will file an appeal immediately. However, jurisdiction will likely be returned to JSS for a few months to deal with post-trial motions filed by Nurmi.

There would be one direct appeal from a DP sentence, to the AZ Supreme Court. There will also be a post-conviction relief proceeding, which is sort of like an appeal, for certain issues like ineffective assistance of counsel. There will also be a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court to deal with federal constitutional issues. Each of these 3 "appeal"-type proceedings includes the right to appeal from the "appellate" ruling to at least one higher court.

AZ, If this jury hangs and the penalty is left for Stephens to impose will she do it the same day or take six months to mull it over.

That's up to her. But she would only be deciding between LWOP and LWP, and since there's no parole procedure in AZ any more, I would think it would be an easy choice.

 

[Love Never Fails]

AZlawyer, I believe this question refers to the way law is handled in Arizona. I was looking at Beth Karas reporting about this phase and she said she was disturbed JM didn't tell this jury about the gas cans, hair color change, driving a thousand miles to the murder, etc, about premeditation. And she said she understands it is too late for him to do it now. She cannot understand why he spent so much time on . I can't either. Anyway, is it too late for him to bring that in to the jury in this phase? Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, I believe this question refers to the way law is handled in Arizona. I was looking at Beth Karas reporting about this phase and she said she was disturbed JM didn't tell this jury about the gas cans, hair color change, driving a thousand miles to the murder, etc, about premeditation. And she said she understands it is too late for him to do it now. She cannot understand why he spent so much time on . I can't either. Anyway, is it too late for him to bring that in to the jury in this phase? Thanks.

I'm pretty sure he did do that at the beginning when he was catching up the jury on the premeditation and cruelty evidence.