Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Nova]

I'm thinking that HLN misspoke. I was on Jury Duty only once, and for only a few days before the litigants settled. I was paid way more than $12 per day. I remember being paid hourly, and it being above minimum wage.

Not in California nor most states:

http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/trial_jury.htm


Personally, I think ALL employers should be required to pay employees while they are on jury duty. It should be part of the cost of doing business in a democracy.

But this is not a discussion thread...

 

[a/k/a me]

This Mitigational Specialist has been busted. Any consequences? Reprimands, fired or what?

 

[AZlawyer]

This Mitigational Specialist has been busted. Any consequences? Reprimands, fired or what?

Is this about the alleged note-passing? I'm not sure we know that to be true.

If it were true, I doubt the judge would allow her to continue sitting where she could continue passing notes, or that the guard would let her near Jodi. Technically, she could perhaps face misdemeanor charges for helping an inmate pass contraband, but IMO no one would bother pursuing that. I believe she's self-employed, so she won't be fired.

 

[cosmos]

If, during a trial, a juror feels that he does not understand an aspect of the juror instructions that had been given before the trial, what resources, if any, does he have to ask for help in understanding them? Can he ask the judge or somebody delegated by the judge? Could he read a book or article containing general advice to jurors about their ethical obligations?

(If you're curious as to what motivated this question, I started wondering yesterday -- after Martinez put a dictionary definition into evidence as an exhibit -- if a juror could use an ordinary dictionary at home to look up a word used during the trial or would that be considered research and investigation which is forbidden in the jury instructions. Note: I understand you can't research PTSD on your own, that it quite clear, but my question is where exactly to draw the line with words used in everyday conversation.)

 

[AZlawyer]

If, during a trial, a juror feels that he does not understand an aspect of the juror instructions that had been given before the trial, what resources, if any, does he have to ask for help in understanding them? Can he ask the judge or somebody delegated by the judge? Could he read a book or article containing general advice to jurors about their ethical obligations?

(If you're curious as to what motivated this question, I started wondering yesterday -- after Martinez put a dictionary definition into evidence as an exhibit -- if a juror could use an ordinary dictionary at home to look up a word used during the trial or would that be considered research and investigation which is forbidden in the jury instructions. Note: I understand you can't research PTSD on your own, that it quite clear, but my question is where exactly to draw the line with words used in everyday conversation.)

Jurors can ask questions of the judge about the instructions. The jurors cannot use any outside resources. I suppose if there were a very common type of dictionary in the jury room, it would not be an appeal issue, but looking things up at home is a no-no.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I don't think she would have the opportunity to change anything on an exhibit that has been entered. Even the attorneys have to log evidence in and out, and none of the admitted exhibits would ever be in Jodi's possession.

Yes, if an attorney altered evidence after it was admitted, they would be in big trouble with the state bar and possibly even the criminal justice system.

What if she were representing herself like she had originally wanted, wouldn't she have access to all the evidence?

 

[Nancy_Drew]

she has a constitutional right to know everything that's going on and to assist her counsel with her defense.

It drives me crazy when I see her taking notes and then leaning over and telling JW what to do...She treats them like the "hired help"!

 

[AZlawyer]

What if she were representing herself like she had originally wanted, wouldn't she have access to all the evidence?

Only in the courtroom.

 

[katydid23]

How about...Travis went into a sudden rage and "body slammed" Jodi because she dropped his camera, so Jodi ran and got a gun and pointed it at him with her finger on the trigger and "accidentally" but recklessly shot him. Which is pretty much what she said happened.

If the gunshot alone would have killed him even without the stab wounds--which IIRC the Medical Examiner said it would--or if the stab wounds resulted from a continuing "heat of passion" type of fight stemming from the gunshot--I think a reasonable juror who believed Jodi's ridiculous story could find her guilty of manslaughter.

ETA: Really, since she completely failed to mention making any determination that deadly force was necessary against Travis, and in fact said she had no intention of shooting him at all, it seems like the purpose of putting her on the stand was not to raise a self-defense argument but rather to get a manslaughter instruction.

AACCKKK. Now you are making my big brother look really smart---because he is a California attorney and this is exactly what he said tonight. I posted it earlier in the other threads because he scared me.

He told me he believes they already abandoned the straight Self Defense strategy and they are setting up the manslaughter/battered woman scenario. He practices in the SF Bay Area and that is a very big trend there--victims of gender inequality, etc.

He believes they are laying that foundation already and LaViolette will bring that home.

===============================================

Here is what I had posted earlier:

I don't know anymore. I am actually kind of worried, for the first time. I just had dinner with my older brother, an attorney. We briefly talked about this case, and I was saying how confident I was, because the DT has not and will not be able to prove Self Defense.

My bro said 'so what ?'. They are probably not even really aiming for that. A great strategy is sometimes to 'hide the ball in the laundry basket', as he calls it. You get the state to spend time and energy arguing against 'self defense' and so they feel confident in their position. Meanwhile the DT slowly builds a legal foundation for something else, and gets the judge to include the lesser charges.

 

[Texas Lady]

I may be wrong but I thought JM could not bring up the greeting cards that dr Samuels sent Jodi because they said it was because she was upset about hearing her defense Nurmi wanted off the case. Yesterday Samuels did mention her prior defense teams in an answer. Does that now "open the door" for JM to bring up the greeting cards.

Thank you

 

[DebinGA]

When potential expert witnesses are approached about testifying at trial, what are they given/told to enable them to make the decision whether to participate? And are they paid for the time spent making the decision, even if they decline? If so, release of billing records showing an elephant's graveyard of defense expert declinees would be hugely embarrassing, which may be why Nurmi went straight to Doc "I'll say whatever you want" Samuels.

 

[TDoc72]

I heard NG mention sur-rebuttal; I think that was the word. I'm assuming it's for the DT after JM's rebuttal case. Is that correct and is it a definite or up to the judge?

Is this right:
1--end of DT CIC (including JM's cross-exam.)
2--Rebuttal w/JM's direct & defense cross)
3--Sur-rebuttal?? (DT direct & Does JM get to cross?)
4--defense close
5--JM/state of AZ close
6--jury deliberations
7--verdict (hopefully guilty 1st degree)
Then on to penalty phase & sentencing

 

[Katie-L]

I have two questions:

1. After the DT expert witness, I'm also leaning towards the idea that the DT is not as interested in proving self defense as trying to make the lesser included charge of manslaughter more realistic than 1st degree. Question is: Can the DT request a lesser included offense or is that reserved for the prosecution? (and how would it be in their interest to do so if 1st degree is unlikely? Wouldn't an aquittal be the more natural outcome?

2. I understood that the Jury is sequestered from the media. Does this mean they have to make an overt effort NOT to hear anything from the media? (ie: not watch TV, stay away from pubs and other venues where big screens are visible). The reason I'm asking is that the coverage of the trial is very sensational and seems to be everywhere - all day and all evening long. It seems to me nearly impossible to avoid media coverage of the trial at this point. Is there any way for the court to ensure that the Jury is not tuning into the news every weekend when they get home?

 

[AZlawyer]

I may be wrong but I thought JM could not bring up the greeting cards that dr Samuels sent Jodi because they said it was because she was upset about hearing her defense Nurmi wanted off the case. Yesterday Samuels did mention her prior defense teams in an answer. Does that now "open the door" for JM to bring up the greeting cards.

Thank you

No, the existence of a prior defense team has nothing to do with Nurmi wanting off her case. The point is not to keep the jury from knowing she had multiple attorneys--it's to keep the jury from thinking that Nurmi hates her lol.

 

[AZlawyer]

When potential expert witnesses are approached about testifying at trial, what are they given/told to enable them to make the decision whether to participate? And are they paid for the time spent making the decision, even if they decline? If so, release of billing records showing an elephant's graveyard of defense expert declinees would be hugely embarrassing, which may be why Nurmi went straight to Doc "I'll say whatever you want" Samuels.

The potential expert will tell the attorney what he/she needs to know before making the decision whether to participate. Most of the time, if they say no, they don't get paid for that time. But the bigger issue is when the expert agrees to participate but then comes up with an answer the attorney doesn't like--in that case, they are not asked to testify and are not listed on the witness lists, but they do still need to be paid. So even when you hire an expert to "participate," there is the risk that they will not ultimately share your opinion.

But there is a whole list of psychologists (and other types of experts) who are not seen as very, um, risky in this regard. Once they are hired, it is assumed they will share your opinion.

 

[AZlawyer]

I heard NG mention sur-rebuttal; I think that was the word. I'm assuming it's for the DT after JM's rebuttal case. Is that correct and is it a definite or up to the judge?

Is this right:
1--end of DT CIC (including JM's cross-exam.)
2--Rebuttal w/JM's direct & defense cross)
3--Sur-rebuttal?? (DT direct & Does JM get to cross?)
4--defense close
5--JM/state of AZ close
6--jury deliberations
7--verdict (hopefully guilty 1st degree)
Then on to penalty phase & sentencing

Sur-rebuttal is rare and shouldn't happen unless the judge lets something in on rebuttal that should have been done in the state's case in chief. When it is permitted, it is usually very very short.

Closing arguments are organized the same way the evidence is: state, defense, state's rebuttal.

 

[Angelina Frost]

AZ, the absolute FINAL word before it goes to the jury comes from the State? TIA.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have two questions:

1. After the DT expert witness, I'm also leaning towards the idea that the DT is not as interested in proving self defense as trying to make the lesser included charge of manslaughter more realistic than 1st degree. Question is: Can the DT request a lesser included offense or is that reserved for the prosecution? (and how would it be in their interest to do so if 1st degree is unlikely? Wouldn't an aquittal be the more natural outcome?

2. I understood that the Jury is sequestered from the media. Does this mean they have to make an overt effort NOT to hear anything from the media? (ie: not watch TV, stay away from pubs and other venues where big screens are visible). The reason I'm asking is that the coverage of the trial is very sensational and seems to be everywhere - all day and all evening long. It seems to me nearly impossible to avoid media coverage of the trial at this point. Is there any way for the court to ensure that the Jury is not tuning into the news every weekend when they get home?

1. Yes, the defense can and usually does request the lesser-included offense instructions. The reason is that jurors are often reluctant to just acquit someone who has, for example, brutally slaughtered someone else for no damn good reason. The jury might be more likely to convict of 1st degree murder even if they really don't think it was premeditated, if that's the only choice offered.

2. Well, they don't have to live in a closet, but they are supposed to walk out of the room, put their hands over their ears, etc. "Hear no Jodi, see no Jodi, speak no Jodi." :floorlaugh: But this is all on the honor system--there's no way to know what happens behind closed doors. But I have to say, I don't watch the local news or the crime shows on cable, and I never see a single thing about Jodi Arias, so it isn't that hard to arrange.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, the absolute FINAL word before it goes to the jury comes from the State? TIA.

Yep.

 

[ClosArgs]

Are evidentiary hearings normally open to the public?

JM's brief regarding Motion to Preclude letters Purportedly Written by Travis Alexander to Defendant has been made public, however the Defendant's responses have been sealed by the court. Is this because of potential appeals?

Also I read there was a Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Demarte’s Conclusions Pursuant to "SARA”. I see it was discussed on 12-07-12, and they set a hearing for 02-08-13 that was rescheduled for 02-07-13, but I haven't been able to find a decision. Are all decisions published even if the hearings are closed?

TIA