Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[nursebeeme]

Do you guys think Juan knew she would take the stand?

As for cross: what can he address? Only her testimony?

 

[gitana1]

DT claims there is a phone sex call recorded by Jodi of Travis and her having phone sex where he says she climaxies like a 12 year old girl.

How the heck could they get that in ?

Ho ho! Looks like we now have the answer: By having jodi testify. We'll see if it works.

i asked gitana this but didn't get an answer so here goes.

can you explain how the DA thinks that if the gunshot was first, it makes this murder not cruel? they seem to think it's very important and i don't get why it matters.

we know TA had defensive wounds---although IMO, he didn't have many and he had none on his arms---so i'm thinking he was definitely not 100% at the time he was being stabbed. (i'm a gunshot first person in this case.) i just don't know why it matters when it comes to deciding the cruelty of the crime.

also, could it be that the ME is sticking the 'gunshot last' for this reason? that the DA WANTS that wound to have been first?

Sorry, I missed that. To add to what MInor4th stated, IMO, the defense's gunshot first theory claims that Travis was already dead or knocked out by the gunshot so he did not experience the prolonged stabbing and almost decapitation. I disagree because if he was shot first (which I believe), he still was able to try to get away, first to the sink and then down the hall and he probably was screaming at some point (as per jodi's ninja story). So either way, IMO it;s cruel. The judge determined that as well.

what did you make of Jodi's testimony? what would you attack in cross?

That's a huge question. I didn;t see that last hour but what I saw, wow. So much to process (as Minor4th said).

But I know this: I cannot compare to Juan. I;m not a criminal law attorney and I lack his expertise in cross examination. My trials are piddly in comparison to a murder trial.

However, I think I would focus on rebuttal witnesses to show what a liar she is. Also, I would underscore the ridiculousness of things she said (like she was beaten by her parents yet really, it was the being grounded that really angered her and overall, the did an incredible amount of things for her) and draw out the things she stated that her team wished she hadn't. Like her stalking behavior of ex boyfriends and how her parents had a good relationship (not abusive which is the fodder for most domestic violence victims who become victims after witnessing such behavior).

By Jodi's testimony so far would you say the jury is leaning toward the self defense theory or pre meditated murder?

I have no clue. I am not in their heads and after the casey anthony trial, I don't feel at all comfortable with trying to predict. However, I think analyzing their body language, note taking and facial expressions could be helpful and according to katiecoolady, few are taking notes and they do not seem sympathetic, for the most part.

 

[gitana1]

Do you guys think Juan knew she would take the stand?

As for cross: what can he address? Only her testimony?

I don't know if Juan knew. Based on their presentation, it would seem she would have had to testify but casey anthony did not and with just an inference of abuse, they got her off.

Of course here, Travis is dead so they couldn't question him as a hostile witness as they did with George Anthony, and get their allegations out that way. So it's a bit different.

he can only address things relating to her testimony. Yes.

 

[here_now12]

The one thing that struck me before Jodi's testimony even began was that she was sworn in.

Now our legal system is different, that's why this struck me so much. Here in Germany defendants when they testify in a trial are never sworn in, and in fact the only person who is allowed to lie during trial proceedings without fear of legal repercussions is the defendant (of course it's not advisable to lie if the prosecution has solid evidence, but that's another story entirely).

I guess my question is that since she was sworn in, she can be committed of perjury, can she not? If the jury decides that she is guilty and did not act in self-defence, does that mean that she's automatically guilty of perjury because she claimed it was self-defence? Or is that matter more complicated than that and would require the prosecution to bring forth separate charges of perjury?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: I have a question, which may be a "dumb question" ... but here goes :

Can the prosecutor put witnesses on the stand to dispute Jodi's testimony -- now that she has testified ?

Can Mr. Martinez put on witnesses to refute all this bull testimony by Jodi that her parents "abused" her ?

THANKS !

 

[gitana1]

:seeya: I have a question, which may be a "dumb question" ... but here goes :

Can the prosecutor put "witnesses" on the stand to dispute Jodi's testimony -- now that she has testified ?

Can Mr. Martinez put on witnesses to refute all this bull testimony by Jodi that her parents "abused" her ?

THANKS !

That's a good question. And the answer is yes. They can and will do that during the rebuttal phase which will come after the defense rests.

 

[gitana1]

The one thing that struck me before Jodi's testimony even began was that she was sworn in.

Now our legal system is different, that's why this struck me so much. Here in Germany defendants when they testify in a trial are never sworn in, and in fact the only person who is allowed to lie during trial proceedings without fear of legal repercussions is the defendant (of course it's not advisable to lie if the prosecution has solid evidence, but that's another story entirely).

I guess my question is that since she was sworn in, she can be committed of perjury, can she not? If the jury decides that she is guilty and did not act in self-defence, does that mean that she's automatically guilty of perjury because she claimed it was self-defence? Or is that matter more complicated than that and would require the prosecution to bring forth separate charges of perjury?

Usually it's just not worth the time and expense of another prosecution. It is not automatic if a person is found guilty. Every crime alleged necessitates a trial.

 

[3trees]

If defense does not question or go into the details of the murder can the DA ask any questions about that or only about her, if they stick to the trend, abuses and boyfriends?

I think you answered this. so never mind. lol

 

[gitana1]

If defense does not question or go into the details of the murder can the DA ask any questions about that or only about her, if they stick to the trend, abuses and boyfriends?

I think you answered this. so never mind. lol

In cross examination, they cannot go outside the scope of what is asked in direct. However, I guarantee that they are going to discuss the murder.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

That's a good question. And the answer is yes. They can and will do that during the rebuttal phase which will come after the defense rests.

:tyou: Oops ... I forgot about "rebuttal" !

THANKS AGAIN ! I appreciate it !

:seeya:

 

[Nelliebell]

This is an off the wall question, I know but I am so bugged by JA's prim appearance and am wondering whether the state can inquire about her glasses? Assuming that if she had prescription glasses, that would be common knowledge at the jail that law enforcement could confirm. So if they are fake glasses, can the state ask her about them on cross?

 

[Gummishoe]

I know nothing about trials and laws, please forgive me if this question was answered. Can the State still call others to testify? I would really like to hear what her ex..boyfriends have to say.. :jail:

 

[nursebeeme]

question: do you think Arias will testify about the murder or can the defense put her on the stand just to testify to her relationship?

Since she did say in her testimony with "simply put, I killed him because I was defending myself" does that open her up murder questions in cross exam even if she didn't testify to specifics in direct?


One more: can the PA call rebuttal witnesses during his cross? (or does that wait for rebuttal?)

 

[Chester_from_THM]

Is it common for the defendant to look at the jury when answering the questions?

I know expert witnesses do it, but 'normal' laypeople I've seen testify look at the questioner, the lawyer.

I wonder if that will backfire on her? I predict when Juan gets ahold of her, she will not have the composure to look at the jury and then this will seem fakey and practiced.

Just wonder what lawyers think also of all this stretching out of her testimony.

Also was wondering if there was a sidebar at the beginning of her testimony, where the judge said she was going to allow the defense "a lot of leeway" (as they say on Law & Order) to cover all this history and that Juan should not object to every question, as the judge was going to allow most of it.

Does that kind of thing really happen?

 

[nursebeeme]

Do you guys think the jury is buying her lies?

 

[minor4th]

This is an off the wall question, I know but I am so bugged by JA's prim appearance and am wondering whether the state can inquire about her glasses? Assuming that if she had prescription glasses, that would be common knowledge at the jail that law enforcement could confirm. So if they are fake glasses, can the state ask her about them on cross?

In theory yes the state could inquire about her glasses but not likely that they will because they don't know what her answer would be.

 

[minor4th]

I know nothing about trials and laws, please forgive me if this question was answered. Can the State still call others to testify? I would really like to hear what her ex..boyfriends have to say.. :jail:

Yes, the state can call rebuttal witnesses to address the evidence brought up by the defense.

Again, not likely the ex boyfriends would be good witnesses for the state, especially if they are sympathetic at all to Jodi or scared of her.

 

[minor4th]

Is it common for the defendant to look at the jury when answering the questions?

I know expert witnesses do it, but 'normal' laypeople I've seen testify look at the questioner, the lawyer.

I wonder if that will backfire on her? I predict when Juan gets ahold of her, she will not have the composure to look at the jury and then this will seem fakey and practiced.

Just wonder what lawyers think also of all this stretching out of her testimony.

Also was wondering if there was a sidebar at the beginning of her testimony, where the judge said she was going to allow the defense "a lot of leeway" (as they say on Law & Order) to cover all this history and that Juan should not object to every question, as the judge was going to allow most of it.

Does that kind of thing really happen?

I think it is pretty clear that the judge is allowing the defense a lot of leeway. She has overruled Juan's objections to relevance and probably has indicated in a sidebar how much leeway she is willing to give. There's really nothing Juan can do about it -- he's not perserving points for appeal, he is just trying to get certain evidence excluded so it doesn't have too much impact on the jury. There's no point in making a bunch of objections that the judge is going to overrule.

She has probably been instructed by her attorneys to look at the jury when answering questions. It is an attempt to make a connection with the jury and also to show some respect to them as the deciders of her fate. It could also give her some credibility if she is able to look them in the eye while saying what she's saying. I don't think it will backfire.

 

[minor4th]

Do you guys think the jury is buying her lies?

Maybe, but ultimately I don't think it will matter when it comes to guilt/innocence. It may help her with the penalty determination.

 

[minor4th]

question: do you think Arias will testify about the murder or can the defense put her on the stand just to testify to her relationship?

Since she did say in her testimony with "simply put, I killed him because I was defending myself" does that open her up murder questions in cross exam even if she didn't testify to specifics in direct?


One more: can the PA call rebuttal witnesses during his cross? (or does that wait for rebuttal?)

Yes, she will have to testify about the murder. I think her attorneys will get into this with her this afternoon.

If they don't, Juan will get into on cross and could even call her as a witness for his rebuttal.