Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[AZlawyer]

Sorry, but one more question. Can Jodi remain unresponsive and crying through the testimony regarding the murder itself?

The judge will not let her sit there crying for long in front of the jury. She will have to get herself under control enough to answer questions at least. If she is uncontrollably sobbing, the judge will call a break.

 

[Lulu67]

That was bonkers!! I sooo hope and pray that she slips up and admits her stabbing him. This psychotic loon needs to never walk the streets again.

JM is so slick! Love him!

 

[Lulu67]

And her "tears"......does anyone know if TA's family was crying when JM put the picture up of his body in the shower? I just wonder if she was mirroring them.....since she doesn't seem to be able to conjure up actual emotions, she watches how OTHER people react.

This demon is the stuff of nightmares and horror movies.

 

[ClosArgs]

Sorry for being such a novice here, but would they halt the trial temporarily for a hearing to determine whether the witness providing new information meets the criteria you mentioned (fair to defense, etc...) or would both sides just present written arguments and judge makes ruling. This is the first time I'm seeing a defendent testify, and the PA doesn't really know in advance through a deposition what she plans to testify to, does he?

 

[tisamystery]

Uh-un, no. You can't climb up on a single shelf with one foot and no further support for balance. I've tried it. It throws your center of gravity off. Cannot be done.

 

[tracyt]

1. Yes, the experts are paid - that goes for state experts too. No point in pointing it out that defense experts are paid when the same goes for the state's experts.

2. He can't bring up psychological diagnoses per se because he does not have an expert who has diagnosed her (as far as I know). The particular diagnosis is not really important anyway - it's the behaviors themselves that are compelling, and yes he can talk about all those behaviors.

When questioning the defense experts, he can certainly present them with information that might change their opinions -- he can even present "hypotheticals" to the experts in order to get information in the jury's minds.

3. Prosecution gets the last word.

Thank you!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry for being such a novice here, but would they halt the trial temporarily for a hearing to determine whether the witness providing new information meets the criteria you mentioned (fair to defense, etc...) or would both sides just present written arguments and judge makes ruling. This is the first time I'm seeing a defendent testify, and the PA doesn't really know in advance through a deposition what she plans to testify to, does he?

No, at this stage they would just argue it in court (not in front of the jury and possibly in chambers instead of sidebar).

Juan has known what her defenses are for a long time, and he just heard her testify at great length on direct, so he knows what she plans to testify to, yes.

 

[Nali87]

Hallo! In Dutch law, you're allowed to "overkill" in self defense. Basically when you're defending yourself but you go too far because of your emotional state, you can still claim self defense. Is that the case as well in the USA?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hallo! In Dutch law, you're allowed to "overkill" in self defense. Basically when you're defending yourself but you go too far because of your emotional state, you can still claim self defense. Is that the case as well in the USA?

Um, no.

 

[anagrammy]

I'm new, so forgive me if this is in the wrong place.

I have seen the dark photos taken from the camera and sleuthers have lightened them. Is there someplace on WS I can see all the pictures made visible with software?

Thanks!

 

[kaRN]

JA has testified that she removed the gun from TA's house and disposed of it in the desert. She was given ample opportunity to admit it was a gun she brought from Yreka and denied that was the case.
Does she meet the criteria for felony murder based on her removing (stealing) the gun she alleges was TA's even though in reality it may have not been?

Thanks in advance!

 

[kaRN]

This question is kinda embarassing because it took me until days after the state rested to even notice it, but I'll go ahead and ask it anyway.

Is it standard procedure (in the US in general, or in AZ specifically) that the investigating detective is sitting with the prosecution?

I honestly didn't consciously notice Flores' presence outside of his testimony for a long while, but it seems somewhat strange to me that he is there for the entire trial. Of course, the work of police and prosecution go hand in hand in bringing criminals to trial, but from a mere practical point of view it seems strange to me. I mean, as long as he's attending trial, he pretty much can't do his regular job as a detective, at least not to the degree that I'd say he normally does.

So is this standard procedure in murder trials?

I'm not a lawyer but FYI, LE does sit with the Crown Attorneys in criminal cases in Canada.

 

[nursebeeme]

What would you rebut? Discuss rebuttal here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

fyi: esteemed verified lawyers: here is a thread for the rebuttal phase (hoping you all can weigh in/give your thoughts on what will be included)

 

[FairWorld]

Casey Anthony seemed to seize every chance to smile during court proceedings.

The person who murdered Travis has done a whole lot of smiling in TV interviews etcetera. She has also frequently acted as if she is crying: mostly it has been just cases of speaking with whiny voice while handling a kleenex and wiping imaginary tears; occasionally she truly cries, but it's unlikely to be for Travis--in 5 years she doesn't seem to have had any tears for Travis himself. Chances are that a lot more whining and/or crying is forthcoming.

Is it true that juries are less likely to convict a perp whom they see smile and/or cry?
if so, do they tend to pay attention to context of smiling or tears, or do they respond positively to smiles/tears regardless?

 

[AZlawyer]

JA has testified that she removed the gun from TA's house and disposed of it in the desert. She was given ample opportunity to admit it was a gun she brought from Yreka and denied that was the case.
Does she meet the criteria for felony murder based on her removing (stealing) the gun she alleges was TA's even though in reality it may have not been?

Thanks in advance!

The felony murder charge is not based on the theft of the gun. It is based upon second-degree burglary at Travis's house--basically entering or remaining in his home with unlawful purpose.

 

[AZlawyer]

Casey Anthony seemed to seize every chance to smile during court proceedings.

The person who murdered Travis has done a whole lot of smiling in TV interviews etcetera. She has also frequently acted as if she is crying: mostly it has been just cases of speaking with whiny voice while handling a kleenex and wiping imaginary tears; occasionally she truly cries, but it's unlikely to be for Travis--in 5 years she doesn't seem to have had any tears for Travis himself. Chances are that a lot more whining and/or crying is forthcoming.

Is it true that juries are less likely to convict a perp whom they see smile and/or cry?
if so, do they tend to pay attention to context of smiling or tears, or do they respond positively to smiles/tears regardless?

I'm not aware of any actual study on this issue. Defense attorneys think it humanizes their clients to have them act...well...human in front of the jury. Juries are just made up of normal people, so depending on the group of normal people you get their reactions may differ. Obviously normal humans tend to react differently to fake smiles/tears than to real smiles/tears.

 

[nursebeeme]

question: if you were to call arias as a rebuttal witness what would you have her rebut?

(could you point out lies on the stand between testimony during direct and cross?)

 

[SCSam]

Does any of our illustrious legal team remember what was going on when sealed conference with judge on 2/20 that led to yesterday's media request to unseal??

 

[Nosey Parker]

I understand it's normal and acceptable procedure for the defence to coach their witnesses prior to testifying. Do you think Nurmi and Wilmott coached Arias to be combative with the prosecutor? It seems counter-productive to their 'victim of DV theory. If they didn't, and in fact lost control of their client on the stand, why would Nurmi be grinning when she challenged Martinez? Are those responses by Nurmi acceptable to the court?

Arias also looked to the defence table for non-verbal guidance at times. Can they coach her from the table?

 

[Jax49]

After Nurmi finishes re-direct of JA does JM get to re-cross? I would think so, but someone stated that in Arizona there is no re-cross. TIA