Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[Kel2000]

It also seems like she was interpreting the context as Travis had been abusive to other women, but exceprts I have read make no such mention of that word, just that Jodi would become his next victim (he was a known player). So, I expect Juan to point this out, that the word abusive was never used and that she's just projecting?

The defense expert using the word "abusive" is something I am curious about as well. She kept saying "said" when she was referring to the email, which if I'm understanding correctly was objected to as it implied that she was quoting the email, and that was something she wasn't allowed to do. However, it still became confusing listening to her testimony what she was paraphrasing and what was actually said in the email, especially with regard to that word "abusive". Can Martinez utilize the actual language of the email to show that it never said "abusive" (if it did not) to counter the defense expert's testimony even though it's not admissible evidence? If so, would he most likely do that on cross or in his rebuttal?

Also, is there a reason the judge didn't pre-emptively give some kind of instruction to the jury prior to that specific line of questioning explaining the use of inadmissible hearsay evidence being allowed for expert witness testimony?

 

[AZlawyer]

The defense expert using the word "abusive" is something I am curious about as well. She kept saying "said" when she was referring to the email, which if I'm understanding correctly was objected to as it implied that she was quoting the email, and that was something she wasn't allowed to do. However, it still became confusing listening to her testimony what she was paraphrasing and what was actually said in the email, especially with regard to that word "abusive". Can Martinez utilize the actual language of the email to show that it never said "abusive" (if it did not) to counter the defense expert's testimony even though it's not admissible evidence? If so, would he most likely do that on cross or in his rebuttal?

Also, is there a reason the judge didn't pre-emptively give some kind of instruction to the jury prior to that specific line of questioning explaining the use of inadmissible hearsay evidence being allowed for expert witness testimony?

It might have been a good idea for the judge to give an instruction like that, actually. I've never thought to ask for such an instruction, but it might help avoid any confusion.

JM could point out on cross (if this is true) that "abusive" was her own spin and not stated in the email. He could also bring the author of the email in on rebuttal to explain what the email meant.

 

[AZlawyer]

I haven't seen any comment about the whole misconduct hearing on Thursday. Here is my take on it:

I think the point is that nobody wants there to be even a hint of impropriety. The defense will jump on anything that even hints of misconduct. There has already been several accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. Why give them ammunition?

The bottom line is that this trial is about the brutal murder of Travis Alexander. The side shows, groupies, fans, .... whatever you want to call them, need to back off and let him finish his job. Looky loos wanting their fifteen minutes of fame via a picture or whatever need to wait until it is over! Then have at it for all I care. I just don't want to see it jeopardize the case in any way.

If I were Travis' family I would be pissed that this is going on. I mean, imagine how they feel? People who have no business injecting themselves into this case causing problems. It is their brother! This trial has been going on for a long time. Day in and day out they have to sit there and listen to the BS going on inside the courtroom. They shouldn't have to be subjected to the BS going on outside of the courtroom. People need to have some respect for this family, and just knock it off!

I do not blame JM at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these ignorant people chasing him around should be ashamed of themselves. He is doing the right thing by avoiding the circus at all costs.


My question to the legal experts,,,,, What is your opinion?

Unfortunately, with a non-sequestered jury, I think JM's fans will have to keep things low-key from now on. Frankly, I don't think a situation like this would sway a juror, but why create issues?

 

[AZlawyer]

If the verdict watch tweets say 30 minutes to verdict whle I am sktting at the Acura stage at the New Orleans jazz festival after partying all day and not having access to my mIRC WS chatroom or threads,, I am gonna ....well, lightening cannot nit twice as I was at an island at a waterpark when I was nified of verdict watch alert with the FCA trial! Lol, and we had set up a pnone call chain for our Aussie friend and I could not call her on the lake to wake SammieJam up! Luckily, during the trial I had shared phone numbers with another that called Australia to wake her up as texts or tweets don't wake up our worldwide friends! Thank goodness Skype was so well used in those days and we could call landlines for free back then!

On nook, so lots of mispells, sorry

Uh oh, just recalled this is the legal q&a thread...so...lemme ask legal ?, If guily, no, when guilty, what are next timings? Think I have the nist of what happens next, but what is timing for each stage and who do you think may be character witnesses for her. MM lol! Gus, lol, . And for victim impact, can it ONLY be family?

Normally in AZ the aggravation/penalty phase starts right away or very soon after the verdict (assuming a verdict of guilty for first-degree murder).

If we get to that point, I'm sure she will put everyone on the stand who is willing to take the stand to say basically anything nice about her at all.

 

[minor4th]

Do you feel the judge should have stepped in? It also seems like she was interpreting the context as Travis had been abusive to other women, but exceprts I have read make no such mention of that word, just that Jodi would become his next victim (he was a known player). So, I expect Juan to point this out, that the word abusive was never used and that she's just projecting?

We don't know exactly what the emails say, so it's possible the word "abusive" was used. It's also possible that it's just the witness' interpretation of a couple of emails without the full context (kind of like Lisa's email that was also not admitted as evidence).

I fully expect Juan to deal with this on cross examination and rebuttal.

But think about it - it doesn't really matter if the Hughes said he was abusive. I think it's clear enough from the context (or it will be) that what was meant is that Travis wasn't treating Jodi very well, and I think there's some credible evidence that he really didn't treat Jodi too well at times -- but that's not the same as a pattern physical or sexual assault, which is what is required for for self defense in a "battered woman" defense. There has been nothing so far that could have led Jodi to have reasonably feared for her life on June 4.

ETA: the judge can't really step in and intervene unless there's a request from Juan. If I had to guess, I'd say that during the side bars the judge DID instruct Wilmott to limit the hearsay testimony, but Wilmott still tried to sneak it in under a cloak of "summarizing" or "paraphrasing." I personally think on this issue the judge could have ruled with a heavier hand, but I honestly don't think it will make any difference in the end because there are 10 different ways to rebut Alyce's testimony and this jury seems to be pretty on the ball and not easily fooled.

 

[MeeBee]

We don't know exactly what the emails say, so it's possible the word "abusive" was used. It's also possible that it's just the witness' interpretation of a couple of emails without the full context (kind of like Lisa's email that was also not admitted as evidence).

I fully expect Juan to deal with this on cross examination and rebuttal.

But think about it - it doesn't really matter if the Hughes said he was abusive. I think it's clear enough from the context (or it will be) that what was meant is that Travis wasn't treating Jodi very well, and I think there's some credible evidence that he really didn't treat Jodi too well at times -- but that's not the same as a pattern physical or sexual assault, which is what is required for for self defense in a "battered woman" defense. There has been nothing so far that could have led Jodi to have reasonably feared for her life on June 4.

ETA: the judge can't really step in and intervene unless there's a request from Juan. If I had to guess, I'd say that during the side bars the judge DID instruct Wilmott to limit the hearsay testimony, but Wilmott still tried to sneak it in under a cloak of "summarizing" or "paraphrasing." I personally think on this issue the judge could have ruled with a heavier hand, but I honestly don't think it will make any difference in the end because there are 10 different ways to rebut Alyce's testimony and this jury seems to be pretty on the ball and not easily fooled.

That was it, that he was mean to Jodi at times. But I think he only started acting that way after they broke up and she wouldn't take a hint. When they were together he seemed nice enough. Perhaps the other parts of the email are him lamenting and feeling bad for his behavior. He does say, "I am a bit of a sociopath." We'll see. I agree about the jury. Sure they are aware by now that they don't usually get the full story until Juan does his cross.

Thanks Minor.

 

[MagicRose99]

I don't believe so. She committed the crime in Arizona, and Arizona will be responsible for her. I cannot imagine California accepting responsibility, and I don't even know if California has the death penalty (if that is what her sentence is).

California prisons are overcrowded as it is. I can't see Gov Brown granting a convicted murderer a priveledge like that.

(and yes, California does have the death penalty)

 

[Iz?s#1Mom]

IMO I think the state proved their case and then some. As I watch the trial, I find myself slightly amused that in the past it is usually the state that really isn't up to par and the defense that is the dream team. And then I feel very sickened that the DT is being paid like they are a dream team. And then I feel that any Public Servant should get applause and accolades because they are keeping our society safe. I see no issue with pictures or autographs. It is the court's responsibility to keep the jurors on task and away from prying eyes to and from the courhouse.

My question is this: Why would the DT not have used insanity or crime of passion? I know this is due to JA thinking she is smart enough to outsmart the sane people, but can she use this in appeal saying she had ineffective counsel? IMO, she is crazy, but not in the sense of it impeding her ability to know right from wrong. She is pure evil crazy.

Second ? I can't remember the man's name who testified on the phone, and he said that he had watched DR Drew before his testimony because he didn't know that he was not supposed to. The look on the poor JS's face was priceless. What became of that?

Third: If this is costing this much money and is televised are any of the channels having to pay the court any of their proceeds for their commercial's etc? If not, wouldn't that be an idea to help off-set the cost of this trial?

Thanks for all the opinions! :rocker:

 

[Midnight Rambler]

There seems to be quite a few people including myself that suspect that MM has information that could be very valuable to this case. A lot of speculation as well as to his status. Are witness lists available to the public? If he is in some sort of witness protection program as I have seen posted a few times here, please explain how that works. I always thought that the witness protection thing was to insure that a witness didn't end up sleeping with the fishes like Luca Brazi in The Godfather. This guy's name just keeps popping up.

 

[minor4th]

There seems to be quite a few people including myself that suspect that MM has information that could be very valuable to this case. A lot of speculation as well as to his status. Are witness lists available to the public? If he is in some sort of witness protection program as I have seen posted a few times here, please explain how that works. I always thought that the witness protection thing was to insure that a witness didn't end up sleeping with the fishes like Luca Brazi in The Godfather. This guy's name just keeps popping up.

Witness lists are public records once they are filed with the Court.

I cannot think of any reason Matt would be in witness protection -- certainly not in connection with this case or his potential testimony in this case. I don't know where that speculation came from.

 

[minor4th]

IMO I think the state proved their case and then some. As I watch the trial, I find myself slightly amused that in the past it is usually the state that really isn't up to par and the defense that is the dream team. And then I feel very sickened that the DT is being paid like they are a dream team. And then I feel that any Public Servant should get applause and accolades because they are keeping our society safe. I see no issue with pictures or autographs. It is the court's responsibility to keep the jurors on task and away from prying eyes to and from the courhouse.

My question is this: Why would the DT not have used insanity or crime of passion? I know this is due to JA thinking she is smart enough to outsmart the sane people, but can she use this in appeal saying she had ineffective counsel? IMO, she is crazy, but not in the sense of it impeding her ability to know right from wrong. She is pure evil crazy.

Second ? I can't remember the man's name who testified on the phone, and he said that he had watched DR Drew before his testimony because he didn't know that he was not supposed to. The look on the poor JS's face was priceless. What became of that?

Third: If this is costing this much money and is televised are any of the channels having to pay the court any of their proceeds for their commercial's etc? If not, wouldn't that be an idea to help off-set the cost of this trial?

Thanks for all the opinions! :rocker:

1. The defense attorneys have to work with what Jodi gives them. If she came up with the self defense story -- they can't tell her to falsely claim that it was insanity or heat of passion.

2. Nothing came of it. He wasn't prohibited from watching media coverage.

3. I don't believe the court can take money from a network's proceeds from commercials. The county has a budget that pays all of these expenses. I doubt there will be a tax increase because of this trial. The state governor also has a discretionary budget that could be tapped if necessary. These expenses are planned for in the budget though.

 

[Novice Seeker]

If an objection is sustained but the witness has already given an answer or partial answer, whoever made the objection can ask that the answer be disregarded -- at times the judge has given this instruction when requested. If that request is not made, it's probably because it's not something too important.

I instruct witnesses to quit talking if either lawyer stands to make an objection and wait for a ruling. There's no reason to wait 2 seconds before answering, but it's important to zip it when one of the attorneys stands to make an objection and then wait for a ruling before answering.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing attorneys and their clients expert witness's playing games with objection type questions/answers. I saw JB do this numerous times and recently JW. She asked a question that was mocking about Martinez and RS quickly responded while JM objected and the judge sustained. I watching JW grinning ear to ear during this encounter.

What's the point of making objections and a judge sustaining or overruling when attorneys like JB and JW are purposely bringing in material that they know would be disallowed by the judge?

 

[minor4th]

Unfortunately, I'm seeing attorneys and their clients expert witness's playing games with objection type questions/answers. I saw JB do this numerous times and recently JW. She asked a question that was mocking about Martinez and RS quickly responded while JM objected and the judge sustained. I watching JW grinning ear to ear during this encounter.

What's the point of making objections and a judge sustaining or overruling when attorneys like JB and JW are purposely bringing in material that they know would be disallowed by the judge?

You're right, Samuels did at times seem to try to get his answer in real quick after an objection. I believe the judge cautioned him to quit talking when there was an objection. Clearly Wilmott should have instructed her witnesses about this - and Samuels, being an expert already knows this, so it's just sneaky and playing dirty.

 

[Angelina Frost]

Minor, if you wouldn't mind- I swear I feel dumber than I did a month ago.

Self defense for all intent and purpose been abandoned. Has there been any evidence to support a 2nd degree instruction? I'm really not understanding this at all now...crime of passion, I understand that in a general sense, but I'm not seeing it in this case.

In your view, the DT is expecting the jury to give 2nd degree despite the massive overkill because the defendant was abused and snapped? They truly believe the physical evidence supports that? How would 29 stab wounds and a near decapitation fit into 2nd degree?

TIA.

 

[minor4th]

Minor, if you wouldn't mind- I swear I feel dumber than I did a month ago.

Self defense for all intent and purpose been abandoned. Has there been any evidence to support a 2nd degree instruction? I'm really not understanding this at all now...crime of passion, I understand that in a general sense, but I'm not seeing it in this case.

In your view, the DT is expecting the jury to give 2nd degree despite the massive overkill because the defendant was abused and snapped? They truly believe the physical evidence supports that? How would 29 stab wounds and a near decapitation fit into 2nd degree?

TIA.

Don't feel dumb because even as a lawyer I didn't know what 2nd degree murder encompasses in Arizona until AZLawyer explained it. Apparently in AZ, a reckless disregard for life can support a 2nd degree murder charge -- so yes, I think there has been evidence (Jodi's testimony) that would support giving the jury that instruction. Jodi said she pointed a gun at Travis to stop him but didn't mean to pull the trigger -- that could be the kind of reckless disregard of Murder 2. Then she testifies that Travis got so angry AFTER she shot him ....so the whole escalation was never intended, according to Jodi, because she never meant to shoot him in the first place.

Here and there she throws in that she was afraid for her life because "he had almost killed her before" so there's your self defense claim I guess.

 

[Novice Seeker]

In the police interview tapes with Jodi, the female detective was trying to get Jodi to talk about what happened on the day Travis was killed. This detective kept providing scenarios and asking Jodi if that was what happened that day. Jodi started asking to view the photos and this female detective was going to show them to her although Det. Flores had already told Jodi NO.

After Jodi asks to talk to Det. Flores the female detective leaves the room. It's at this point that Jodi changes her story from "I was never there" to "2 Ninja type people were the killers". Jodi, IMO, got the idea for this new story from listening to that female detective discuss scenarios.

When questioning a suspect couldn't the line of questioning such as the female detective offered to Jodi run a high risk of influencing what the suspect is going to claim in their alibi and events/persons involved in the crime?

 

[AZlawyer]

In the police interview tapes with Jodi, the female detective was trying to get Jodi to talk about what happened on the day Travis was killed. This detective kept providing scenarios and asking Jodi if that was what happened that day. Jodi started asking to view the photos and this female detective was going to show them to her although Det. Flores had already told Jodi NO.

After Jodi asks to talk to Det. Flores the female detective leaves the room. It's at this point that Jodi changes her story from "I was never there" to "2 Ninja type people were the killers". Jodi, IMO, got the idea for this new story from listening to that female detective discuss scenarios.

When questioning a suspect couldn't the line of questioning such as the female detective offered to Jodi run a high risk of influencing what the suspect is going to claim in their alibi and events/persons involved in the crime?

Yes, definitely. The idea, I suppose, is that the suspect will realize you know more than they thought you did and will confess.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Yes, definitely. The idea, I suppose, is that the suspect will realize you know more than they thought you did and will confess.

As an attorney what are your thoughts about the methods such this female detective used? Could her interview tactics damage or hinder the judicial process?

After watching those interviews I believe that after Det. Flores had set the foundation based on all the evidence that she was the killer he directed his interview with her in a manner that was forcing Jodi to admit to what really happened during the murder.

After watching the interviews I've thought about how this case would have played out if that female detective had not provided a scenario for Jodi to utilize.

 

[Nova]

It is very hard to tell and I've never heard of an attorney being busted for it.
I beliEve it happens more than we would think in high profile cases. Attorneys can get a reputation for dirty pool playing.

Juan can certainly use the facts, the evidence and Jodi's inconsistencies and demeanor to come to such conclusions as you have listed, in closing.

The most extreme example I've seen came out of the David Westerfield case in San Diego. After the conviction, it came out that Westerfield had offered to take LE to his victim's body in return for taking the d.p. off the table. LE declined.

Westerfield's attorney was greatly criticized on the ground that he must have known his client was guilty because of the proffered offer.

The attorney wrote an editorial for the local paper in which he argued (a) people falsely confess to murders all the time, so (b) as long as the body was never recovered, (c) he (the attorney) had no way of knowing whether his client was telling the truth.

 

[Nova]

I don't do criminal law work at the trial court level, so that might be a waste of your one phone call.

Dude, I'll take my chances! Thanks again for all your hard work here.