Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[elmomom]

11/27/2012 REL - Reply - Party (001) 11/28/2012
NOTE: REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO STATE’S NOTICE REGARDING REVIEW OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL
11/27/2012 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 11/28/2012
NOTE: REGARDING REVIEW OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL
11/26/2012 RES - Response - Party (001) 11/26/2012
NOTE: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S NOTICE REGARDING REVIEW OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL
11/21/2012 005 - ME: Hearing - Party (001) 11/21/2012

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CR2008
-
031021
-
001 DT
11/19/2012
Docket Code 005
Form R000D
Page
2
IT IS ORDERED State shall have the Detective take the State’s hard drive to Defense counsel to review at 10:00 a.m. on November 20, 2012.

12/4 Minutes:

Counsel for the Defendant makes an oral Motion for an ex parte sealed hearing regarding the computer hard drive.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion.


Can you tell me what was sealed in this motion? Lots of folks believe that Jodi's computer hard drive was ruled to be not admitted as evidence, do any if our legal observers know if that is true? Thanks!:seeya:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ another question for you.

If defense counsel attempts a plea bargain with the state (in this case 2nd degree murder which was refused), does defense counsel have to tell the state why? For example, would the defense counsel in this case have to have told the state our client will plead guilty to 2nd degree murder because she was a victim of DV?

If the defense doesn't tell the state why the state should accept the plea, then the state is very unlikely to do so.

Also, the judge has to have some set of facts available under which the plea makes sense in order to accept the plea.

Here is the way Mr. Nurmi tried to explain to the court why the state should accept a plea of second degree murder:

http:///wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Plea-Bargain-document-2011-Jodi-Arias-Is-Innocent-com.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

11/27/2012 REL - Reply - Party (001) 11/28/2012
NOTE: REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO STATE’S NOTICE REGARDING REVIEW OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL
11/27/2012 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 11/28/2012
NOTE: REGARDING REVIEW OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL
11/26/2012 RES - Response - Party (001) 11/26/2012
NOTE: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S NOTICE REGARDING REVIEW OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL
11/21/2012 005 - ME: Hearing - Party (001) 11/21/2012

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CR2008
-
031021
-
001 DT
11/19/2012
Docket Code 005
Form R000D
Page
2
IT IS ORDERED State shall have the Detective take the State’s hard drive to Defense counsel to review at 10:00 a.m. on November 20, 2012.

12/4 Minutes:

Counsel for the Defendant makes an oral Motion for an ex parte sealed hearing regarding the computer hard drive.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion.


Can you tell me what was sealed in this motion? Lots of folks believe that Jodi's computer hard drive was ruled to be not admitted as evidence, do any if our legal observers know if that is true? Thanks!:seeya:

It looks like the hearing regarding the hard drive (audio and transcript) was sealed. This has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence will be admitted.

A whole computer hard drive could never be admitted as evidence. But things found on the hard drive certainly could be admitted, as long as they meet all the requirements of the rules of evidence.

 

[Isabelle]

Can the witness approaching and interacting with a family member cause a mistrial?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can the witness approaching and interacting with a family member cause a mistrial?

No.

 

[MeeBee]

So if the State's expert finds that Jodi possibly has a personality disorder or that she is malingering, will she talk about these findings? Do you expect the DT to try and bar her from speaking about these findings? Thanks

 

[tlcya]

this is only somewhat a joking question and in part a serious one.

How long can this go on? I had never heard of jury questioning witnesses before and have no clue about this sort of system. It seems that one side questions their witness, then the other side does, then the jury does, then more redirect, then more rebutal then more questions. Is there an end to it?

How much longer can this trial actually last??

 

[luv]

If Jodi is found guilty, does she have to wear prison clothes for the sentencing phase?

 

[pinkfairy]

I was wondering what types of issues Dr. DeMarte will testify to. Is she there to debunk or bring a new perspective?

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Will ALV face anything in court tomorrow regarding her actions on Thursday of approaching and speaking to Samantha?

Is it illegal for a defense witness to approach a member of the victim's family?

 

[AZlawyer]

Will ALV face anything in court tomorrow regarding her actions on Thursday of approaching and speaking to Samantha?

Is it illegal for a defense witness to approach a member of the victim's family?

I've answered the "is it illegal" question a couple of times--scroll back a bit.

If the judge instructs her not to speak to the victim's family, IMO this will not be done in open court and we will not know about it. In fact, it was probably done right after court on Thursday.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was wondering what types of issues Dr. DeMarte will testify to. Is she there to debunk or bring a new perspective?

To debunk, I would think.

 

[AZlawyer]

If Jodi is found guilty, does she have to wear prison clothes for the sentencing phase?

You know what, that's a good question and I have absolutely no clue.

 

[AZlawyer]

this is only somewhat a joking question and in part a serious one.

How long can this go on? I had never heard of jury questioning witnesses before and have no clue about this sort of system. It seems that one side questions their witness, then the other side does, then the jury does, then more redirect, then more rebutal then more questions. Is there an end to it?

How much longer can this trial actually last??

It will last until all the evidence is presented and the jury has no more questions that satisfy the evidentiary rules. But we are getting very near the end--rebuttal should be comparatively short (maybe 5 days?).

 

[AZlawyer]

So if the State's expert finds that Jodi possibly has a personality disorder or that she is malingering, will she talk about these findings? Do you expect the DT to try and bar her from speaking about these findings? Thanks

Well, she can testify that she disagrees with the PTSD as an explanation for the "fog," and that faking it is certainly an alternative explanation. IMO she would not be able to testify about any personality disorder--how could that be relevant?

 

[MeeBee]

Well, she can testify that she disagrees with the PTSD as an explanation for the "fog," and that faking it is certainly an alternative explanation. IMO she would not be able to testify about any personality disorder--how could that be relevant?

IDK, I thought she was allowed to diagnose JA as RS did. And I read there are tests that can be done for malingering. But I understand now. She can only testify to rebut Dr. Samuels' findings. Thanks for answering.

My question: have you ever seen a defense attorney behave in the manner Jennifer Wilmott has?

 

[sdmike1974]

I'm wondering at this point in the trial about proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 jurors. (My hope is JM will connect the dots during closing arguments.)

But my concern so far is based on much of the evidence about premeditation being more conjecture than circumstantial. (Hope this doesn't sound like a distinction without a difference.)

For example, a single juror could convince themselves that they have reasonable doubt about the following evidence:

1. That Jodi actually stole the gun from her grandparents' house.
2. That she borrowed the gas cans to conceal her travels to Mesa.
3. That her cell phone battery really did go dead on the trip and that she couldn't find the charger as she testified.
4. That the skateboarders were really the ones who altered the license plates on her rental car.
5. That she drove 90 miles to rent a 'non-red' car to save money on rental fees.

Some of these seem preposterous to most of us. Plus when I look at the totality of the evidence I'm voting for premeditation.

But what about a juror who for whatever reason thinks second degree murder is a more just sentence and is looking for ways to validate their belief?

Is my concern justified? Or am I totally off base? What do the 'verified attorneys' think?

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm wondering at this point in the trial about proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 jurors. (My hope is JM will connect the dots during closing arguments.)

But my concern so far is based on much of the evidence about premeditation being more conjecture than circumstantial. (Hope this doesn't sound like a distinction without a difference.)

For example, a single juror could convince themselves that they have reasonable doubt about the following evidence:

1. That Jodi actually stole the gun from her grandparents' house.
2. That she borrowed the gas cans to conceal her travels to Mesa.
3. That her cell phone battery really did go dead on the trip and that she couldn't find the charger as she testified.
4. That the skateboarders were really the ones who altered the license plates on her rental car.
5. That she drove 90 miles to rent a 'non-red' car to save money on rental fees.

Some of these seem preposterous to most of us. Plus when I look at the totality of the evidence I'm voting for premeditation.

But what about a juror who for whatever reason thinks second degree murder is a more just sentence and is looking for ways to validate their belief?

Is my concern justified? Or am I totally off base? What do the 'verified attorneys' think?

I think the evidence is sufficient to convict her of 1st-degree murder. But I will not be stunned if she is convicted of a lesser-included offense.

 

[AZlawyer]

IDK, I thought she was allowed to diagnose JA as RS did. And I read there are tests that can be done for malingering. But I understand now. She can only testify to rebut Dr. Samuels' findings. Thanks for answering.

My question: have you ever seen a defense attorney behave in the manner Jennifer Wilmott has?

If she has a diagnosis, it would have to be relevant. The PTSD diagnosis is relevant to whether the "fog" is real. Of what relevance would a personality disorder diagnosis be?

Your other question is much harder. My short answer is "yes." My longer answer is that I wish the personal styles of the attorneys would not be called "behavior." I wouldn't personally adopt her style--I don't think it's effective.

 

[MeeBee]

If she has a diagnosis, it would have to be relevant. The PTSD diagnosis is relevant to whether the "fog" is real. Of what relevance would a personality disorder diagnosis be?

Your other question is much harder. My short answer is "yes." My longer answer is that I wish the personal styles of the attorneys would not be called "behavior." I wouldn't personally adopt her style--I don't think it's effective.

I already said I understand what you're saying. RS already said he may have found that she had one but didn't explore it. If the state's witness also found this through testing and did explore it, she wouldn't talk about it because it isn't relevant to the defense's findings. That was my understanding of your question of how it would be relevant. I thought any diagnosis she made would be relevant, especially a personality disorder (psychopath) since they can tend to be remorseless killers. If I am wrong, you can simply let me know. I am not a lawyer. That's why I'm asking you.

My last question was really just so my response wouldn't be deleted. If the word behavior offends you, I won't use it anymore.