Trapped with Ms. Arias
Section 10
How Was I Going to Save Ms. Arias' Life?
in Chap 49- L explains why I was still interested in saving the murderer's life (even tho' he didn't like her)
in Chap 50- L's plan to save her life
in Chap 51-
"the last few moments of peace...before the trial began"
===============================================
Chapter 49
Why Did I Fight For Ms. Arias Life?
L will address why he thinks DP was not appropriate for the murderer
"I truly believed that Ms. Arias did not deserve to be killed for her crime"
-
"something more specific than" his belief about the DP, which he opposes-
"willing to do what it took, within the bounds of my ethical duties, those ethical duties I have as a lawyer, to prevent this from happening" (pg. 285)
but, 1st issue:
"relates to Mr. Alexander and those who love him......
"I do not want anyone to think that by asserting my opinion that the death penalty was not an appropriate sanction for Ms. Arias that I somehow minimizing the killing of Mr. Alexander, his personal loss of life, or his suffering that his death caused his family and loved ones....the killing of Mr. Alexander was a horrible tragedy and those who cared about him, particularly his family have my sympathy for their loss" (pg. 285-286)
2nd issue:
L
"realizes" many people might think that the murderer
"should not" be sentenced to die
"inconceivable"- they might think
"that anyone who feels to the contrary must be either insane or they must be in love with Ms. Arias (perhaps both)"
L states that many people
"who do not like" the murderer
"who do not support what she did...still believe that she should not have been sentenced to death for her crime.. many ..share my general opposition to the" DP
"others might not share my firm opposition....also believe that " the murderer
"should not be sentenced to death"
why L feels that the murderer didn't deserve DP: (2 things)
1--in his mind- she
"did not meet the criteria for what a death penalty case should be....I saw inequity in the penalty that" the murderer
"was facing and the penalty being sought out against others who had committed similar if not more horrific acts"
L states on
"not meeting criteria"- DP case not typical case-
"the worst of the worst"- if every murder eligible for DP
"the death sentence becomes cruel and unusual punishment"
L explains
"atypical murder"- eg. several victims and victim is child- the murderer's murdering TA not
"fit the parameters..the murderer's crime and her personal history did not make her the worst of the worst"
2--
"the issue of disparity"- gives eg: (trials taking place same time murderer's case)
-man stabbed wife- about 27X- drove body to police station- turned himself in- man was not charged with 1st degree, but with 2nd degree- he pleaded guilty
- another about to be tried in Maricopa Co- Jerice Hunter- accused of killing her 5 yr old daughter Jhessye Shockley- beat the child, forced her to live in closet- little food- after she died- dumped her in landfill- when charged with murder, claimed someone kidnapped child and/or was missing...huge public search took place...marches- State charge 1st degree murder, but not DP
"Why? I do not know"
L states that those who research DP would say review social science research
"That research would tell me that Ms. Arias was facing the death penalty and Ms. Hunter was not because of the fact that Ms. Arias killed a white male and Ms. Hunter killed a black girl" (pg. 288)
same research- man who killed wife, stabbed her 27X, didn't face death
"because he killed a woman"
L states that (according to research)
"who the defendant kills is the most prominent correlating factor that determines whether prosecutors seek the death penalty..it is not who is as a person or their history but who they killed:
"Those most likely to face a death sentence are those who kill white males...the inherent racism of the death penalty provided an explanation for this disparity...my opinion was that this had little if anything to do with race and more to do with the notoriety that surrounded the case" (pg. 289)
L's opinion- that media attention already paid to case,
"motivated" State to seek DP for the murderer
L states that if DP not sought, attention to case wouldn've been that much- failure to obtain DP would "
be a huge public failure...public embarrassment for the prosecutor and could result in a decrease in the value of the prosecutor's potential book deal. I was of the opinion that once death was sought against Ms. Arias, unfair and improper tactics might very well be used against Ms. Arias so as to avoid such an embarrassment" (pg. 289)
"In this, I saw injustice...I'm not going to let Ms. Arias receive an unjust sentence of death, period...because a prosecutor, any prosecutor wanted fame or adulation...or allow a prosecutor to send a client, any client of mine, to death row when they didn't deserve to be there "
"In this regard, it did not matter to me that the way I had to do this would not reflect well on me. It did not matter that i did not like Ms. Arias. It did not matter that I did not believe everything Ms. Arias was saying only that she didn't deserve to be on death row. This belief would serve as my rock, my foundation. when the world, including Ms. Arias herself was against me." (pg. 289)
=================================
Chapter 50
What Was My Plan?
Fall, 2012- L
"collected and digested all the evidence from the case....had a theory...what happened June 4, 2008 and why it happened...had fairly good idea... what the State was going to argue....a virtual certainty that Ms. Arias would be convicted of First degree Murder ...that it would be unjust if my client were to wind up on death row.." (pg. 290)
L needed a plan
"How was I going to save the life of my self-destructive client....whose goal seemed to have nothing to do with her future or her life and everything to do with vilifying Mr. Alexander?"
L states that if he had
"complete control" and could have
" 'designed' " defense,
"it would have been much different"- the murderer would not have
"told the stories she told about " TA..
."In fact, she really would have no story to tell.. [she] would have sat silent during trial..never taken the stand....would not be in a position to make any accusations against Mr. Alexander"
L states that he would argue facts that demonstrated- killing done with no
"significant or any premeditation"- that murderer was really guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter (argument he explained in Chapter 47)
"My argument would have been based on the idea that even if she had arrived at Mr. Alexander's home with the intent on killing him this intent went away when she saw him and that her intent to kill did not come to life again until moments before she actually killed him, hence the argument for second degree murder or manslaughter" Work? - he did not know - all he had to work with
L states that he felt the jury would have been more
"open to the argument" if the murderer didn't make
"the accusations she made against" TA
if the murderer was convicted of 1st degree murder, at the sentencing part, his argue the murderer's lack of criminal history,
"dynamics of the relationship" with TA
L states that he thought that his
"tactics" would save the murderer's life
but the murderer had
"her own agenda"- he had to
"play by those rules...had to figure out how to save her life despite the story she was going to tell"
L explains:
- lawyer cannot stop client from testifying- 6th amendment- client could testify
"to anything they want and.... their lawyer cannot stop them...when a lawyer knows a client is perjuring themselves" lawyer can
"withdraw from the case"- requests are usually denied
"However, when this happens a defendant usually testifies in the form of a narrative and the attorney resumes representation after the client's testimony is complete. However, the one important caveat to this is that in order to have a basis to withdraw, the attorney must know that the client is perjuring himself or herself.... the lawyer cannot merely suspect that their client might be lying. Doubt about the truthfulness of the testimony is also not enough. Instead what is required is that the attorney must actually know via objective evidence that the client is perjuring himself or herself." (pg. 282)
L gives hypothetical:
-
"Frank.. is accused of armed robbery..holding up liquor store..wants to take stand ...say that at time of robbery, he was out of town visiting his mom at the nursing home..Mr. Brown (atty) uncovers a cell phone video given to him by one of Frank's friends...video shows Frank outside..liquor store wearing the same clothes described by..store manager who was held at gunpoint...video is date and time stamped....video recorded 5 minutes before the robbery"
-Frank's atty can
"move to withdraw" because Frank wants to lie on stand- if atty didn't have cell phone video and just felt that client
"was lying because Frank had a history of lying he could not withdraw. Under those circumstances "atty
"...would..be required to help Frank tell his story because he had no proof that it was not true" (pg. 282-283)
- another story:
- this time
"Frank" is charged 1st degree murder- State seeking DP
- he killed his uncle who was
"popular person in town..loved him..outraged surrounded his murder"
- Frank tells his atty that he did kill his uncle and he molested Frank as a child- he never told anyone
-Frank saw uncle talking to young boy at store and was enraged- grabbed gun and shot him
- Frank says
"I would do it again because I wanted to make sure he never touched another little boy like he touched me"
-atty has obligation to search for evidence, even if he didn't believe his client
"...let us say that" atty "finds no evidence whatsoever related to Frank's accusation....as time goes on" atty's
"disbelief grows" but
" has no actual proof that Frank is lying. A lawyer in " his
"position has to aid his client in telling his story....particularly true in a capital case"- if he doesn't, reversal of death sentence
"would be virtually automatic"
"
The accusations that Ms. Arias wanted to level against Mr. Alexander was completely irrelevant as it related to the job I had to perform. Even if I thought these accusations amounted to nothing more than lies designed to assault Mr. Alexander's good name, I had no choice but to pursue any evidence related to them."
L states that he
"was duty bound...to find any support for her claims and allow her to testify....I could not disprove them with actual evidence that proved these claims to be false...you [may] think these accusations are lies or perhaps it is more accurate to say that you 'know' that they are lies but the reality is there is no proof that these accusations were actually untruthful....your so-called knowledge is just your opinion.." (pg. 284)
L claims he had
" some evidence supporting her claims":
-he had 2 experts tell him that she had "symptoms related to PTSD
-he had 2 domestic violence experts tell him that she was a victim of domestic violence during relationship wth TA
-he had
"emails from the Hughes to TA about how he abused women"
-there were
"the comments from the Hughes made to Detective Flores about how they could see Mr. Alexander being physical with Ms. Arias"
-there were the sex tapes
"Now those of you who want to call me all sorts of names for supposedly calling Mr. Alexander a pedophile, something I never done, may not like facing a reminder of this particular fact."
L wants us to remember that TA reference 12 yr old girl having her 1st orgasm, "
corking the pot" of 12 yr old girl during convo with the murderer
"...how do I save my client's life, knowing that I have, in essence, assist her in making these assertions against" TA?
"her assertations will turn the whole jury against her [and me]?"
L stated he had to come up with strategy
"that would result in a life sentence...even if the jury and the entire world would wind up hating us both" (pg. 285)
L had a plan that
"might me look like a bad lawyer on worldwide television"
L states that plan worked-
"I have not yet received a thank you card from Ms. Arias or her family...[or] an apology from any of my critics in the media..I'm not holding my breath.."
L states that he knew experts testifying relied,
"at least in part", on what the murderer told them.
"I suspected that these opinions would not be received well....knew that Ms. Arias was going to take the stand and gleefully make these accusations against" TA
L stated that that he had 2 options:
-
"dive right into the fray merge whatever strategy I arrived at with Ms. Arias' claims..hope for the best"- didn't believe it would
"lead to a life sentence"
-
"alternative...do something unorthodox that might just save Ms. Arias' life"
The alternative:
"to run as far away from her story as I could while still presenting the viable aspects of her story to the jury...in terms if most of the witnesses...meant letting them present what Ms. Arias told them and the conclusions that they made from testing her or whatever means they used...letting the jury absorb the idea that there was at least some merit to Ms. Arias' assertations that she suffered from symptoms of trauma and that she was a victim of domestic violence without fully embracing her claims that Mr. Alexander had a sexual interest in children" ( pg. 288)
L states
"the plan"- to let Willmott handle witnesses
"as thought these claims were the key to the case when I thought otherwise..." the murderer's story
"would be embraced to some degree and I would be free to work on saving Ms. Arias' life"
L was to direct the murderer's testimony- to
"make sure it was done right..consistent with my plan to run away from her story as much as possible at the same time she was telling it...to let Ms. Arias articulate her defense while at the same time slipping in some facts about the relationship that Ms. Arias shared with Mr. Alexander that was undeniable..I thought that this process would provide the jury to either make some sort of connection with Ms. Arias or provide them with the opportunity to see she is not right in the head" and
" would be enough to cause at least one juror to spare Ms. Arias' life"
L states it
"is harder to kill someone with whom one is familiar with [but] might lead to contempt" risk he would have to take
another aspect of
"plan"- that JM would cross examine the murderer
"very aggressively"- the jury would feel sympathy for her
"risky" plan- not good for his
"personal reputation"- had to keep what he was doing to himself- thought it was the
"only way" the murderer
"was going to 'get out of this alive'...turned out that gamble paid off for her.....this would come at great personal cost to the good reputation I had built over the years....okay with me because it is not the lawyer's job to put their reputation above their client's life...will talk more about implementing this strategy in my next book " (pg.288)
L
"speculates about the questions you might have"
-- "
..what were the inevitable truths that I felt I needed to get out of Ms. Arias in order to employ my strategy while she was trying to advance her agenda? "
-sex-
"an undeniable truth that" TA and the murderer
" had an intense relationship..some call..kinky...[or] perverse..[or] normal but I don't see how anyone could quibble with the idea that it was intense...sex focal point...having all kinds of sex behind closed doors...unless Mr. Alexander truly loved Ms. Arias, he was using her for sex" the murderer
"was his 'booty call'. Even Sky Hughes referred to Ms. Arias in this manner"
"..in my mind, it was the an undeniable reality that whether Mr. Alexander loved Ms. Arias or hated her he was never going to commit to her, however, as evidenced by his actions, he was more than happy to have sex with her"
"Why was this important to show this undeniable reality in court?"- if the murderer
"failed to make a connection with her jury"- would be harder for jury to kill a woman.....had no prior criminal history....
"characterized" as woman who fell in love with someone
"using her for sex than" someone who was
"obsessed former girlfriend that could not let the victim go" (pg. 288)
that was his
"plan in a nutshell"
L states that
"those who support" the murderer- upset- the plan did not prove the murderer
" 'innocent' , something that could never be done...those who support Mr. Alexander believe this involved 'dragging him through the mud' "
"However, face it, no matter what kind of horrible 
you want to make Ms Arias out to be, Mr. Alexander was still having sex with her....undeniable reality of this case, like it or not and it was at the heart of my strategy, a strategy that worked and a strategy for which I will offer no apologies" (pg.289)
==========================================================================
Chapter 51
New Year's Day
L talks about New Year's Day when he was younger...in 1970's college football games..only 3 major networks ...
"all good games went all day long"- he was a
"kid who loved football...was an awesome day"
"As a kid who loved his grandfather who himself loved football it was extra-awesome because we watched these games together, all day. Simply put, New Year's Day was one of the best days of the year for me as a child" (pg. 300)
L laments- now several college bowl games- are spread out- take place mid-December to mid-January...
"not all good ones take place on New Year's Day"- now dozens of sports channels- hockey now- he still loves New Year's Day tho'- he spends much time watching football- thinks of his grandfather every New Year's Day
L states that he is telling all this to us because:
"...I can give you a sense of what it was like for me as I braced myself for the trial..New Year's Day ..2013...wanted to embrace the day without concern for the next day" but "could not do that.... 'Trapped with Ms. Arias' "
- while watching game
"I could not help to think about the impending storm that would hit my life the next day...did not want to be part of, but had no choice. The best I could do.... was to allow Jennifer to do the opening so that I could cling to these last moments of peace that always comes to me while watching football on New Year's Day"
L thought about following New Year's Day without having to be concerned with the murderer's case "or her self-destructive ways
" ...guess I was wrong about that one, but in fairness to me, I do not think anyone could have guessed that things would go the way they did. Heck if I had known...after January 2, 3013, I might have driven to the airport instead of the courthouse....flown to a country that didn't extradite runaway lawyers back to the United States. Instead, on January 2, 2013, I drove toward the courthouse, parked my car and took one last breath" (pg. 301)
=========================================================
Coming in 2016
Trapped with Ms. Arias Part 11
"From Trial To Mistrial"
"
January, 2013..beautiful winter's day in Arizona....scene outside the courthouse....several people, many reporters and other s who would be best described as groupies who want to be part of the show, and what a show it turned out to be..lived streamed to the world...capture the attention of millions.. to me, The State v. Jodi Arias, was more than a show, it was a trial, a serious trial where a person's life was at stake"
in L's next book he will tell what it was like for him to "
live through this trial..share my thoughts with you and let you in on the things you did not see on television"
==================================================================
Link:
http://media3.giphy.com/media/jYAGkoghdmD9S/giphy.gif
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
