IDK Jodi Arias trashed Travis right and left and some how that was allowed. Just saying
Respectfully, I don't think these 2 cases are even remotely comparable. Jodi Arias was being tried for capital murder, a criminal death penalty case. Because of the gravity of that, there were layers to that trial process that don't exist in a civil trial-- mitigation, for example.
The Zahau civil trial is projected to last about a week, which is pretty typical for most civil cases. I don't think this judge will allow this civil suit trial progress to "wander in the weeds" with a lot of irrelevant or tangential testimony, or attempts to de-rail the trial into a wrongful death trial over Max's death, for example. I think the judge will insist that the trial process stick pretty closely to the usual trial protocols. The maximum penalty here is $$, not the death penalty.
I don't think the judge will tolerate much of any gratuitous "bashing" of the defendants, the plaintiffs, or witnesses by any of the participants during trial.
But the caveat to that, is that discussing the ALLEGATIONS and the RELEVANT EVIDENCE in court contained within the civil complaint against the defendants, is not "bashing", even if the allegations and evidence are not flattering with regard to the defendants. And it's not "tit for tat", where the defendants get to make counter accusations. It's a civil trial, not a "debate". The plaintiffs have to make their case, and the defendants have to DEFEND themselves against the allegations.
If, for example, the plaintiffs are laying out an argument that Rebecca was killed by the defendants as a premeditated act of revenge (which is what Attorney Greer has said publicly), then the plaintiffs are allowed to present evidence and testimony that supports that. That includes evidence of how Dina, Nina, and/ or Adam behaved toward Rebecca, how they treated her, what they said about her, etc. That's not "bashing"-- it's part of the case.
The ongoing catch 22 for Dina is, IMO, if she goes on the attack in court, and tries to get in her ideas about Rebecca being the one that she thinks killed Max, and her investigation with Bove and Melinek, and her "stalking" of Rebecca, how mean Rebecca prepared healthy meals for Max when he wanted junk food, etc., well than she's shooting herself in the foot. Because any of that used by Dina as a "defense", is going to seriously backfire, and only make her look more guilty and vengeful. She can try it, and probably will. But I don't think it's a good plan, with a jury sitting there. To the jury, she'll just look even more like a bitter, vindictive ex-wife, who hated the new partner of their ex. That's not a good "look" for a defendant accused of
killing the new partner of their ex, IMO.
IMO, Dina's attorneys really have their work cut out for them, to try to prevent Dina from coming across to the jury as a bitter, vindictive ex-wife.
Anyway, change of subject.
Here's a question for anyone who might know-- in some jurisdictions in the U.S., civil juries are composed of only 6 jurors, not 12. I can't find anything about the use of 6 vs 12 for San Diego county. Does anyone know if SD typically uses 12 jurors for a civil trial, as well as a criminal trial? Are there provisions in state procedures for using 6 jurors? Is it up to the judge if they use 6? Do the parties to the suit have any input?
A lot of places use 6 jurors for civil trials due to the volume of cases, cost, number of available jurors, etc. Interested to know what San Diego does. I might post this in the legal questions thread, too.
