If, like most of us, you’re still pondering over the relative ins & outs of the self defense scenario, reasonable doubt, the alleged premeditation, the viability of a not guilty verdict for Jodi, and the current mistrial motions… check out the post below from David, our resident criminal defense attorney.
It was posted in response to some questions raised earlier this week, and certainly makes interesting reading.
Leave your comments below…
SJ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To answer your first question
If the defense, in their opening statements, laid out a self-defense scenario (that it was her life or his), is this THE one and only strategy they are now obliged to follow-through with?
My answer…
Not necessarily. However, it would be Miss Arias’ best interest for her defense team to follow through with their opening statements. Otherwise, it severely weakens their case for the accused. Keep in mind that at the present time, the jury already has in the back of their minds that Miss Arias ‘defended’ herself from a potentially fatal attack as per the opening statements of the defense team. So, as the jury views the exhibits from the prosecution, they are potentially analyzing them in terms of ‘Self Defense.’ (as we ALL are even right now! Consider our extensive discussion here, we have been analyzing everything in terms of the ‘Self Defense’ claim. So, do you see the importance of following through with it?) Thus, it would be most unwise for the defense team to suddenly shift this focus…only in rare circumstances would it be wise to suddenly shift the focus.
Next question…
That is, is this inevitably what we’re going to hear–that Jodi had to defend herself against a physical attack–when the defense presents its case?
Again, not necessarily, but most likely as it pertains to this particular case.
Your next question…
And, if that’s indeed what we’re going to hear, is this how the defense plans to–not PROVE that he attacked first–but to create “reasonable doubt” that this was a premeditated murder?
That is absolutely correct. To avoid an unfavorable verdict, there has to be doubt among the jury that Miss Arias intentionally killed Mr. Alexander. Under United States Code Title 18, Chapter 51, Section 1111 murder is defined as the criminal act of taking a human’s life with malice aforethought. “Aforethought” is the planning of the act, or premeditation. The jury will take EVERYTHING of the trial into consideration and then determine a verdict based on Arizona’s statute of First Degree Murder.
Your next question…
Also, could the defense change/shift their strategy mid-stream, or add other aspects to create doubt of premeditation, such as suggesting a mental illness/defect or that this was a crime of passion?
‘Change/shift’ is probably not the words I would choose to describe this situation. To put it differently, the defense team could ‘enhance’ their strategy mid-stream by adding other aspects to create doubt of premeditation. It would be very difficult for the defense team to even suggest mental illness at this point without some sort of documented history and not to mention, this would have definitely come up during discovery. (ie. there would have been subpoenas for Miss Arias’ psychiatric records and I do not believe this was the case here.)
The defense team would completely invalidate their original Self Defense claim if they suddenly decided to suggest that this was a crime of passion. There is a HUGE difference between Self Defense and a Crime of Passion; the two are very much different. The key difference between the two is who is ATTACKING who? If this were a crime of passion, then Miss Arias is undoubtedly the attacker because she is quite peeved at Mr. Alexander. In Self Defense, Miss Arias is ‘defending’ herself from an attack.
So in this particular case, the defense team is suggesting that Miss Arias was the defender, not the attacker. Suddenly changing it to a crime of passion would then suggest Miss Arias was the attacker…do you see now why suggesting that this was a crime of passion is not viable?
Next question…
Is the ultimate goal, for the defense, to save Jodi from the death penalty–nothing more and nothing less?
No, the ultimate goal would be to get a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ from the jury which is seemingly feasible considering she is charged with premeditated first degree murder and burglary…that’s it! There are no lesser charges for the jury to consider, although they can suggest a lesser charge(s) which will most likely happen if they cannot convict her of first degree murder and burglary.
Last question…
Are all those motions for a mistrial just planting seeds in the record for any future trials or parole hearings–or something like that?
Sort of, but not really. The motions for mistrial are really just something more for the appellate court(s) to consider. In other words, if an unfavorable verdict from the jury is handed down to Miss Arias then begins the appeals process. The case will then go to the appellate court for further examination. There, they will review the motions for mistrial (among a myriad of other things to consider) and then determine if it was legally appropriate for Judge Sherri Stephens to deny the motions. Rarely does an appellate court rule against the lower court’s decision to deny a motion for mistrial…although, it does happen.
Hope I’ve answered your questions.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .