Tag Archives: Willmott

Jodi In Chains

Here is a play by play of what happened in court today via Twitter:

From ‘@WildAboutTrial’:

-In the courtroom at the Jodi Arias trial. Many of the usual faces are here in the spectator section. Media is rather thin. I see Tara Kelley and some other jurors in the gallery. Nurmi and Willmott just went back into chambers. Jodi Arias is not in the courtroom yet. Juan is here…Det. Flores just arrived. Just to remind everyone, this will not be live streamed and most of the hearing will be held in chambers and sealed. Jodi just came in wearing her gray prison striped outfit with salmon socks. Jodi Arias was just escorted back by the well armed sheriff’s deputies. She is in chambers now. These guys are scary looking.

@Chriswnews: Never seen a Jodi Arias escort like this. Arias walked to chambers her shackles making a racket. Arrives in chains surrounded by what appears to be an MCSO SWAT team.

@WildAboutTrial: Willmott just bolted out of chambers and smiled at Flores and Juan, she is getting something from her desk and heading back in. No sign of Travis’ family, just supporters.

@chriswnews: Was told Travis Alexander aunt the only family member expected in the gallery. Sis Samantha to attend via phone. Family civil attorney here.

@WildAboutTrial: Looks like other attorneys here for other trials. Nurmi, Willmott and Jodi Arias are still back in chambers. Flores and Juan continue to semi-reclinate and laugh while they chat. The courtroom is full of chatter. Flores and Juan were just summoned back into chambers. Everyone is coming out of chambers. Jodi Arias has full umbrella bangs and makes a clanking noise as she walks. She went to her room.

@maryellenabc15: Jodi Arias is walked back through court to her holding cell…she is shackled, handcuffed and in jail stripes. Jail SWAT is guarding her.

@WildAboutTrial: The armed sheriff seems to be clearing Jodi Arias’ table. She is brought out now and is sitting down. There are 4 fully armed sheriff deputies here to keep an eye on Jodi Arias. These are some serious deputies. Wow. Jodi Arias is sitting with the DP mitigation specialist whispering. Sheriffs haven’t left her side. Jodi Arias did not seem to have a smile on her face, looked rather tired. Attorneys are back. Judges Stephens is present and addressing the court now. Court is deferring the ruling on the motion to delay the trial until July 18. The hearing is over.

@tarakelley320: Seeing Jodi in shackles was totally worth being at the courthouse today!!!

Motion To Deny Moving Trial To 1/2014

According to ABC15.com’s Corey Rangel, the prosecution has filed a motion asking the judge to deny the motion for a delay filed by the defense. They defense had said they needed time to find other witnesses to stand up for Jodi (they have had 5 years) and that they had scheduling conflicts. Martinez responded: ““Neither reason warrants a continuance of the proceedings until the first part of next year.” For more here’s the link:

Arias Trial Moved To January?

According to court documents (thank you, NancyB for the link!) the defense has filed a motion to move the trial to January 2014. They site that Jodi wants to find witnesses to stand up for her, the conflicts in dates with both Nurmi and Willmott and the fact that Willmott has 5 other cases coming up, four in August. Here is the link to the document:

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/ariasmotion.pdf

Transcript re: Sex Tape

Here are some of the more interesting points from this transcript. (The link to the entire transcript is at the bottom). (Thanks, NancyB!)

1. Here’s one thing we can all be thankful for: According to a comment by Willmott on page 12 there were 2 other recordings that weren’t played in court- they were Jodi singing.

 

2. Regarding the penis and breast pictures from her phone, (p. 6) Martinez: said: “Quite frankly I don’t think he (the expert witness) can distinguish those, to whose penis those are or whose breasts those are.” As we know now those pictures were allowed into the trial.

 

3. The bulk of this transcript is about the argument that what is in the tape will be asserted as fact. The defense argues it is not, but if you recall the trial all the fantasies Travis described in that tape were actually presented as fact- like the 12 year old comment, which was actually Travis describing Jodi’s voice sounding like a 12 year old, and the ‘tie you to a tree…’ comment- was said over and over and over again by both Nurmi and Willmott as if it was a fact. Here is the way the defense actually said they would present this evidence:

On page 6 is the first time Willmott asserts: “None of it (the sex tape) is for the truth of the matter asserted, we’re talking about the particular statements. So the statement that he’s going to come and stick it up wherever is not for the truth of whether he was actually going to do that. They’re not assertions.” On page 10 Martinez makes the comment: “In terms of the sexual knowledge, they’re offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And their experts rely on it as truthful. Also they are being offered as to how Travis broke down Jodi’s boundaries sexually.”

On page 11- Willmott says: “So as it was with the ‘3 hole wonder’ conversation, we’re not putting it in evidence to prove or disprove that Ms. Arias was a quote, unquote ‘3 hole wonder.’ On page 12 Martinez continues to argue that the tape is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. That regarding the things said on the tape ‘that’s what they want to do.’ Martinez goes on to say: “I don’t see how they can then make the argument later on and say, well, none of this was true. Their argument would then have to be, they never had anal intercourse. They never did any of that.” On page 13 Nurmi says that while Travis said those things “We’re not attempting to prove that he was going to do those things.” On page 14 Nurmi reiterates: “…we’re not using it to prove that he was going to actually do the things on the tape.”

Martinez then goes into the testimony of Dr. Samuels and how he asserts that Travis was ‘the only individual who had anal sex with the defendant. And this is proof of that. It is offered for the truth of the matter. Willmott counters with ‘Dr. Samuels is not considering whether  or not Travis was actually going to take Ms. Arias to the forest or whether he did take Ms. Arias to the forest.”

On page 17 Martinez Says Travis wasn’t going past her boundaries. “No he’s not. What he’s doing is he’s responding to her. And so it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. He’s not the aggressor, she is.” Both Wilmott and Nurmi respond: “That’s all for cross.” Martinez argues who can he cross? Ms. Arias or Travis? “Neither of which I have access to.” Willmott suggests he cross the doctors. Martinez: “I don’t want to cross the doctors. I want to cross the declarants which is what the rule is designed to allow me to do.”

Next (page 19) Martinez says Travis did not know he was being recorded. He and Nurmi argue the point.

“She (Jodi) can introduce it when she takes the stand.” On page 22 Nurmi says: “This is distinct form of self defense. And how he treated her is germane to that and not hearsay, not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.”

Finally the judge decides she will have to listen to the tape to see whether or not it should be admitted.

4. Other arguments from the defense as to why the tape should be admitted were:

– On page 9 Nurmi argues the tape goes to ‘The way he treated her’, …degrades her opinion’ – showing a pattern of abuse.

– Willmott adds it ‘goes to his sexual knowledge.’

– On page14 Nurmi claims this is proof that while he was calling her a stalker he was having phone sex with her.

Link to entire transcript: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf Thanks again, NancyB!

Arias Trial Transcripts

We are finally getting a glimpse of what was going on behind the scenes in the courtroom. During the testimony of Alyce LaViolette, Willmott was trying to get in an example of Travis telling Jodi he was going to kill himself and Martinez said: ““But the thing is that if Ms. Willmott and I were married, I certainly would say I F’g want to kill myself. That doesn’t mean I want to kill myself. It just means there’s a bad relationship and I want you to leave me alone.” (From an article by Michael Kiefer: http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130605arias-trial-transcripts-juror-questions-unsealed.html?nclick_check=1z).

In a released transcript during an argument regarding hearsay evidence Martinez tells Willmott: “…maybe you ought to go back to law school.” Nurmi asks the judge to admonish Martinez for his statement about wanting to kill himself if married to Willmott and for the crack about going back to law school. The judge responds: “Council, I know some of this is tongue and cheek, some of it is just the stress of the trial, but let’s try to be as professional as possible when we have these bench conferences.” (Link to transcript: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arias-april4-transcript-excerpt.pdf).

Thanks to NancyB for these links!

Arias Trial Date Changed?

According to azcentral.com Jennifer Willmott, one of Arias’ defense attorneys has  a conflict with the trial start date of July 18. This means it is likely the date will be pushed back. The Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery has stated: “Right now we are preparing for for trial…it would be irresponsible not to prepare, regardless of what final decisions are made.” Earlier Montgomery said that he would be willing to discuss options with the defense attorneys regarding resolving this case: “If they were to make an offer of resolution, I think I have an ethical responsibility to consider that.”

Final Closing Arguments

Willmott

  1. “People are far better than their very worst deed.” Each of you has to make your own decision. Does her life have value? You were asked if when you gave her 1st degree murder if you could still give her life. The state doesn’t require an execution for 1st degree.
  2. The burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond the preponderance of the evidence. We have to prove the mitigators are more true than not true.
  3. Each juror can choose a different mitigator. You don’t have to agree to find a reason to find value in her life, to find a reason to punish her with life in prison. Stand by your decision. You don’t have to explain it to anyone else.
  4. The state’s case is all about lies and manipulation. That somehow lying equals the death penalty. That’s not even a crime. Not even an aggravating factor.
  5. Mitigators are reasons to believe there’s something of value. Not excuses for what she did. You already convicted her for that. Are the mitigators substantial to call for life in prison? Mitigators are separate from the crime. They don’t have to be connected. Life in prison is appropriate.
  6. As an example- anyone under 30 I don’t believe should get the death penalty. If sufficient for you then that’s your vote.
  7. There was good and bad before (Travis). The trajectory of her life changed.
  8. Good things of value:

–       She was 27 when she killed Travis with no prior criminal record. We’re not talking about lying. She’s not like a criminal who commits a crime, 1, 2, 3 times. She has none. A reason to show mercy- life in prison instead of executed.

–       A good friend. People care about her. Darryl – 4 years he loved and trusted her with his son. Her friends were shocked – they didn’t expect this to happen, like Leslie Uty who said she was ‘sweet.’ Ryan Burns said that people enjoyed her, she got along well. What does it matter considering what she did to Travis? The state wants to paint her as a one-dimensional character. So it’s easier for you to execute. She’s not. She has made so many people happy in her life. The Freemans took trips with her and Travis. Enjoyed spending time with her. Had dinner and treated her like family, like a sister.

–       Her family has been here day in and day out. They are here for her now. She asked you to consider them.

–       Her value- she tried to improve her life; make the best of it. Gus said she was the utmost professional and worked hard. Darryl and her had a house together. If given the chance she will continue to improve. She’s already donated her hair 3 times. She doesn’t have to do that. She has goals. Teaching Spanish, reading and writing. She’s an amazing poet and artist and excellent writer. She wants to use these talents and dedicate them to domestic violence. This is for behind bars- not to get out.

        9.  She didn’t know she was capable of such violence. We need   to ask why? She could have been a famous artist, a saleswoman an attorney sitting next to me. What changed the trajectory of her life?

      10.  When she was a little girl her and Carl felt the love from her Mom. She treated her scrapes and read to her. They grew apart. Angela was born and things changed. They were no longer getting along. She couldn’t do anything right. She was grounded for inexplicable reasons. Everything changed for Jodi. She watched how her Dad treated her Mom- yelled, ridiculed. She learned that language. And loyalty- you stay no matter what.

      11. Her Psych. Testing-she had low self-esteem, almost no ego. Depression from when a teen. When she met Travis in 2006 she was vulnerable. She wanted a family; kids. Darryl didn’t. She thought he (Travis) was perfect. She was impressed by the executive banquet. Later when he wanted oral she gave it to him – didn’t want to lose him. He sends missionaries. She converts. She put him on a pedestal, she trusted him and loved him. She also saw the other side of him. Whether you believe the domestic violence – we know he was verbally abusive. Hateful one day and loving the next. ‘Corrupted carcass’, ‘worst thing that ever happened to me’ then ‘you’re beautiful inside and out.’ If he was sitting next to me the prosecutor would be using the same hateful words against him.

      12. Jodi lied- told herself a lie about her relationship with Travis. No person wants to be treated like that and called those names. It’s not an excuse to kill Travis. It is absolutely not and you have already convicted her. But abuse is a mitigating factor. Look at her solid relationship with Darryl- and they’re still friends. What changed the trajectory? Verbal abuse is not an excuse for what she did. She handled it the only way she knew how- she lied to herself, the detective, friends, the media, Travis’ family. It doesn’t diminish the abuse. She was once a happy, bubbly little girl, nose in a book. She will be haunted for what she did to Travis’ family, to Travis and to her family. 

13.  What’s so tragic is if either had sought help none of us may never have been here. The trajectory.

14.  Dr. Demarte said she had Bi-Polar Disorder. From a child her feelings weren’t validated. Cut bond with parents, was immature. Prone to violent outbursts- is that what happened? She can’t choose to have a personality disorder. Dr. Samuels also said she had one. Her BPD is not an excuse for what she did to Travis. But a reason substantial for life in prison. Another reason to be merciful.

15.  There’s so much mitigators in this case you can find to be merciful, to get life in prison and not execution. She has just one aggravating factor.

16. Strong mitigator is no criminal history. Jodi took Travis away but two wrongs don’t make a right. Her life still has value and you have a choice. (She quotes someone) ”…all life is worth saving and mercy is (best) attribute.” Her life is worth saving and despite her worst day she still has value. Sentence her to eternal life in prison.

 

Martinez:

  1. “To his family Travis will be forever young.” You’ve seen many photos of him from a child to older. But to his family he’ll be 30 for the rest of his life.
  2. They have tried to remember his life (pic of him smiling) with a twinkle in his eye. But they also told you they couldn’t forget what happened on June 4th, that he suffered immense physical pain, emotional distress and it was especially cruel. It hurt- was painful. And you shouldn’t forget what you saw in (pic of slit throat). An especially cruel crime. Take that back with you.
  3. The mitigators- you are not investigators. Find the facts. Don’t go out on a limb. You could say: ‘Well he’s dead so he’ll never suffer cancer- she saved him from that’- that’s an extreme example. You are not an advocate.
  4. The rest of her life in prison- on your questionairre it explained what it was – she’s eligible for release in 25 calendar years. Consider that.
  5. The 8 factors you looked at- an artist- she showed you pictures- Frank Sinatra, Elvis…so she has a skill, she’s entitled to get an easier path? All it is is a skill. Don’t give her preferential treatment. Not a mitigator.
  6. 27 years old. The age of majority is 18- people got to war at 18. She’s 9 years past that. A great relationship with Darryl. She enjoyed life. Had loving parents when growing up. Was employed, intelligent, had love affairs; a vast array of life experiences. Not a mitigator. If 16 0r 55 you could make the same argument. She had lived a full life. She’s 32 now but Travis is 30. Still. And the person responsible stood before you in court and asked you to look at that- only 27.
  7. Her pics of yesterdays, growing up. He has no more pics. What she will miss- nephew, Christmas with her photo, how’s that a mitigator when you look at the violence on Travis?
  8. No priors, never done this before. When people kill in this fashion they are arrested so they won’t do it again. Without laws there would be anarchy. She sat in the witness chair, took an oath, looked you in the eyes and lied to you. The gas cans- that’s perjury. Just because she’s not convicted doesn’t mean she hasn’t engaged in crime. Lied to the police- that’s a crime. They want you to just look past that. There is a criminal history. Not a mitigator.
  9. A good friend- friendship means you know the person better than most. Leslie said she never thought she would do something like this- but her friendship with Leslie was based on a lie. ‘When we have kids they will play together’? A friendship? When lying?
  10. Ryan – I guess it’s a friendship when you adjust someone, but he’s ‘full of crap.’ She lied to him. A good friend? Not a mitigator.
  11. Most of all this has come from her mouth. When the truth fails she’ll come up with a lie. A mitigator is proved by the preponderance of the evidence. The friend who couldn’t be here, judging from her credibility <Sidebar> The Womack issue raised by the defense- consider her credibility to assess id there is a good friend out there.
  12. Lacks support from family and then talks out the other side of her mouth. Well they’ve been here throughout the trial. The August peeping incident she called her father and he supported her. She spoke of her brother in glowing terms. It hasn’t been proven.
  13. Abuse and neglect as child and adult. When she was a child she liked to play the victim. Manipulative. There’s no records of any abuse. The 911 call with Bobby- no corroboration. There’s no abuse.
  14. Making the best of life/improving- she’s just going through life. Don’t most want to improve their life? She’s doing the bare minimum.
  15. None of these are mitigators. Jury instructions tell you what to do. If all find no mitigators it’s mandatory. A lack of connection may impact quality or strength so an artist? What does that have to do the crime? 27? How does that affect the crime? The horrific nature of the killing? No priors, though we know she has committed crimes- it doesn’t have anything to do with the crime. Same with friends and family. They don’t have a connection to the killing = no weight.
  16. Engage in analysis like the 1st (and 2nd) phase. Look at the facts and the law, then apply. The mitigators (if there are any) must be sufficiently substantial for leniency. Nothing presented here is a mitigating circumstance, but if 1 or 2 are possible mtitigators is it sufficient when you look at what this individual did? Travis will be forever 30. (Pic) That’s as old as he is going to get. No mitigators- even if you find some they’re not substantial for leniency. You have a duty. Do the right thing, the difficult thing. The only thing you can do is to return a verdict of death. Thank you.

Willmott

  1. A single question- Do you kill her? She has done something very bad and you have convicted her of that. The question is now do you kill her?
  2. Does she have value? Something you believe is worth saving her life? Living her life in prison? After 25 years parole- you are not supposed to consider that. The last time someone was paroled was eons <Objection, sustained>
  3. The lack of criminal history does matter. The entitlement because she’s an artist is false. Quite the opposite – she’s fighting for her life. Is it worth keeping her around to provide some type of value in this world? Criminal history- she doesn’t have any. We know she’s lied and manipulated- not a capital offense. You don’t sentence to death because she lied.
  4. The friendships were not based on lies. Several years with Darryl. Shows something happened; changed the trajectory, what she could have been.
  5. Family support- they’re here. Not when she needed them. Bi-Polar disorder- a lack of bonding. That little girl needed someone. A reason to be merciful and give life in prison.
  6. She plays the victim- one statement form someone who knew her from 1st– 5th grade.
  7. Doing the bare minimum- no value- what all of us do. She has something to give to this world.
  8. It’s an awful thing that she did and Travis’ family is suffering. But with your conviction- now they get some peace. It speaks to what she did- it is what it is. Before you is: do you kill her for the one horrible thing she did? Or can you see there’s a reason for her to live? She has value, and love from her family. She won’t be living with them or us but in prison. Can she contribute to this world? I’m asking you to find mercy. These mitigating factors are a reason. I’m asking you to give her life in prison.
  9. The judge gives final instructions. The jury goes into deliberations.