Videos show tense exchanges between opposing sides in controversial trial.
(Photo: Rob Schumacher, The Arizona Republic)
"If he will just let her answer, he will get an answer," Willmott said.
"I can get more aggressive with her as need be," Martinez said.
The conversation was inaudible to spectators and media in the gallery in the Maricopa County Superior Court courtroom, drowned out by the judge's white-noise machine and then sealed by court order. The Arizona Republic and 12 News recently obtained video of this and many other sidebars during a brief few weeks when they were unsealed, and they show the tense interplay between the opposing sides in one of the year's most controversial trials.
As a result of her testimony, LaViolette became a national lightning rod and the target of threats and harassment from the trial-viewing public.
On that day, April 9, Martinez was cross-examining her, forcing her to answer complex questions with yes or no answers. Willmott was asking the judge to rein him in, to little avail.
"It's assertive, not aggressive," Martinez said to Judge Sherry Stephens.
"It's not assertive, it's aggressive," Willmott countered. "The fact that she's not answering the way he wants her to does not entitle him to start yelling at her."
And then seconds later, Martinez mimicked Willmott's voice as she called to the judge to object.
Unsealed
Jodi Arias trial video and audio reveal how far Juan Martinez wanted to
push a defense witness and who was behind getting rid of juror number
8.
Stephens asked Willmott to tell the
witness to answer the questions because "... it just delays the
proceedings." And she sent the lawyers back into the fray with the
order, "OK, counsel, let's move on. Tempers are getting short."It was a typical exchange at the bench in an emotional trial that played out from the beginning of January until the end of May. Arias, 32, was convicted of first-degree murder in the brutal 2008 death of her lover Travis Alexander, 30. The jury, however was unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether to sentence her to death.
In a hearing last week in Maricopa County Superior Court, Stephens vacated the new trial date of July 18 that she set when the jury failed to reach a decision about whether Arias deserved the death penalty. Instead, the attorneys will meet on that day in a bid to set a firm date for the new penalty phase of the trial.
Stephens ran an atypically closed courtroom during the chaotic five-month trial, keeping the numerous sidebars sealed from the public. She lifted that seal briefly after the jury reached an impasse during the penalty phase, but then reinstated it, claiming that publicizing the exchanges might taint a potential new juror pool.
The Arizona Republic and 12 News, however, obtained video copies of many of the trial days while the seal was lifted. The sidebars and the closed hearings show the intense infighting among the lawyers, mostly as Martinez pushes to throw everything he can at Arias, and Willmott tries to hold him back.
It went that way from start to finish.
In November, three weeks before jury selection began, Martinez was battling the Arias defense team over how much time they could take to review newly obtained images from Alexander's computer. On Dec. 4, the week before jury selection, Martinez changed his theory on how Arias killed Alexander.
But as the trial progressed, many of the disputes were handled instead at the bench, shielded from the public by the white-noise machine, or in a vestibule behind the courtroom that served as makeshift chambers. The in-chambers discussions were not recorded on the court's FTR (For The Record) audio-video system.
The public remained in the dark, even after testimony ended abruptly because Willmott's co-counsel, Kirk Nurmi, decided he was not going to present mitigating evidence when one of his witnesses was intimidated.
On the last day of the trial, after the witness refused to take the stand because she claimed to have received death threats, Martinez could be heard in a sidebar as he detailed the cards he was going to play against her had she taken the stand: She had a drug problem, he said; she seemed high during an interview; she might not have claimed income from photographs she sold to a television and could be in violation of welfare regulations.
In short, the witness may have had more than death threats to keep her from testifying on Arias' behalf.
During the sidebars, there were multiple accusations of misconduct levied against Martinez, none of which were sustained. And he, in turn, complained about the defense attorneys' characterizations and objections to him. The defense attorneys argue about evidence and about what witnesses will or might say, and about inferences Martinez can make from witness notes.
On April 9, for example, when Martinez tried to introduce a snippet of a recorded police interview with Arias' father, Willmott noted that the interview had just been leaked to the media a day or so before.
"I see this amazing link with the state releasing all this information to the press," she said, referring to Martinez's intention to introduce it in trial. "Quite frankly, judge, it smells of misconduct."
The interview did not come in.
The next day, April 10, was no different, though Martinez became more angry at Willmott's frequent objections. He claimed that Willmott was making editorial comments with each objection.
"I believe she just crossed the line," he said as they fought over whether Martinez was trying to force LaViolette to admit that Arias stalked Alexander.
"If she wants to talk about the big picture, I'm going to talk about slashing tires or falling asleep under the Christmas tree," Martinez snapped back, referring to odd behavior attributed to Arias during her relationship with Alexander.
The Christmas tree incident eventually came in; the tire-slashing did not. Nor did Martinez's aim to take a statement from Laviolette's notes about Arias once squeezing a pet cat and turn it into an allegation that she tortured animals.
Minutes later, Willmott again accused Martinez of yelling at the witness. He denied it.
Then Stephens chimed in, "Your voice did raise. Take a deep breath."
On April 15, during a closed hearing attended only by three of Alexander's siblings, Nurmi talked about a motion for mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, based on Martinez being seen on TV signing autographs and posing for photos with his fans. Nurmi claimed that Martinez had badgered another witness, and he played an audio recording, hoping to convince the judge.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," Martinez said.
Martinez alleged that LaViolette had violated California regulations governing family therapists with her testimony. He wanted Stephens to order that LaViolette return from California to undergo further cross-examination.
Stephens turned down each motion.
Then, in the same hearing, they discussed a bizarre piece of evidence that Nurmi tried to introduce to the jury, specifically, an enlargement of Alexander's eye from a photo shot minutes before he was attacked that purportedly showed the shape of the person who shot the photo. Stephens precluded the evidence, but got Martinez to stipulate that the person reflected on Alexander's retina was not holding a weapon in her hands. Advantage: Martinez.
Moments later, Willmott asked the judge to make Martinez reveal which witnesses he intended to call during his rebuttal. Attorneys are supposed to disclose such information beforehand. Martinez did as he was asked.
And the trial wore on.
USA NOW
No comments :
Post a Comment