What effect
did the expert witness testimony ultimately have on the outcome of the Jodi
Arias murder trial? Although Arias was
found guilty of first degree murder, in the end the jury was split on
sentencing 8-4 in favor of the death penalty – in Arizona, even a 11-1 split
equals a hung jury. The jury rejected
the self defense claims and agreed an aggravating factor existed making this
case eligible for capital punishment.
That much we know. But how is it
that those same jurors could end up so divided on punishing Travis Alexander’s
murderer?
Jodi Arias
spent an unprecedented 18 days on the witness stand, and post verdict
interviews with jurors confirmed the defendant didn’t make a good witness. She contradicted herself, butted heads with
prosecutor Juan Martinez, and tried her best to paint Travis in the worst light
possible while claiming to want to preserve his memory and character. She was caught in numerous lies and
inconsistencies by the time Martinez got his shot at her. But it seems at least one juror believed that
Arias had in fact been the victim of some type of abuse at Alexander’s
hands. Although there was no documented
reports of the abuse incidents Arias spun into her testimony, her journals and
personal diaries made no mention of being kicked, body slammed or slapped, the
defense brought in a maverick for the cause of domestic violence in Alyce
LaViolette to testify on Arias’ behalf.
She told the jury she believed Travis did abuse Jodi, while discounting
any direct evidence that Arias engaged in stalking behavior with Travis.
How did this
impact the jurys ability to hand down the death penalty? Dr. Richard Samuels was another defense
expert who was clearly in the Arias camp and testified to her favor that she
suffered from PTSD. However, prosecutor
Juan Martinez effectively neutralized Samuels testimony by pointing out numerous
errors and omissions in Samuels scoring of critical psychological tests that
supported a PTSD diagnosis – he also was effective in suggesting Samuels was “taken”
by Arias, bringing her gifts in the form of books during his jailhouse
interviews with her. Dr. Samuels failed
to sway the jury and was criticized for his sloppy reporting methods as he was
unable to explain why he hand scored the tests multiple times until he achieved
the desired results.
Alyce LaViolette
initially appeared to be a good witness for the defense. Her credentials and
legitimate early work in the field of domestic violence gave her credibility
and she was a likeable character during her first few days on the stand while
being questioned by the defense.
LaViolette became combative during her cross examination with Juan
Martinez, refusing to answer questions in a yes/no manner, talking over the
prosecutor and she grew increasingly more defensive of her interview tactics as
her days on the stand stretched into weeks. The biggest problem I had with LaViolette
is that she firmly formed an opinion on Arias being abused based only on the
written and spoken words of Jodi Arias.
She didn’t interview close friends or family members of Arias or
Alexander who may have provided her with a way to prove or disprove her
findings or corroborate what Arias told her about the complex relationship she
had with Travis.
Then we
learned that LaViolette had spent more hours with Arias than was clinically necessary,
and had also given her books and reading materials that could have furnished
her with a blueprint to support her in court performance as a domestic abuse
survivor. LaViolette refused to
entertain the thought that Arias may have played her like a fiddle, she told
the jury she fully believed everything Arias told her without question. That’s where she lost all credibility in my
book. Believing the words of a woman
with everything to lose is a dangerous proposition and to this day, I don’t
understand why LaViolette would jeopardize her standing in her field for Jodi
Arias. Many of the jury questions seemed
to ask these same questions regarding the methods of both expert witnesses, and
there was no evidence to indicate there was any physical abuse.
I read an
article recently written by Michael J. Perrotti PhD that outlined some of these
problems in psychcentral.com (link provided below). Perrotti has served as a clinical and
forensic neuropsychologist expert for more than 20 years and he wrote of many
omissions of crucial standards in the Jodi Arias trial. He points to the lack
of collateral interviews of third party informants such as family and friends,
who could have provided valuable perspective on the person being
evaluated. He states “collateral
parties can help confirm or disconfirm the evaluators impressions. This did not appear to be done in the Arias’s
trial”. An evaluation of only the
defendant can be weighted towards the defendant’s self-report.
He wrote “it
is difficult to understand how Arias was considered a victim of abuse when
there did not appear to be any police reports or documented incidents of
domestic violence. Additionally, there
did not appear to be any consideration of her abusive behavior (for example,
she was alleged to have slashed the tires on the victims car and peeked into
the window of the victim’s house).” He
also pointed to the experts focus on PTSD and memory issues and not
neuropsychological issues. Perrotti also
believes the purchase and filling of the gas cans were a sign of her
pre-meditation. “It is important to integrate the physical
findings at the crime scene with the psychological profile of the defendant”,
he wrote. “None of the experts appeared to have evaluated or considered crime
scene evidence with their findings”.
Perrotti
specifically points to Alyce LaViolette’s testimony that the report of Arias
peeking into Alexander’s window while he was with another woman was not
stalking as “difficult to understand” given the research of “The Reference
Manual For Scientific Evidence”, which defines stalking as “to annoy or harass,
with fear being a main component”. What
I found most important in Perrotti’s article was his take on the importance of
an the evaluator being an objective expert and avoiding the appearance of
bias. Having two separate experts giving
Arias books is seen as problematic, and one expert apologizing to the defendant
for reading her diary/journals as another potential conflict. “It is difficult to understand how this
occurred when contraband is not allowed in correctional facilities”, he
wrote. The RMSE provides guidelines for
what evaluators should do when deception is detected from a defendant. He firmly believes there were significant omissions
by the defense experts in the Arias case.
I think it’s important to note that the prosecution’s expert, Dr. Janeen
DeMarte seemed to follow the guidelines in making a fair and impartial
assessment of the defendant. She spent
enough time to evaluate Arias, but not enough time to form a relationship with
her. She made no apologies, and she didn’t
feel the need to bring her any reading materials to pass her time in jail! In my opinion, she was the only expert who
was credible whatsoever. Thankfully, the
jury found her guilty of first degree murder – but it’s fair to wonder if the
sentencing phase outcome was effected by Alyce LaViolette’s firm belief in
Arias as an abuse victim.
As the
August 26th status hearing approaches, I wonder if Arias’ post
guilty verdict jailhouse ventures will figure into the mitigation case. She appears to be trying to make good on her
campaign speech to jury #1 by starting an online book club of sorts – more of a
book review website in reality. But I
have faith in Juan Martinez, and I’m hoping he will quickly point out the same
website is accepting donations for Arias’ commissary account and has links to
other supporter run sites where donations are taken for her families travel
expenses to and from court, and she has made an undisclosed amount of money
from her artwork and those Survivor t-shirts.
Such the humanitarian. With two
new books based on Arias’ life and the trial, a Lifetime movie that already
came out and reports of a new made-for-tv movie in the works, I’m afraid Jodi
Arias isn’t disappearing from the spotlight any time soon. The penalty retrial could take weeks, if not
months. I’m not familiar enough with a penalty do-over to make an educated
guess on how long this could run, but the sooner this case is put to rest the
better.
Judge Sherry
Stephens, do the right thing and get this retrial scheduled and keep it
moving. The victim may not be here, but
he has rights too. The link to the
Michael Perrotti article is listed below.
While it’s nothing new, it’s an interesting read nonetheless. Have a great weekend!
