Rebuttal Argument by the Prosecution
When the law is on your side, you argue the law; when the facts are on your side, you argue the facts; but when nothing is on your side, you just argue. And that’s what you had.
Specifically, there was some mention perhaps of somebody’s haircut. Does anybody care about Mr. Nurmi’s haircut? Was that any part of the evidence that you should consider? There was also some talk about sexual orientation. Whose sexual orientation are we talking about? And did that present itself from the witness stand? Because remember you are told that your duty is to follow what’s in the jury instructions and the jury instructions don’t indicate that you consider anything other than the exhibits, and the testimony that came through from that witness stand. So what you heard with regard to those two issues, was perhaps just argument. And it was argument that was geared to somehow stir some sympathy in you.
The other issue, for example, that you heard that was just argument was with regard to exhibit 160 and it involves Mr. Alexander and there was talk about the fact that how could she possibly have stabbed him in that fashion if she was standing up? Well according to her own testimony she was crouched down at the time this photograph was taken. And that’s why the camera didn’t have to go very far. The other issue that he indicated was how could she possibly do it with her left hand? I mean, and how clumsy it would be. Doesn’t … has somebody forgotten or has everybody forgotten that she indicated that she’s ambidextrous, when she was asked by the prosecutor as to whether or not she could write with her left or right hand? She indicated I’m ambidextrous. So perhaps those are things that should be remembered when arguments are being made.
The third issue that was brought up was well it involved the alleged pedophilia. If she really wanted to cause him some damage, if she really wanted to cause Mr. Alexander some damage why didn’t she go to the media about it, before this took place if she really was going to do something like that? Well, if you remember the testimony. In August of 2011 there was a hearing involving an issue with regard to the pedophilia and that time there were some magazines and one of those magazines
Nurmi: Objection, beyond the scope.
was the Photo Pro Magazine.
Nurmi: Your honour, could we approach?
Stephens: You may continue
In his argument he was hoping you would forget about Exhibit 465 which is the Photo Pro Magazine. You remember she is such an avid person who knows all about cameras, an individual who is very interested in that, and in anticipation of that hearing, well with regard to exhibit 468 which is in evidence, you can find it in the magazine on page 6, and we’ll look at it, if need be, she wrote the name of Mark Stanoch who is with ABC News, and there’s a number there. Do you think that she was writing him just to exchange greetings in anticipation of that hearing? Is that what you think was going on?
Nurmi: Objection, misstates the evidence.
Do you really think that’s she was doing? Do you think that they had a personal relationship? Do you think that Mr. Stanoch is not busy with other issues? No, she contacted him in anticipation of that hearing because she wanted
Nurmi: Objection, mis-states the evidence. May we approach?
Stephens: I’ll sustain that objection.
This defendant contacted him for a reason.
Nurmi: Objection. Arguing facts not in evidence.
Martinez: You sustained?
Nurmi: Move to strike your honour.
Stephens: The jury will disregard.
You do see his name there don’t you? And you do see a number there. And at this time, with regard to those coded messages, with regard to trying to spread this and whether or not it were true, one of the things that the defendant indicated, the defence counsel indicated well, these were true, they were absolutely true, and there’s nothing out there that indicates that they were not true, but if you take a look at exhibit 469 with regard to these allegations, and this comes from an individual who was so absolutely upset with Mr. Alexander when he used the word “fuck” according to her. Well, in that magazine, page 43, this is
Nurmi: Objection, beyond the scope.
Page 43, she writes you fucked up. What you told my
Nurmi: Objection, misstates the evidence, you honour.
Stephens: Sustained, no sus
Martinez: You sustained it? Uh
With regard to these magazines, you will remember the testimony with regards to these magazines; they were taken from the defendant, they were in her possession, they were exhibit 465. They show they were her magazines, they have her name on there, her address on there and she was in possession of them. And she was in possession of them shortly before this hearing involving an aspect of this pedophilia allegation. And this defendant at some point when she was having a visitor by the name of Ann Campbell, if you will remember, during cross examination had these two magazines, this one and the Star magazine, and one the guards, or one of the detention officers was walking her down the hallway, and as she was walking her down the hallway, the defendant indicated to her; and this was shortly before this hearing involving an aspect of this pedophilia, indicated to this detention officer, or requested from this detention officer that she be allowed to give this magazine, which is the Photo Pro magazine, exhibit number 465 along with exhibit number 466 which is the Star magazine to her friend, Ann Campbell. And after these magazines were reviewed by the sheriff’s office personnel, and after they were put together, this is the message in exhibit 469 that could be gleaned. And it was, “You fucked up. What you told my attorney the … what you my attorney next day.”
Nurmi: Objection, this is goes beyond the scope.
“Directly contradicts what I’ve been saying for over a year. Get down here asap and see me before you talk to her again and before you testify, so that we can fix this. Interview was excellent. Must talk asap.”
Again, there is more writing to be looked at. You can take a look at the January 24th, 2008 entry of her journal in which she indicates that nothing noteworthy has happened when it refers to the pedophilia allegation. So yes, she was very much engaged or abusing this pedophilia allegation.
The other issue that was raised was well, um, with regard to the three cans, or the can of gasoline that was purchased at the Walmart in Salinas, California. One of the things that was advanced to you, as part of their argument, because it is just argument, was that she did purchase this five gallon can of gasoline, but then she returned. If you remember on cross examination, one of the questions that was asked of the defendant, Did you return it to that same Walmart in Salinas, and her answer was yes.
Nurmi: Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony.
Stephens: Overruled. The jury is directed to recall the evidence.
Immediately after that, the prosecutor asked her, would it surprise you if I told you that they had no record of that gas ever being returned to that Walmart, and her answer was, yes, it would surprise me, because they gave me a refund in cash, so
Nurmi: Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony.
Stephens: Overruled. Again, the jury is directed to recall the testimony.
So she knew, or she told you specifically that it was that same Walmart that, where she purchased the gas can that she actually returned it. Additionally, if you take a look at the Walmart receipt exhibit number 237.008; there’s no markings on it; there’s no indications whatsoever that it was ever touched by a Walmart employee. There’s no indication that, for whatever reason, maybe the heavens created the one and only exception for her, that the employee would not put a notation on there that there had been a refund. That absolutely would not have happened.
But they want you to believe that because the only way that it her story makes sense, the only way that there is no premeditation in this case, the only way that they can get you to believe that perhaps this is second degree or manslaughter or believe the self defence , is that if somehow, you say to yourself, that’s okay, she can lie to us about this gas can all she wants, but even though she looked us right in the face, and lied to us about this gas can, we’re disregard that lie. Because we’ve gone to the Alyce LaViolette School, where there are certain things that are called white lies. Perhaps it’s because it’s on a white receipt that this is a white lie. Perhaps because it’s one of five of those items there, that somehow it’s a small percentage of a lie. But a lie is a lie, and she looked right at you in the face in response to one of your questions and told you that. And you also know that she did not return this gas can for a refund, by looking at the receipts from the Arco in Pasadena, California. There is exhibit 237.001, a purchase for 8.301 gallons, that’s for her car. You then have another purchase here, 237.012 that is 9.594 gallons; that’s the two five gallon cans.
Nurmi: Objection, arguing facts not in evidence.
Then you have 237.013, the one that was a little hard to see, and this one you can tell 2.27 gallons, that certainly will fit in a five gallon can. And if you have trouble believing that you will remember the testimony of Chesley Young who indicated that it in Salt Lake City there were three different purchases of gas, one for 5.09 gallons, which was done at the pump. There was also another purchase for approximately a little bit under 10 gallons which would represent the two other five gallon cans and then there was another purchase for gasoline, the one for her car mimicking, or almost the same as the gas purchases in Pasadena.
And if the purpose was to save money, which has what’s been alleged, then why buy gas in southern California? Why not buy gas there in Pasadena, and then buy some gas in Arizona if that’s what’s she coming for? Because they have argued to you, and it’s all argument, that well, every part of her trip was documented, and she was stopping at the bank, she was stopping at the store, and if she wanted to, she could have thrown away the receipt. Yes, every part of her trip was documented except the part where she came to Arizona. That one was not documented. Everything having to do with Arizona was erased. The telephone, well, you know, they told you she’s not the first person to have her battery run low. Well, she’s the first person we know that killed someone and when that battery seemed to have just run low, exactly when she came into Arizona, right outside of Pasadena. And this charger that she claims to have lost. All of a sudden, she found that charger. The other things that we know, there are no indications at all that when she came here to the state of Arizona, she stopped for gas anywhere. She had those gas cans so that she wouldn’t be able to be identified anywhere near Mr. Alexander’s home.
Additionally, with regard to the licence plate; they tell you well, that’s one of the best ways in the world to get stopped, to drive without a licence plate. Nobody ever alleged that she was driving without the licence plate; the allegation by the state, which is borne out by the fact that the front plate is off and the back plate is upside down is that she took both licence plates off before she arrived at Mr. Alexander’s house so she could park her car there, and nobody would be wiser. Nobody would know that it was her that was there. Who would know that? They tell you, well, she could have borrowed her parents’ car. That’s true, she could have done that; but they have licence plates on them; and it would have been identified to her. It would have been one short step to find out who owned that particular car. So, you were also told, well, there are some guns that her father owned. Can you imagine the question, or and the answer if she went to her father and said I need a gun, I want a gun. The question would be have been, why is it that you need it, why would you possibly need it if you’re going on a trip, and where are you going, what are you doing? Or else I’m not going to give you the gun. All of this is nothing but argument that was presented to you, and it was presented to you in a way that so that you could not focus not in on the actual issues in this case. One of the other portions of the uh argument was that well, you were talked about the finger issue; you were shown photographs and they talked to you about the demonstration, but as part of that argument, perhaps they forgot to talk to you about the cross examination in the issue involving the finger. Because when she was being questioned about the murder, and she was being asked about this particular finger and how the injury had happened, and how many injuries she had suffered, as a result of the um, attack if you will, on Mr. Alexander, she said, well you know I did get some bumps and bruises. The question was, is that all, is there anything, I mean that’s all you received?
And she said I also cut my finger. That’s what she said. So if that’s what she said, then why aren’t we talking about it now? Well, the reason we’re not talking about it now, is because they know that it doesn’t help their case so let’s go ahead and make an argument.
The other thing that was going on this case is that there were a lot of the salacious details of the case that were resurrected for you. There were … there was tape that was played, but of course, the tape that was played didn’t have her, generally speaking, didn’t have her side of the comments on it. It didn’t include all of the comments that you heard before. It just included Mr. Alexander’s. So clearly those were taken out of context. You were shown a photograph of her laying back nude, and you were asked to look. Take a look at her, does that look like somebody that is really happy? I defy anybody, even Alyce LaViolette, to take a look at a photograph, take a look at a photograph and tell you exactly what an individual is thinking. Is there any way to take a look at the photographs of Mr. Alexander or the defendant in whatever pose she’s in, whatever state of undress she’s in, and tell you this is what she was thinking? No, she wasn’t enjoying it. And, then they talk to you about, well she didn’t consent to having sexual intercourse with him, and anywhere that you go, well this would be a sexual assault. If there were a sexual assault, when supposedly he had this incident, because there is really nothing to support it; when he had this, according to her, this intercourse with her. Wouldn’t she have reported it? Would she have gone to the bishop, and even though that may have happened, given relationships that occur, a person can consent afterwards, and say oops, well, I really didn’t want to, but it’s okay. There was never any indication that stopped it
Nurmi: Objection, misstates the law.
There is never any indication that afterwards it didn’t happen. And in fact, she talked in great detail on May 10th of 2008, when they were having that conversation about how much she liked that sort of activity. She talked about how she was asleep and he was doing something to the lower portion of her body and how she enjoyed being woken up that way. Well isn’t it the same thing that happened when, supposedly, she was asleep and he was having sexual intercourse with her? But that’s not something that fits in within their, if you will spin on things, and so they make an argument on it. The other thing that they said is that well, maybe she was just his booty call and maybe she was his first, his second booty call, but bottom line is that she was his booty call. Why don’t they talk about the May 26th, 2008 instant messaging, where Mr. Alexander indicated something to the contrary? He indicated that if we’re going to be using these terms that are floating down the gutter, that he was the individual who was nothing more than a dildo with a heartbeat, and that it appears that whenever the defendant wanted anything she would use her sexuality, and he was acknowledging it, that yeah, I’m your booty call. So whose booty call is it? Is it hers or is it his? But they don’t want you to think about that.
They don’t want you to talk about that, because again, it’s easier to just go ahead and make the argument. They also talked to you about whether or not the defendant actually lied to you about Priceline. And we have an exhibit here, five twenty-three that they showed you. And in it, you do see that on 6/9 of 2008 there is a charge of two hundred and thirty-three dollars and ninety-seven cents to Budget Rent-A-Car, Redding, California. And if you take a look at um, throughout this whole document, it indicates the merchants that are receiving the payment, the payment for which this defendant contracted for. These are the activities that she engaged in. Just like the journals; what they want you to do is, and they make the argument is, don’t believe what’s written there. You need to apply the Law of Attraction to these documents, don’t you know? Or maybe you need to go back, when you go to the jury room, and actually sit down to a viewing of The Secret, because it appears that that’s what’s going to provide you with the ability to be able to read these documents that are being presented. And when this document says, for example that, we have on 6/20 there’s a Sacramento Country Airport and then you also have the, if I can find it, on 6/16 for two hundred forty-six dollars and ninety-nine cents, Priceline.com Air. And it tells you that the name of the merchant for that was Priceline. And the significance of that is not that she flew down here, the significance of that is that when that service is used, they note it. There is no indication that between the ninth six nine and six sixteen, which is a week time difference, there is no indication that between that week that Priceline somehow changed their billing practices. That’s what they want you to believe. It just so happens that during that time, Priceline decided to do things differently when it came to billing the merchants and how it was that they handle things. See, you can rent a car according to their theory and have it go through Budget, but if it’s an airline ticket within the same time, well then they follow a totally different procedure. They wanted to talk to you also about the events at the home, and they indicated to you that they wanted you to use your common sense. They indicated that they wanted you to consider the voice of reason, and they asked you that over and over again. And that voice of reason, the way they presented it to you, was the defendant’s version of events, so when the argument was made as to the voice of reason it was nothing more than the defendant’s version of events.
For example, when they talk to you about the tying up on that sleigh bed, and they said it shouldn’t be too difficult to do, that you can actually tie her up. And then they showed you a photograph of what potentially it could be. True, you could, but the problem here is was she tied up with just her wrists around the headboard or was she tied up also on her feet. Which story do you want to believe? She told two stories; it always goes back to that one issue. There is more than one story that she gave, so which one, are you going to decide to believe? Is it going to be that she had both her feet tied, or her ankles tied, or are you going to decide that it was just her ankles, is it just her hands; that’s the problem with what they are presenting to you. And then they also showed you photographs, for example, of the stairs and how there was this picture of this, what appeared to be to them, a piece of the rope, .. so with exhibit number two sixty nine that was on the stairs, that one, fifty-seven. What’s interesting about that though if she was doing that, where are the footsteps with the blood on it if she was so hysterical? Where are the footsteps with the blood on it? If she was walking around that bedroom, looking around for this belt, I’m sorry, for this rope, certainly the indication always was that it was after the killing that she took it with her. So, how come around the bedroom, because presumably, she at point said that the knife was on the night stand, and that’s where the cutting of the rope was, because she said she was at least tied up by her wrists, how come there is no footprints in blood there; how come there’s no footprints in blood here? The reason that there isn’t is because there wasn’t any rope; she’s just trying to justify what happened on that day in order to allow for a knife to be present, so that it makes her story palatable to you. Again, you have to have this extra step; you have to have sort of a code, in order to understand what she’s saying, in order to understand what she is writing.
After last photo, Jodi could have gone to bedroom to get her purse with a knife and a gun in it before she dropped the camera
They talk to you about a timeline and they talk to you about a photograph where Mr. Alexander is looking into the camera at the starting point, however, when the state showed you this photograph, this the photograph as the state mentioned, that was the last photograph that shows him before the attack when he was with her. That was what the statement was by the state. The next, and that’s at five thirty thirty. The next photograph that the state contends is where the stabbing is going on is exhibit one sixty-one which is at five thirty-one fourteen. So, in those forty-four seconds between that photograph and this photograph, is there time to go into the bedroom to get a knife? Is there time to go into the bedroom to get a purse that might have a knife and a gun? And that’s what happened in this case. Oh, wait a minute, can you just wait a minute, I need to go get my purse; I need to go do that. And then this is when you have the attack.
There were many, many possible scenarios that they talked to you about, and one of them involved the sink, when there was this blood all over it and there was smudges all over it, and one of the things that they told you, well if it was her that was doing it, and if she was able to puncture her stomach … his stomach, how is it then that, as he’s standing over this sink, how is it then that , if that is what’s happening, how come they didn’t go in deeply? Well, one of them, the reason, is that remember there was blood all over the place, and there was blood all over the knife, and she’s already admitted that she cut herself during the attack with the knife. One of the reasons that it could be that it wasn’t deep is that, that’s when she cut herself and that’s when she’s going after him with her left hand and blood has this consistency to it, she slipped on the handle, went to the blade, and then she cut herself. And if she cut herself, and still wants to continue attacking him, it would mean that every time that she would stab him, it probably hurt her. Everything that was presented to you is nothing more than argument, with nothing to back it up. Nothing, that is, unless you believe what the defendant is telling you. If you believe what the defendant is telling you, then all of these arguments then do begin to make sense.
But where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line and believe this defendant when she’s lied to everybody that’s she’s come in contact with. And she’s lied in other circumstances, too; that maybe didn’t involve her being under oath. One of the things that she lied about was the gun. According to her, back on June 10th of 2008 she said well you know I spoke to the officer; the gun, I made that up. It was a lie. Everything that she tells anybody of any consequence is a lie, until she comes here and then everything that she tells you, everything is the truth; except for the lies that she told you. And under those circumstances, and given that, they want you to step back and say evaluate her self-defence claim; evaluate this case in the terms of whether or not it is manslaughter, or whether or not it’s second degree murder, and make sure that you discount all the elements of premeditation that the state as already discussed with you. For example, the .25 calibre gun that turned up missing after she took it in a burglary back on May 28th of 2008. And in terms of renting the car, overlook everything else about that; the fact that she wanted a non-descript vehicle, at a different place than where she lived; that she then, as in anticipation of that trip, forget the fact that she told Mr. Brewer that she was coming to Mesa and that she needed two gas cans, forget all of that. Forget the fact that in Salinas, she bought another gas can, and that she lied to you about that, because that doesn’t fit within her scheme if you will. Then, forget the fact, that when she gets to Pasadena she fills up those three gas cans and forget the fact that she told you this story about those skateboarders because that doesn’t fit within the story, you just go with the story that she told you, forget all of that. All of that is just bad coincidences; as well as the fact that her phone somehow magically is not on during the time that she’s here in Arizona. You would need to ignore all of that in order to find that there wasn’t premeditation.
Additionally, the jury instruction with regard to premeditation is much more clear than that, and much more specific than that. It tells you that premeditation, in terms of time, does not necessarily have to be prolonged. So, in this particular case, there are two types of premeditation, the one where she thought about it since May .. , the end of May 2008 and she made the preparations; and the other premeditation when she was at the house. He was killed in three different ways, the stab wound to the heart would have killed him, the … obviously the slitting of the throat would have killed him, and the shot to the face would have killed him. That, all of it, did not happen in one instant. It took a period of time, and that, although it was approximately two minutes, what this jury instruction tells you is that the time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged and the space and time between the intent or knowledge to kill, and the act of killing may be very short. It could be seconds; it could be four, five, six seconds, and in this case, there was more than that. What she did is, she stabbed him first; he wasn’t dying quick enough, and she was afraid he was going to live. As he stumbles away, tries to get away, she chases him down, then she slits his throat, and then for good measure, shoots him in the face. And that’s the only way that you account for the casing where it is, falling on top of the blood.
They did talk to you about what is called self-defence. And they said to you, well, we’re not going to read the whole thing to you; we’re just going to read a portion of it. And they read a portion of it that was on top of page thirteen, and they said to you, the use of deadly physical force is justified if a reasonable person in the situation would have would reasonably believe that immediately .. that immediate deadly physical danger appeared to be present. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of deadly physical force in self defence. And they said to you, the use of deadly physical force is justified if a reasonable person; and they said she’s a reasonable person, no, that’s not what the statute says. The statute … or the law says a reasonable person. It doesn’t say that the defendant is a reasonable person. The defendant is a liar and a killer. That’s not what it says there. It says a reasonable person; a person that is involved in those circumstances. And that’s not the defendant; it’s not just because it’s her that’s what we’re talking about. But let’s read the whole instruction. It’s called justification for self defence involving physical force. And again, there’s going to be an argument; they made it for you but they didn’t give you the full argument. They didn’t talk to you about the whole jury instructions. It tells you that a defendant is justified in using or threatening deadly physical force in self defence if two conditions exist. And then it sets out for you, what those two conditions are. It talks about a reasonable person in the situation. They’re talking about, not the defendant, but what a reasonable person, presumably the way the defence attorney explained it to you and the way that you were chosen, you are the reasonable people, you are the reasonable person, the way they explained it to you. A reasonable person in the situation would have believed that deadly physical force was immediately necessary.
Was force immediately necessary ( references gas cans again, also Priceline, journals, not reporting abuse to her doctors )
Here, in order for you to believe that this is deadly … that this is something that is available, you would have to believe that, even after all of the lies, even after the fact that she presented evidence to you about these gas cans, about the fact that she used Priceline when she didn’t; the fact that her journals say something when they say something else; the fact that she lied to her doctors; all of that. You have to decide, that even, in light of all that; in light of all that, you have to believe that force was immediately necessary because she told you so. That’s the only way that you would know that it was immediately necessary, because she told you so. Why would deadly physical force be necessary after she stabbed him the first time? It wouldn’t be. Why would deadly physical force be necessary after she slashed his throat? Everybody knows that the person, if you slash him that badly, is done. Everybody also knows, for example, if they want to take the shooting first, that if you shoot somebody in the head, that’s it. Deadly physical force was immediately necessary, if you have already one of the two … of the three killings already done, then you don’t need to do the other two.
And the reason that I point that out is because that shows that her intent here was to kill, not to defend herself, that’s what she was doing. And then it talks about to protect against another’s use or apparent, attempted or threatened use of unlawful deadly physical force. What physical force do you see that Mr. Alexander applied to the defendant? What injuries was she able to talk to you about that Mr. Alexander inflicted upon her? Well she claims that one was to the head, but there is no verification of that. The only injury that she had that day, the only injury that was verified, that she had that day, was the injury to her left finger, and she said she got that stabbing him. So what injuries does she have? Or what use does he have … what threats do we have? Well, she claims that he said that he was going to fucking kill you bitch, that’s what she says that he said, but again, it’s all predicated on believing a liar, somebody who lied to you about important facts in this case, about things such as the gas can. Why would she have to lie about that? Because if she didn’t; then the issue of premeditation is very clear.
And number two, the defendant used or threatened no more deadly physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the situation. Well, what’s a reasonable person in that situation? A reasonable person in that situation would see that the victim, Mr. Alexander was naked. They would also see that he was sopping wet, because he had just been in that shower. They would also see that he was sitting down when this happened. They would also see and know that not once, not once in his lifetime, and that lifetime that was cut short, not once in that lifetime, did he ever lay a hand on her. Not once. There is no evidence that he ever laid a hand on her ever. So a reasonable person, where this individual had never ever touched her, because you have to believe her, and believe those journals that have to be interpreted through The Secret, through the Law of Attraction, you would have to believe her in order to believe that physical force was even necessary at all.
There’s no indication at all that he ever even touched her. There were situations, for example, when she told him, according to her journal, that she was leaving. And how did he respond to that? He kissed her tenderly, three times. Is that deadly … is that force, well you could say that, his lips were what, deadly weapons as he gently kissed her? Although she loved his lips, is that what we’re talking about? How about with regards to the supposed incident that happened on the 22nd of January of 2008? Is that … is the indication or the written word that says nothing noteworthy happened at that time, is that an indication or is that telling you that he struck her? No, that’s just the opposite. And how about the other incident that she claims that happened in August of 2007 after she was peeping inside his window, and looking at him with another woman, what about that one? Well, that didn’t happen that day. According to her, it happened the next day, when he was banging his head up on the closet, over and over, and according to her that was when he didn’t touch her, but didn’t want her to leave. Where, even under that stretch, it’s still not physical violence. The last incident that she describes is the one that right before she left to go Yreka, where supposedly she passed out. There is no indication whatsoever with regard to that one, because she claimed that she had visible bruises; no indication from the witness stand, other than from her that she had bruises. No indication from anybody, and remember, what’s interesting about that one, is that she got that right before she left. And shortly after that, within two days, she was with her family, when presumably these bruises would have been evident. You didn’t hear from the witness stand at all, that there were any bruises, whatsoever
Nurmi: Objection, (?)
So then, there is no deadly physical force that can be even remotely available to her because he never touched her in that fashion again. It does say that a defendant may use deadly physical force in self defence only to protect against another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of physical force. She claims that he threatened physical force. Are you going to believe her? And remember the earlier jury instructions talks about the situation where the credibility of witnesses is determined by applying it or thinking of it in terms of an important event in life. So with regard to important events in life, do you think anybody would take the defendant’s statement? For example, an important event is what kind of medical care a child was going to receive. If you had a liar, such as the defendant, would anybody take her advice as to how to care of that individual? You wouldn’t. And then it says self defence justifies the use or threat of deadly physical force, only while the apparent danger continues. If there is no danger, there is no apparent danger. It also indicates that it ends when the apparent danger ends. If there is no apparent danger, then deadly physical force cannot be used. And additionally, it says the force used may not be greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the apparent danger.
This individual, Mr. Alexander, was naked. He didn’t have any deadly weapons on him, he was sopping wet, he was sitting there; there was no way that he could possibly threaten her at all, just not at all. It does talk about what we just previously indicated, so that we can put it in context, the use of deadly physical force is justified if a reasonable person in the situation would have reasonably believed that immediate deadly physical danger appeared to be present. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of deadly physical force in self defence. In this case, as I said before, there was never anything that you had from the witness stand, other than from the defendant, who indicated to you that she was fearful? And if she’s the only person who indicated that, and she has these credibility problems, it is clear that this standard isn’t met. It says you must decide whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe that, and what is that they have to believe? Deadly physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or threatened use of lawful … unlawful deadly physical force. We’ve discussed this already. And then you must measure the defendant’s belief against what a reasonable person in that situation would have believed. We’ve talked about that already, and it does say that a defendant has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force in self defence if the defendant has a legal right to be in the place where the use or threatened deadly physical force in self defence occurred. Again, in order for this to apply to say that she has no duty to retreat, you still have to look at what a reasonable person would have done. A reasonable person in these circumstances, as the defendant has described them, if any of it were true, would be that there’s a naked guy in the shower, and this naked guy in the shower is mad at her, and she’s already got a head start down the hallway. Well, if that’s the case, and she’s running away, this tells you that although she has no duty to retreat, a reasonable person would have taken a left other than a right according to her,
Nurmi: Objection, misstates the law.
A reasonable person would have just left. Is he going to follow her down the street naked? No, of course not! And the second prong was not involved in an unlawful act at the time when the use or threatened deadly physical force in self defence occurred. Again, there has to be this threat before this is even activated.
It is true that the state has the burden of proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to be firmly convinced, and it does tell you what happens if the state fails to carry this burden. The only evidence that you have, in this particular case, about whether or not the use of force here was justified;
I keep going back to it, it’s like a parrot on a, I know I must sound like a parrot on a stick. I keep going back to the same thing, that would mean that you would have to believe the defendant, and the defendant is somebody who has demonstrated to you that throughout these proceedings, whether they be outside of the courtroom, in person to the detective, by telephone call to the detective, speaking with her friends, speaking to the psychologists or coming in here and speaking here to you, throughout this whole thing she has lied. It requires you to put all of that aside and say, something magical happened, and because something magical happened, I’m going to believe her as to this very limited thing, even though she has lied to us. And she’s lied to everybody else. And then it talks to you about whether or not there have been past acts of domestic violence against the defendant by the victim. Where are they? Where’s the proof of that? There is absolutely nothing other than the defendant’s own statements.
And it talks about the state of mind of a reasonable person shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person who has been the victim of acts of domestic violence. But if there have been no acts of domestic violence that have been proven to you, then she does not fall in that category. And then it talks about what domestic violence means, and it lays out the relationship issue, and then it talks about what the potential crimes could be.
Well, you’re left now, to decide whether or not as to premeditated murder, because they did not discuss the felony murder issue, whether or not there was any premeditation, or whether or not there’s second degree or whether or not this is manslaughter. It bears repeating, and you’ve seen these, that premeditated murder requires that, the defendant, and we can personalize it, Jodi Ann Arias, caused or killed Travis Alexander. Yeah, she put that knife in really good in his chest, she slit his throat, and she shot him in the face. Yup, she did do that. And did Jodi Ann Arias intend or know that she would kill Travis Victor Alexander? Absolutely, that’s why she went for the throat, that’s why she just gutted him and that’s why she stuck it in his chest. And that’s why she shot him in the face.
There was this argument that well if she’s dragging him back, she would have to aim. No she wouldn’t, he was shot in the right temple as opposed to them telling you it was the left temple, and if she’s dragging him this way down the hallway, his right temple would be the one that would be most open to her and she just took the gun and shot him. He was already dead at the time.
And did Jodi Ann Arias act with premeditation? She did. Premeditation means that Jodi Ann Arias intended to kill Travis Victor Alexander. She sure did, she sure did. And after intending or knowing that she wanted to kill him, did she think about it? Well, sure she did. Do you think that she got the gun in Yreka, the .25 calibre for any other reason other than to kill him? Do you think that all of these gyrations in preparation for her trip, or these preparations that she took, do you think that those were for any other reason other than to kill him? Do you think that she called Darryl Brewer and said, hey, I want these two gas cans because I’m going to Mesa and then I’m going to lie to people about it? But do you think that she said that … don’t you think that she called him for any other reason other than she wouldn’t be found out that she was coming to Mesa? Of course not!
And the fact that she bought a third gas can; that was for the purpose of going undetected; the fact that she turned off her cell phone; the fact that she took off the licence plates when she arrived at his place; all of that was so that she would go undetected when she killed him. And so she reflected, she thought about it, or knew which is what is required. And then it tells you that she didn’t have to think about it for a long time; it can be a short period of time. It tells you that this reflection regardless of the length of time. In this case, a case that’s unique in a sense that you have a continuing aspect of premeditation. You have a very long period of time in which she undertakes these preparations, and then you also have a shorter period of time in which she kills him three times over. And so, there’s the premeditation either way. And it tells you, that’s the difference between first degree and second degree. It also advises you that it is not, I’ll just read it, that while reflection is required for first degree murder, the time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged and the space of time between the knowledge or the intent to kill, and the killing of the defendant … by the defendant of Travis Alexander may be very short. It does talk to you about premeditation not being the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. And I will point out to you again, that Jodi Ann Arias, is the only person that indicated that there has been a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Nothing in the scene itself indicates that, in fact, the scene indicates something else. She actually took some time to delete some photographs from the camera, she actually took time to make sure that she didn’t get her … the bloody footprints onto the carpet, she took time to put the camera in the washing machine, and she took some extra time to kind of wipe up the scene, drag him back and stick him in the shower. Now, the issue here is that, in terms of the instructions, if you find that defendant is guilty of premeditated murder, and/or felony murder, which is the state’s position; then you do not consider second degree murder; you do not start with manslaughter and go up, you don’t start with second degree murder and go up. You start with first degree murder.
And once you’re done with that first degree murder calculation, that’s the end of the story. Second degree murder is the same thing as first degree murder except there is no premeditation. Clearly in this case, there is premeditation. And manslaughter actually has another element that’s added to it, in addition to what second degree murder is. There has to be a sudden quarrel or heat of passion and in order for it here, for there to a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, the defendant has to be believed. But let’s talk about manslaughter and the elements. It tells you, that if, and only if, you find the elements of second degree murder were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then consider whether the homicide was committed upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. That’s the added element resulting from adequate provocation by the victim. The provocation here is supplied by Jodi Ann Arias. She’s the one that’s telling you that he’s the one that telling you that he’s the one that came after her. But again, it’s predicated on you believing her. And it talks about adequate provocation means conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of self control. Well, if it’s Ms. Arias that is telling you, is there even any provocation whatsoever? It does say that words alone are not adequate provocation to justify reducing an intentional killing to manslaughter. If a naked guy, as Mr. Alexander was, is in the shower shouting at you, that’s not enough to justify manslaughter, cause you can imagine how many situations there are where people get into shouting matches and that’s not appropriate to then shoot them, or stab them or slit their throat. And then it talks about a cooling off period between the provocation ie and the killing. And the cooling off period is the time it would take a reasonable person to regain under the circumstances. Since, there is no proof whatsoever that there was any provocation on behalf of the victim
Nurmi: Objection, (?)
There is no indication whatsoever that Mr. Alexander did anything other than what the defendant says and according to her, he said a fifth grader or words to that effect could take better pictures than you. That’s not sufficient provocation. It goes on that if you do find the elements of second degree murder were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then it tells you how to decide this case, if you find yourself in that position.
It is the state’s view that nothing in this case indicates that this was anything other than a slaughter, other than a premeditated killing of a guy, Travis Victor Alexander, who just didn’t want to have anything to do with her. There’s no indication here that he went to visit her. Yes, there was a telephone call that was made, and yes, they were enjoying … or he was enjoying himself and apparently, according to what the phone call sounds like, she was enjoying herself. But actually seems or, what is going on here, because we can say this as a result of the May 19th, 2008 instant message, is that, Mr. Alexander had tired of her. And he knew of the history, he knew of the stalking behaviour that she had, and he was done with her. And so he told her that. That he was done with her, and he also indicated that he was extremely afraid because of her stalking behaviour and he was prophetic in that. What ends up happening is that on May 26th, they had this argument. You’ve seen the argument, he says it’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to him, and that’s true. And so what ends up happening again, is that it’s as if he were pronouncing his own death sentence, and that she undertakes to carry this out.
It isn’t like he requested it, it isn’t like he did anything other than to attempt to sort of appease this woman that just wouldn’t leave him alone, whether it be by coming over and sleeping under the Christmas tree, taking a ring that didn’t ring belong to her, peeping in his window, doing all those things that she did, moving to Mesa after he broke up with …. or they broke up. Going into his computer, hitting the backspace button, breaking into his my space account, all of those things indicate to you that her motivation for this was, that she just wanted him. She came over, and what does one act of wanting an individual? Well, to demonstrate that you want an individual is you engage in sexual intercourse, and that’s what she did on that particular day.
She wanted him. She couldn’t let him go. Even from Yreka, she couldn’t let him go. There’s never an indication that he said that, or he requested her to come there. Those were her words, and she kept saying them over and over like mantra. And so on that date, when she finally got there she came ready to go.
And by ready to go, I mean she brought over the weapons and she spent some time with him, and then when he was in the shower, he was no match for her. And she took care of business and you know how she took care of business. And because she took care of business, and because she stabbed him in the heart, and because she slashed his throat, and because she shot him in the face, and because she premeditated it, you now have a duty.
And this duty requires you to take into account the jury instructions, and these jury instructions are not something that you can disregard, they’re mandatory. Apply them to the facts, and the facts again involve an individual who has lied consistently throughout, and based on that, you are to reach a decision as to whether or not the defendant committed first degree murder.
And in circumstance like this, again, you can only make reference to what other people have said perhaps with regard to other important times of their life, and there’s a poet John Donne, and again it’s just a reference to him, it’s close to the quote, but the reference that I want to leave you with is that when you’re involved in this sort of situation, you have to sit back and you think about it and you think about what is going on, and he wrote every person’s death diminishes, so therefore send no one to find for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee
Nurmi: Objection, improper argument.
And in this case what it is telling us is that you now have the burden to apply this and to the facts that were presented, and in doing so, I am asking you to return a verdict of first degree murder, not only of premeditated murder but also of felony murder. Not because it’s an emotional decision that I want you to reach like them by saying that something is nonsensical, and that sort of thing, or making an argument just for its own sake, but because in this case, Travis Victor Alexander was slaughtered by this woman
Nurmi: Objection, improper argument.
She slashed his throat, she stabbed him in the heart and then she shot him in the face, and all of that thinking about it in advance. Thank you.