By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press
PHOENIX (AP)
-- Jodi Arias was peppered with a wide range of questions Wednesday as
jurors in her murder trial asked about everything from Mormonism to the
definition of a derogatory name she says her lover called her before she
killed him.
Arizona is one of just a few
states where jurors are allowed to ask questions of witnesses during a
criminal trial as a matter of law, meaning the judge is required to
notify the panel of its right to pose queries. In most other states, the
process is either banned altogether or it's left up to individual
judges to determine whether jurors can question witnesses.
Judge
Sherry Stephens previously said the jury had about 100 questions for
Arias, but by day's end, more than 150 were asked, and additional
queries continued to come in. Arias is set to take the stand Thursday
for a 17th day as Stephens will continue to read questions aloud.
Arias
spent Wednesday responding occasionally with calm, concise answers, as
she was quizzing repeatedly over her memory lapses from the gruesome
attack. Other answers meandered and were met with objections from
attorneys, at times from both the prosecutor and defense lawyers
simultaneously.
Many questions focused on
things that just don't add up - how Arias can recall specific details of
raunchy sexual encounters with Travis Alexander, yet says her memory is
"scrambled" when she tries to remember events from the day she killed
him.
Arias is charged with first-degree murder
in the June 2008 death of Alexander in his suburban Phoenix home. She
says it was self-defense, but police say it was a premeditated killing.
She faces the death penalty if convicted.
Arias
initially told authorities she had nothing to do with Alexander's
death, then blamed it on masked intruders before settling on
self-defense. Her repeated lies to authorities in the days after his
death, and her methodical efforts to create an alibi and avoid suspicion
have been center stage throughout the weekslong trial.
Alexander had been shot in the head, stabbed and slashed nearly 30 times and had his throat slit.
Jurors'
written questions prodded her over why she never called police after
she says Alexander had repeatedly physically abused her in the months
leading up to this death, and why she continued to see him after she
said she once awoke to find him having sex with her.
"I was in love with Travis," Arias said. "I knew I was in love with him, and it didn't make a difference to me, honestly."
None
of her allegations of Alexander's abuse and her claims that he had
sexual desires for young boys has been corroborated by witnesses or
evidence during the trial, and she has admitted to lying repeatedly
before and after her arrest.
Arias also
testified previously how Alexander demeaned her and called her
derogatory terms like "whore" and "skank." Jurors then asked how she
defined "skank." She stammered with her response and skirted the
question.
The panel also asked about her
commitment to Mormon teachings. She converted to the faith after meeting
Alexander, also a Mormon, but the two carried on an intense sexual
relationship, despite church doctrine that discourages sex outside of
wedlock.
The questions provided a glimpse into the panel's thoughts after hearing her testify about practically every detail of her life.
They
asked her about past relationships with other men and how it could have
been so easy for her to get a gun from the victim's closet while he
chased her in a fury. Jurors also wanted to know why she tried to clean
the bloody scene at Alexander's home.
She has
acknowledged dumping the gun in the desert, getting rid of her bloody
clothes, and leaving the victim a voicemail on his mobile phone within
hours of killing him in an attempt to cover her tracks.
Arias'
grandparents had reported a .25-caliber handgun stolen from their
Northern California home about a week before the killing - the same
caliber used to shoot Alexander - but Arias says didn't take it.
Authorities believe she brought it with her.
A
noted attorney in California, where it's up to judges to decide whether
jurors may question witnesses, doesn't think the practice is a good
idea.
"It becomes too difficult, too tempting
for a juror to lose their role as an impartial fact-finder and slip into
the role of an advocate, and I think that's contrary to what the whole
justice system is based upon," said Los Angeles-area defense attorney
Mark Geragos.
"In effect, you've deputized the jurors as investigators," Geragos added.
Others,
however, say the practice is a useful tool aimed at getting to the
truth, and it provides attorneys a window into the deliberation room,
giving them time to change strategies.
Phoenix
criminal defense attorney Julio Laboy said juror questions of a witness
during a case where he was representing a client charged with murder
once led to prosecutors offering a deal to plead to a lesser count.
"In
the end, what this is all really about is the search for truth, and any
mechanism that allows jurors to get closer to the truth without
prejudicing one side or the other, I think, is a good tool," Laboy said.
Watch the trial while it's in session:
www.myfoxphoenix.com/category/234796/live-video2
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press modified.
