The Jodi Arias Retrial: A Juror’s Perspective
DAY 16
“FLAW IN FOUNDATION”
The Jury came in today looking crisp and sharp. They filed in and the first row had to back step slightly in their row to account for the empty seat of Juror # 3. The seats are assigned by Juror numbers and those seats remain that way until the end. We are missing sit # 3 and # 9 in the first row and seat # 14 in the top row. Sixteen remain on the Jury and the four alternates will be chosen just before the Jury goes into the deliberation phase. There is not one Juror that wants to be an alternate and at least they won’t have to worry about it during the Holiday break.
We had one witness for the duration of the day and the Jury was happy not to see Dr. Fonseca.
Dr. Robert Geffner was called to the witness stand with Jennifer Willmott in charge of his questioning. It was a nice change of pace after the long period of time with Kirk Nurmi. There were a lot of things the Jury would have liked about today aside from it being a new witness on the stand. As I have mentioned before, Juries love evidence that they can touch and feel. Even though this was psychological testimony, the Jurors liked having evidence to look at. They were able to see a plethora of documentation of test results.
Dr. Geffner was dressed sharply yet comfortably in a black suit with a white shirt complimented with a diamond pattern tie. His hair was trimmed and his face was accented by a salt and pepper mustache. He engaged well with Jennifer Willmott and he seemed to involve the Jury without the artificial behaviors that Dr. Fonseca endowed upon them. They felt they were being spoken to instead of being spoken at. I may not have seen a lot of note taking but I did see that many lacked the long faces displayed during the latter days of Fonseca being on the stand. They seemed to be leaning forward slightly and they looked at him and the displayed multiplicity of test results on the screens with keen interest.
The Jury is hungry for information and evidence and they are starving for forward progress. They liked that this Psychologist’s evidence focused solely on Jodi Arias instead of on Travis Alexander. I say this as a former Juror on the Death Penalty Trial of Marissa DeVault. We saw this same sequence of Psychological evidence and we, too, begged to know about the defendant. Instead of Dr. Geffner, our trial featured Dr, Cheryl Carp who spoke of the same battery of tests given to DeVault in her evaluations.
The MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) was explained by Dr. Geffner as having been one of the oldest and most tested of all examinations in the field of Psychology. This trusted examination has been used for nearly fifty years It has an updated version that was used in this case by both himself and Dr. DeMarte. Generally, this test is most valuable when taken a number of times over a span of years to track changing results and trends.
The Doctor spoke in a very affable manner as he discussed the things that came up as red flags for Jodi Arias. He said the test results revealed that she had a low self-esteem and was subject to anxiety and depression. Her personality traits showed under average signs of aggressiveness and hostility which she kept inside as she was more introverted than extroverted.
There was a point when the Doctor said that many personality disorders are actually signs of mental illness. He spoke specifically that she had a high range score in anxiety, paranoia and Schizophrenia. She fell into the category of a Psychopathic Deviate as she felt generally alienated from authority and society.
I watched Juan Martinez as he sat as his desk. He had his cheek cradled in the crook of his arm. He would look at the results of the test scores on the large screen directly across from the Jury. He looked at each presentation without emotion. Every once in a while, he would jot notes on his legal pad and then resume his position and look at the screen. I swear I could feel the wheels turning in his head. He was remarkably free of objections today.
I felt sorry for this nice and affable witness, for one day soon he would have to answer to Mr. Martinez.
The Doctor spent the day covering such tests as the TSI (Traumatic System Inventory) in both the older and newer version, the PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory), the IBS (Interpersonal Behavioral Study), and the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test). Results were put on the screen in the form of graphs showing high levels, normal levels and below average levels. Numbers and abbreviations were used flowingly. It was fairly easy to follow and track his results and perceptions based on those results. It had the look and feel of evidence and all Juries like that.
I remember feeling the same way when Dr. Carp walked us through the identical test results of Marissa DeVault. The evidence looked good. The test results looked tangible. A Juror rarely knows much about Psychology or its tests and applications. There is a greater trust when you can see it front of you.
Jennifer Willmott spent significant time on each piece of Psychological evidence by directing Dr. Geffner to show that each test had an embedded validity test. The scale is a computer interpretation of these test answers to detect flaws in patterns of answers and their consistency to each other. Each test showed a validity test that verified these results were sound.
I will say that Jennifer Willmott did a respectable job in handling her witness throughout the day. She asked questions that she seemed to know the answers to before she asked, she carried herself comfortably with fluid motion and one felt forward progress in moving through testimony.
“Let me ask you, Doctor,” she said with pointed interest toward him, “How can you tell if someone is lying or not on these examinations?”
Whether anyone new it or not, this was the most important question of the day.
In that moment, I realized that I had heard the very same question of Dr. Carp in the DeVault Trial. I also wrote about this in creating one of my favorite chapters in, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale (available on Amazon.com). Those who have read the book remember a chapter by the same title, “Malingering Problems”.
Malingering is a term used by Psychologists assigned to test answers that are maligned to be “Faking Good” (“I am an angel, I wouldn’t do that.”), or “Faking Bad”, (“I like to kill small animals because I am screwed up in the head”). The answers are manipulated by the subject to fit to what they think is the best answer to their situation as opposed to what the real answer is.
I thought it interesting that Dr. Geffner found all the tests to be objective. I found it curious that the results of the tests of her personality do not match the horrific killing of Travis Alexander. The Jury will have just as hard a time matching her face to the crime as well as trying to match Psychological test results to the premeditation and cruelness of the crime.
At some point, the Jury will look at this evidence in the deliberation room as we looked at it in the DeVault Trial. A Jury judges the validity of witnesses before they ever start looking at evidence. In our case, we knew that the murderer was adept at lying and well versed in manipulation. There are few that are better than she was. As a Jury, we tossed anything she said or did out as useless. She spent hours and hours with Psychologists taking examinations. We spent hours as a Jury looking through test results during the trial. It was amazing how fast we discounted the evidence in the deliberation room because Marissa DeVault had provided the answers. She was a liar so her test results were not worth the dirt on the bottom of someone’s shoes. It is a Juror’s right to dismiss all or part of evidence and witness testimony.
Malingering is another word for lying. Jodi Arias is a proven liar. Kirk Nurmi stated to the Jury that, “We know Jodi Arias is a liar”, during the time when Dr. Fonseca was on the stand. I do not believe this Jury will be able to use any of this as evidence. It is inherently flawed because the test subject is inherently flawed.
The Jury may not figure it out right away. Some may even be going home tonight thinking there was some good evidence to work with. Others will give it little value.
We know something that the Jury doesn’t.
Dr. DeMarte is on the horizon. It may not be until January but she is coming. She knows what malingering is and the Jury will know what it is by the time she leaves the witness stand.
Her rebuttal testimony will render the conversation short in the deliberation room…
The oddest thing happened today. It is the first time that I have not heard the name of Travis Alexander during proceedings.
None of us have forgotten that he was there in each of our hearts.
“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the spirit of Travis Alexander.”
Justice 4 Travis Alexander…
Justice for Dale…
Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment