DAY 33 : "A Juror's Perspective" By Paul Sanders
Dr. Janeen DeMarte returned to the witness stand for the second day of testimony in the Jodi Arias death penalty retrial. She sat in the witness chair with poise wearing a black business skirt suit as the jury watched. She placed her briefcase to the side of her and put some manila folder files on the desk in front of her.
Kirk Nurmi got up from the defense table carrying a legal pad and placed it on the podium. He was dressed in a charcoal black suit with a white shirt complimented with a red patterned silk tie. At a distance, I thought it could have been a Jerry Garcia tie and noticed later that it was not. He put both hands in his pockets and walked a couple steps toward the jury.
“Good morning,” he said in the general direction of the floor in front of him.
“Good morning,” Dr. DeMarte answered.
Kirk Nurmi turned toward Dr. DeMarte and barked at her. “Sorry, I did not hear you!”
“Good morning,” she answered again, this time moving her mouth closer to the microphone.
This began the process of the defense team losing jurors. Kirk Nurmi had been on the floor only thirty seconds and at least one juror found his approach not only unnecessary but uncouth.
“That’s your current resume?” he asked Dr. DeMarte, looking at a packet of paper in front of her.
“It is,” she answered politely.
“May I approach, your Honor?” he asked Judge Stephens.
“You may,” she answered, perched on her bench. She was dressed in her standard black robes. She wore her glasses toward the end of her nose looking at the attorney over the top of them.
Kirk Nurmi walked briskly to Dr. DeMarte, taking the packet she handed to him. The court waited silently as he went through the quick machinations of entering it as Exhibit Number 918. He gave a copy to the prosecution table and made his back to the left of the podium, studying the document. He did not put it on the projector screen for the jury to see.
“So, you got a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Massachusetts,” he began, “and then you went to Michigan State University? You got your Master’s degree in 2003?”
Dr. DeMarte moved her mouth to the microphone. “I got my Master’s Degree in 2005.”
“You had a year off after getting your Master’s before getting a PH.D.?” he asked.
“Yes.”
Kirk Nurmi looked at the document and slowly walked toward the podium. “You just got your PH.D. in 2009?”
“Correct,” she answered.
“You were licensed in Arizona when? 2010?”
“Yes.”
“It reads that you were hired by Bailiss Behavior Health, is that right?” he asked as he turned around to face her.
“Yes.”
“You evaluated Jodi Arias when you were in the employment of Bailiss, right?”
“Correct,” she answered.
“When was that? When did you evaluate her?”
“August 26, 2011.”
“You were only licensed a year at the time of the evaluation?” he asked. He started walking toward the jury while scratching the side of his head.
“Approximately,” the Doctor responded. ‘I’ve been seeing patients since 2004?”
Kirk Nurmi stopped and turned toward her. “I didn’t ask you about your experience. But, since you brought it up, you think you have experience since 2004?”
“Yes,” she answered.
“The American Psychologists Association does not recognize that as experience, do they?”
“No. But experience does not just begin at the moment you get your license,” she answered. She was calm and firm in her voice.
“So, you’re counting high school, as well?” he asked.
Juan Martinez did not give her a chance to answer. “Objection! Harassing the witness!”
Judge Stephens quickly ruled in his favor and at Juan’s insistence, she told the jury to disregard the statement.
“How much do you get paid for testimony?” Kirk Nurmi asked her when the dust settled.
“Three hundred dollars an hour.”
The jury will remember Dr. Fonseca telling them that she was paid three hundred and seventy five dollars an hour. “…which is less than market value,” she had responded when she testified months prior.
“You authored a report on Jodi Arias at the time of your evaluation in 2011?” Kirk Nurmi asked. He started walking toward her as she picked up a packet of papers and handed it across to him.
He entered it as Exhibit Number 918. “You are self-employed after leaving Bailiss in 2012?”
“Yes.”
“Would you say that,” he started and paused. “Well, let me back up. It says that you do fifty percent evaluations and fifty percent therapy. Does that sound right?
“That’s correct,” she agreed.
“In that regard, would you say that forensic work is a small part of what you do?” Kirk Nurmi asked her.
“You could say that.”
“Okay. And would you agree that death penalty analysis is a smaller percentage than forensic work?”
“Yes.”
“You testified in this case in April of 2013? That would include the three dates of April 16, 17 and 18th of 2013?”
She agreed.
“Prior to this, you have had two other death penalty cases that you have testified on?”
Doctor DeMarte corrected him, “I have testified in four cases for the State.”
“I see,” he responded. “I stand corrected. “Four death penalty cases and you also worked on three other cases, right?”
“That’s right.”
“Your testimony in these cases was all related to the sentencing phase?” he asked. He started walking away from the jury and back to the podium. He looked at his legal pad.
“Yes,” she answered.
“Let me get this straight,” he said as if he were pondering an issue. “You were working part time as Dr. Death on these cases, weren’t you?”
Juan Martinez did not complete the process of standing as he yelled, “Objection! Argumentative! I want this removed from the record.”
Judge Stephens quickly obliged and told the jury to disregard the last statement.
Dr. DeMarte had testified in two phases in the Marissa DeVault death penalty trial for the brutal killing of Dale Harrell. I was honored to sit a mere four feet from her while she was in the witness chair and I was in the jury box a mere eight months ago. I, along with fifteen fellow jurors had an intimate relationship with the testimony of Dr. DeMarte. Her testimony gave meaning to the horror of what our defendant had done to the victim. We respected her analysis and we trusted her word.
There is a significant difference between her affect when she is testifying now versus her testifying in the DeVault trial. Her only weakness a year ago was a rigid and defensive reaction when the defense team , Alan Tavasoli and Andrew Clemency, attacked her credibility in their interrogation of her. I had witnessed this menocide.
Today, she stood her ground without being defensive despite the low blows of Kirk Nurmi. She did not get rattled and played the witness who is only there for truth. Her truths had been established the day prior with the masterful work of Juan Martinez, the prosecutor. She took it gracefully and did not need to have any regrets because the window of truth had revealed the humanness of Travis Alexander and the evil of Jodi Arias the day prior.
Kirk Nurmi had managed to lose a good handful of jurors quickly. The jurors he lost were the ones that believed her testimony yesterday.
These jurors, like ours, had built a relationship with the witness and they certainly did not appreciate the name calling and innuendo that she was subjected to in the early hours of the retrial. It is almost like attacking a friend and your mind runs to the defense of that friend.
The dynamic was different in the courtroom than the day prior. The energy felt on edge. The defense table felt like the enemy for the first time as a whole. Jodi Arias wore a deep purple colored thick and long sweater. For those on the jury selected for their experience with domestic violence, some will recognize that purple has come to represent the color of domestic violence awareness.
Its untruth was subtle to some jurors and loud to those who could see the symbol of what the defendant wore. Juan Martinez had gotten a great majority, if not all, in the prior day’s testimony, to believe there is a preponderance of evidence to show that Arias was not a victim of child abuse and that Travis Alexander had no hand in domestic violence.
Arias also acted completely differently than she had the day prior. In the previous day’s testimony of Dr. DeMarte, she spent the entirety of the day whispering into the ear of her mitigation specialist, Maria de la Rosa. Today, however, she sat as if she were a school girl at the defense table making point of sitting up straight and watching her attorney intently.
The purple sweater was a lie for all to see. It will have angered those on the jury who have first-hand experience with domestic violence. I was one of the jurors on the DeVault trial who was more than likely selected because of my experience with domestic violence. I can comfortably say that those who pretend to carry the cross of domestic violence infuriate me just as it will antagonize those on this jury with similar experience.
Arias lost a couple jurors in her attire, her outward manifestation of a falsehood and her aroma of manipulation.
The truth sat in the witness chair and her name was Dr. DeMarte. It would remain unsaid and it would one day arise in deliberations that the true victim of domestic violence in this courtroom was named Travis Alexander.
“What is physical abuse?” Kirk Nurmi asked.
Dr. DeMarte answered quickly and efficiently. “The purpose of physical abuse is power and control. Physical attacks can take place over time and it can be manifested in relationships by either partner.”
“You need repeat patterns to hit the radar before you can call it physical abuse, don’t you?”
“Not necessarily,” Dr. DeMarte responded into the microphone.
“What is emotional abuse?”
Just as quickly, without referencing any material, DeMarte answered, “It is those behaviors against another that cause emotional damage to someone.”
Kirk Nurmi put his hands in his pockets and walked toward the jury looking to the floor. “If we are to talk about, let me ask it this way, when we speak of abuse, does it have to be intended?”
“No,” she answered. “A person can experience physical and or mental abuse without the intent of the abuser.”
“If we were to speak of a personality disorder, isn’t this something that is part of someone’s structure?”
“Yes.”
“It is over a long period of time? Am I correct in saying that?” Nurmi asked.
“Yes,” she said.
“Okay, then, let me get some things straight. If we were to put it in a way we can understand, isn’t fear of heights a situational disorder,” he asked. He turned around and took slow steps back toward the podium. He rubbed his chin as if deep in thought.
“Actually, fear of heights would be a psychological disorder.”
“The same thing as a mental illness, right?” he asked as he looked toward the Doctor.
“I prefer to call it a psychological disorder,” she stated.
“Did I ask you what you prefer? I don’t care what you prefer!”
He lost a couple more jurors in his outburst.
Dr. DeMarte did not flinch and I was proud to be in the same room with her.
Kirk Nurmi stepped a couple steps toward her and one did not have to see his eyes to know that he was glaring at her. I can only imagine what the jury felt in that moment.
“Listen to my question,” he said overly emphasizing each word, one at a time. “Isn’t Borderline Personality Disorder also a mental illness?”
Juan Martinez verbally objected.
Kirk Nurmi ignored him. “You said yesterday that you had diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder?”
“Yes,” she answered.
“Isn’t this a temporary condition?”
“It can be,” she said. She was still as professional as she had been the day she walked into the courtroom. She showed no sign she was affected by Nurmi’s interrogation.
“I have you quoted on page thirty where you say it appears that she has an Adjustment Disorder. That is not what you just told us,” he accused.
“The Adjustment Disorder pertains to her incarceration. It is typical of inmates in the first couple years,” she answered calmly.
This was the last time of the day that I would observe Juan Martinez furiously writing notes on his legal pad. He was bent over and I could see the top of his pen dancing about.
“Now, in referencing Dr. Geffner’s report,” Kirk Nurmi started. “Let’s ask it another way. Are you aware that Dr. Geffner, a psychologist with thirty-five years experience, has testified that a Borderline Personality Disorder is a serious mental disorder or illness?”
“I am familiar with his reports,” she answered confidently.
“You referred to Jodi Arias in your reports twice that she had a mental illness,” Mr. Nurmi said as he pointed to a report in his hand.
“No,” Dr. DeMarte answered.
“What do you mean when you say no? Are you denying that you referred to Jodi Arias as having a mental illness?
“I used the term in the context of data points,” she answered. Her voice was unwavering.
“Why don’t you tell me this. How does one get this kind of disorder?” he asked. He crossed his arms on his chest and faced her.
For the first time, Dr. DeMarte turned toward the jury and explained it to them succinctly and proficiently. “This disorder develops in combination with an environment. If it is not recognized, and without support from those around the person, this trait will accentuate and develop.”
“Are people born with this or do they have a vulnerability to this disorder?” the attorney asked.
“There have been many studies on this,” she answered. “There is not agreement by all that it is a biological disorder. This disorder can come from a number of environmental factors. There is not a definitive pathway to give a concrete yes or no to the answer.”
“Tell me this, if someone has this,” Kirk Nurmi began, “let me back up, how does a Borderline Personality Disorder come to light?”
“I mentioned this a moment ago but environmental factors have a significant role in it appearing. It will turn on like a light switch. Again, there is debate in this science as to what the trigger may be,” she answered.
The killer in my trial as a juror, had an anti-Personality Disorder as diagnosed and testified to on the stand by the very same Dr. DeMarte. We heard a similar story in how that disorder manifests itself. When we were in the deliberation room, the subject came up as we took great weight in DeMarte’s testimony. The attorneys in the case had used the similar argument that this was a mental disorder which DeMarte also successfully countered.
Twelve of us debated the issue of a personality disorder being a mental illness and our arguments amongst each other were shortened when it quickly came to light to twelve reasonable people that DeVault’s disorder was not a mitigating factor. The killer had premeditated the death of Dale Harrell and had done it in a cruel way. We quickly came to the conclusion that all people who commit first degree murder have to have some sort of mental disorder to cross this line of criminality. We concluded that her disorder was not proven to be a mental illness because of the premeditated and cruel nature of the crime.
My juror acumen tells me this jury will have the same discussion and will come to a similar conclusion. A Borderline Disorder does not qualify as a mitigating factor.
I cannot say the exact moment that the jury stopped taking notes but it was shortly after the Borderline Personality discussion. I can say they stopped taking notes for the same reasons I stopped taking notes. We slipped slowly into the grasp of slime highway and took a hard right on rehash highway as Kirk Nurmi began a long and tortuous ride into every boyfriend that Arias had ever had.
The arguments all fell to the boyfriends being at fault. Most had gone to another girlfriend, as young men do when they are single. Another had a child he thought more important than Arias. Most importantly, one had been brutally murdered in his own home.
Somehow, in each case, Arias had been free of fault and the boyfriends had made her a victim. Jodi Arias had become what her boyfriends wanted her to be in the eyes of the defense. She was a “a slut, a porn star and her body had been built for sex,” the murder victim once said in a private conversation, unaware he was being recorded.
The jury did not buy it and they did not buy the stories of abuse. Juan Martinez and Dr. DeMarte had skillfully revealed in the day prior’s testimonial dance. The preponderance of evidence said it was corroborated by the defendant and no one else. The only person who came close to saying violence existed, hid behind an affidavit that the jury already knew to be a lie.
Kirk Nurmi went back to the TSI, MMPI-2, the DSM and the PSD. The jury did not care anymore. No notes needed to be taken because every test had been laid to rest in the landfill of useless evidence.
I had great empathy as I watched each juror suffer through the unending drone of lies, journal entries and text messages that did nothing to find a mitigating circumstance. The jury was instructed by the court when they were selected to find the mitigating factors and it seemed that every day, they were dismally disappointed.
They watched in muted silence. alone in their thoughts, doing everything they could not to show discontent or to drift asleep. Some jurors kept taking sips of water. Another kept turning in his chair. One juror, who I originally thought to be note-taking, was probably writing letters to her mother or drawing pictures. She, like the others, had been lost to the prosecution.
The afternoon was filled with foul language that no longer had the power to move anyone because all if it was known by heart. The more the defense team talked, the further the jury went away. I know the feeling and when the tide turns, there is no swimming back.
We heard things being, “morally problematic”, coined by the defense attorney. The jury wants facts, evidence and things they can see and touch. Juan Martinez and Dr. Janeen DeMarte and taken them on an information highway while Kirk Nurmi left them in a fog with no sense of direction. The least anything felt like in the afternoon was a search for truth or justice. Instead, it was stories based on malingering and truths based on falsehoods.
A particularly juicy tidbit is when Kirk Nurmi stated to Dr. DeMarte, “You would agree that Miss Arias is a stalker.” The confident Dr. DeMarte agreed. I think she had most of the jury in the palm of her hand because she was the only one in the room that could defend truth and the life of Travis Alexander.
The jury did not take one note when the defense team argued, “Travis Alexander took advantage of Jodi Arias’ Borderline Personality Disorder so he could have sex with her.”
A reasonable juror, which all sixteen of them are, will quickly realize that it was an impossible act by Travis as she did not receive the diagnosis until long after his murdered body was laid to rest.
This jury will remember this day long after the trial ends. They could barely be contained getting outside the courthouse door for the weekend.
It is amazing to each that this day of the defense turned into a great win for Travis Alexander and his family. The thoughts of a reasonable man will think of this day throughout the weekend in frustration because each will struggle with the purpose of it.
The momentum had changed in the courtroom. The witness list is getting meager. The mind of the juror is doing its best to be fair and impartial. Each has been told that decisions cannot be made until the alternates are picked and twelve are released to the jury room. It is a difficult task when they have been angered.
All of them are thinking that Arias will come back up and testify. They will not make up their minds until they hear it from the killer’s mouth. They need to hear ownership and remorse.
She can wear whatever sweater she wants as she sits with astute attention in the defendant’s seat. The juror doesn’t care what she wears and all wonder why she is not wearing stripes even though she has been convicted of first degree murder.
The Chameleon will not get on the stand because she wants to wear the colors of the innocent. She will hide behind her lie while a family still struggles for closure.
Only the truth will save her and there is a preponderance of evidence that says the truth will go to the grave with her
.
If the trial had ended today, death would have been at the door of the killer and it is clothed in the words and the testimony of Dr. Janeen DeMarte and Juan Martinez…the collective voice of Travis Alexander.
Kirk Nurmi got up from the defense table carrying a legal pad and placed it on the podium. He was dressed in a charcoal black suit with a white shirt complimented with a red patterned silk tie. At a distance, I thought it could have been a Jerry Garcia tie and noticed later that it was not. He put both hands in his pockets and walked a couple steps toward the jury.
“Good morning,” he said in the general direction of the floor in front of him.
“Good morning,” Dr. DeMarte answered.
Kirk Nurmi turned toward Dr. DeMarte and barked at her. “Sorry, I did not hear you!”
“Good morning,” she answered again, this time moving her mouth closer to the microphone.
This began the process of the defense team losing jurors. Kirk Nurmi had been on the floor only thirty seconds and at least one juror found his approach not only unnecessary but uncouth.
“That’s your current resume?” he asked Dr. DeMarte, looking at a packet of paper in front of her.
“It is,” she answered politely.
“May I approach, your Honor?” he asked Judge Stephens.
“You may,” she answered, perched on her bench. She was dressed in her standard black robes. She wore her glasses toward the end of her nose looking at the attorney over the top of them.
Kirk Nurmi walked briskly to Dr. DeMarte, taking the packet she handed to him. The court waited silently as he went through the quick machinations of entering it as Exhibit Number 918. He gave a copy to the prosecution table and made his back to the left of the podium, studying the document. He did not put it on the projector screen for the jury to see.
“So, you got a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Massachusetts,” he began, “and then you went to Michigan State University? You got your Master’s degree in 2003?”
Dr. DeMarte moved her mouth to the microphone. “I got my Master’s Degree in 2005.”
“You had a year off after getting your Master’s before getting a PH.D.?” he asked.
“Yes.”
Kirk Nurmi looked at the document and slowly walked toward the podium. “You just got your PH.D. in 2009?”
“Correct,” she answered.
“You were licensed in Arizona when? 2010?”
“Yes.”
“It reads that you were hired by Bailiss Behavior Health, is that right?” he asked as he turned around to face her.
“Yes.”
“You evaluated Jodi Arias when you were in the employment of Bailiss, right?”
“Correct,” she answered.
“When was that? When did you evaluate her?”
“August 26, 2011.”
“You were only licensed a year at the time of the evaluation?” he asked. He started walking toward the jury while scratching the side of his head.
“Approximately,” the Doctor responded. ‘I’ve been seeing patients since 2004?”
Kirk Nurmi stopped and turned toward her. “I didn’t ask you about your experience. But, since you brought it up, you think you have experience since 2004?”
“Yes,” she answered.
“The American Psychologists Association does not recognize that as experience, do they?”
“No. But experience does not just begin at the moment you get your license,” she answered. She was calm and firm in her voice.
“So, you’re counting high school, as well?” he asked.
Juan Martinez did not give her a chance to answer. “Objection! Harassing the witness!”
Judge Stephens quickly ruled in his favor and at Juan’s insistence, she told the jury to disregard the statement.
“How much do you get paid for testimony?” Kirk Nurmi asked her when the dust settled.
“Three hundred dollars an hour.”
The jury will remember Dr. Fonseca telling them that she was paid three hundred and seventy five dollars an hour. “…which is less than market value,” she had responded when she testified months prior.
“You authored a report on Jodi Arias at the time of your evaluation in 2011?” Kirk Nurmi asked. He started walking toward her as she picked up a packet of papers and handed it across to him.
He entered it as Exhibit Number 918. “You are self-employed after leaving Bailiss in 2012?”
“Yes.”
“Would you say that,” he started and paused. “Well, let me back up. It says that you do fifty percent evaluations and fifty percent therapy. Does that sound right?
“That’s correct,” she agreed.
“In that regard, would you say that forensic work is a small part of what you do?” Kirk Nurmi asked her.
“You could say that.”
“Okay. And would you agree that death penalty analysis is a smaller percentage than forensic work?”
“Yes.”
“You testified in this case in April of 2013? That would include the three dates of April 16, 17 and 18th of 2013?”
She agreed.
“Prior to this, you have had two other death penalty cases that you have testified on?”
Doctor DeMarte corrected him, “I have testified in four cases for the State.”
“I see,” he responded. “I stand corrected. “Four death penalty cases and you also worked on three other cases, right?”
“That’s right.”
“Your testimony in these cases was all related to the sentencing phase?” he asked. He started walking away from the jury and back to the podium. He looked at his legal pad.
“Yes,” she answered.
“Let me get this straight,” he said as if he were pondering an issue. “You were working part time as Dr. Death on these cases, weren’t you?”
Juan Martinez did not complete the process of standing as he yelled, “Objection! Argumentative! I want this removed from the record.”
Judge Stephens quickly obliged and told the jury to disregard the last statement.
Dr. DeMarte had testified in two phases in the Marissa DeVault death penalty trial for the brutal killing of Dale Harrell. I was honored to sit a mere four feet from her while she was in the witness chair and I was in the jury box a mere eight months ago. I, along with fifteen fellow jurors had an intimate relationship with the testimony of Dr. DeMarte. Her testimony gave meaning to the horror of what our defendant had done to the victim. We respected her analysis and we trusted her word.
There is a significant difference between her affect when she is testifying now versus her testifying in the DeVault trial. Her only weakness a year ago was a rigid and defensive reaction when the defense team , Alan Tavasoli and Andrew Clemency, attacked her credibility in their interrogation of her. I had witnessed this menocide.
Today, she stood her ground without being defensive despite the low blows of Kirk Nurmi. She did not get rattled and played the witness who is only there for truth. Her truths had been established the day prior with the masterful work of Juan Martinez, the prosecutor. She took it gracefully and did not need to have any regrets because the window of truth had revealed the humanness of Travis Alexander and the evil of Jodi Arias the day prior.
Kirk Nurmi had managed to lose a good handful of jurors quickly. The jurors he lost were the ones that believed her testimony yesterday.
These jurors, like ours, had built a relationship with the witness and they certainly did not appreciate the name calling and innuendo that she was subjected to in the early hours of the retrial. It is almost like attacking a friend and your mind runs to the defense of that friend.
The dynamic was different in the courtroom than the day prior. The energy felt on edge. The defense table felt like the enemy for the first time as a whole. Jodi Arias wore a deep purple colored thick and long sweater. For those on the jury selected for their experience with domestic violence, some will recognize that purple has come to represent the color of domestic violence awareness.
Its untruth was subtle to some jurors and loud to those who could see the symbol of what the defendant wore. Juan Martinez had gotten a great majority, if not all, in the prior day’s testimony, to believe there is a preponderance of evidence to show that Arias was not a victim of child abuse and that Travis Alexander had no hand in domestic violence.
Arias also acted completely differently than she had the day prior. In the previous day’s testimony of Dr. DeMarte, she spent the entirety of the day whispering into the ear of her mitigation specialist, Maria de la Rosa. Today, however, she sat as if she were a school girl at the defense table making point of sitting up straight and watching her attorney intently.
The purple sweater was a lie for all to see. It will have angered those on the jury who have first-hand experience with domestic violence. I was one of the jurors on the DeVault trial who was more than likely selected because of my experience with domestic violence. I can comfortably say that those who pretend to carry the cross of domestic violence infuriate me just as it will antagonize those on this jury with similar experience.
Arias lost a couple jurors in her attire, her outward manifestation of a falsehood and her aroma of manipulation.
The truth sat in the witness chair and her name was Dr. DeMarte. It would remain unsaid and it would one day arise in deliberations that the true victim of domestic violence in this courtroom was named Travis Alexander.
“What is physical abuse?” Kirk Nurmi asked.
Dr. DeMarte answered quickly and efficiently. “The purpose of physical abuse is power and control. Physical attacks can take place over time and it can be manifested in relationships by either partner.”
“You need repeat patterns to hit the radar before you can call it physical abuse, don’t you?”
“Not necessarily,” Dr. DeMarte responded into the microphone.
“What is emotional abuse?”
Just as quickly, without referencing any material, DeMarte answered, “It is those behaviors against another that cause emotional damage to someone.”
Kirk Nurmi put his hands in his pockets and walked toward the jury looking to the floor. “If we are to talk about, let me ask it this way, when we speak of abuse, does it have to be intended?”
“No,” she answered. “A person can experience physical and or mental abuse without the intent of the abuser.”
“If we were to speak of a personality disorder, isn’t this something that is part of someone’s structure?”
“Yes.”
“It is over a long period of time? Am I correct in saying that?” Nurmi asked.
“Yes,” she said.
“Okay, then, let me get some things straight. If we were to put it in a way we can understand, isn’t fear of heights a situational disorder,” he asked. He turned around and took slow steps back toward the podium. He rubbed his chin as if deep in thought.
“Actually, fear of heights would be a psychological disorder.”
“The same thing as a mental illness, right?” he asked as he looked toward the Doctor.
“I prefer to call it a psychological disorder,” she stated.
“Did I ask you what you prefer? I don’t care what you prefer!”
He lost a couple more jurors in his outburst.
Dr. DeMarte did not flinch and I was proud to be in the same room with her.
Kirk Nurmi stepped a couple steps toward her and one did not have to see his eyes to know that he was glaring at her. I can only imagine what the jury felt in that moment.
“Listen to my question,” he said overly emphasizing each word, one at a time. “Isn’t Borderline Personality Disorder also a mental illness?”
Juan Martinez verbally objected.
Kirk Nurmi ignored him. “You said yesterday that you had diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder?”
“Yes,” she answered.
“Isn’t this a temporary condition?”
“It can be,” she said. She was still as professional as she had been the day she walked into the courtroom. She showed no sign she was affected by Nurmi’s interrogation.
“I have you quoted on page thirty where you say it appears that she has an Adjustment Disorder. That is not what you just told us,” he accused.
“The Adjustment Disorder pertains to her incarceration. It is typical of inmates in the first couple years,” she answered calmly.
This was the last time of the day that I would observe Juan Martinez furiously writing notes on his legal pad. He was bent over and I could see the top of his pen dancing about.
“Now, in referencing Dr. Geffner’s report,” Kirk Nurmi started. “Let’s ask it another way. Are you aware that Dr. Geffner, a psychologist with thirty-five years experience, has testified that a Borderline Personality Disorder is a serious mental disorder or illness?”
“I am familiar with his reports,” she answered confidently.
“You referred to Jodi Arias in your reports twice that she had a mental illness,” Mr. Nurmi said as he pointed to a report in his hand.
“No,” Dr. DeMarte answered.
“What do you mean when you say no? Are you denying that you referred to Jodi Arias as having a mental illness?
“I used the term in the context of data points,” she answered. Her voice was unwavering.
“Why don’t you tell me this. How does one get this kind of disorder?” he asked. He crossed his arms on his chest and faced her.
For the first time, Dr. DeMarte turned toward the jury and explained it to them succinctly and proficiently. “This disorder develops in combination with an environment. If it is not recognized, and without support from those around the person, this trait will accentuate and develop.”
“Are people born with this or do they have a vulnerability to this disorder?” the attorney asked.
“There have been many studies on this,” she answered. “There is not agreement by all that it is a biological disorder. This disorder can come from a number of environmental factors. There is not a definitive pathway to give a concrete yes or no to the answer.”
“Tell me this, if someone has this,” Kirk Nurmi began, “let me back up, how does a Borderline Personality Disorder come to light?”
“I mentioned this a moment ago but environmental factors have a significant role in it appearing. It will turn on like a light switch. Again, there is debate in this science as to what the trigger may be,” she answered.
The killer in my trial as a juror, had an anti-Personality Disorder as diagnosed and testified to on the stand by the very same Dr. DeMarte. We heard a similar story in how that disorder manifests itself. When we were in the deliberation room, the subject came up as we took great weight in DeMarte’s testimony. The attorneys in the case had used the similar argument that this was a mental disorder which DeMarte also successfully countered.
Twelve of us debated the issue of a personality disorder being a mental illness and our arguments amongst each other were shortened when it quickly came to light to twelve reasonable people that DeVault’s disorder was not a mitigating factor. The killer had premeditated the death of Dale Harrell and had done it in a cruel way. We quickly came to the conclusion that all people who commit first degree murder have to have some sort of mental disorder to cross this line of criminality. We concluded that her disorder was not proven to be a mental illness because of the premeditated and cruel nature of the crime.
My juror acumen tells me this jury will have the same discussion and will come to a similar conclusion. A Borderline Disorder does not qualify as a mitigating factor.
I cannot say the exact moment that the jury stopped taking notes but it was shortly after the Borderline Personality discussion. I can say they stopped taking notes for the same reasons I stopped taking notes. We slipped slowly into the grasp of slime highway and took a hard right on rehash highway as Kirk Nurmi began a long and tortuous ride into every boyfriend that Arias had ever had.
The arguments all fell to the boyfriends being at fault. Most had gone to another girlfriend, as young men do when they are single. Another had a child he thought more important than Arias. Most importantly, one had been brutally murdered in his own home.
Somehow, in each case, Arias had been free of fault and the boyfriends had made her a victim. Jodi Arias had become what her boyfriends wanted her to be in the eyes of the defense. She was a “a slut, a porn star and her body had been built for sex,” the murder victim once said in a private conversation, unaware he was being recorded.
The jury did not buy it and they did not buy the stories of abuse. Juan Martinez and Dr. DeMarte had skillfully revealed in the day prior’s testimonial dance. The preponderance of evidence said it was corroborated by the defendant and no one else. The only person who came close to saying violence existed, hid behind an affidavit that the jury already knew to be a lie.
Kirk Nurmi went back to the TSI, MMPI-2, the DSM and the PSD. The jury did not care anymore. No notes needed to be taken because every test had been laid to rest in the landfill of useless evidence.
I had great empathy as I watched each juror suffer through the unending drone of lies, journal entries and text messages that did nothing to find a mitigating circumstance. The jury was instructed by the court when they were selected to find the mitigating factors and it seemed that every day, they were dismally disappointed.
They watched in muted silence. alone in their thoughts, doing everything they could not to show discontent or to drift asleep. Some jurors kept taking sips of water. Another kept turning in his chair. One juror, who I originally thought to be note-taking, was probably writing letters to her mother or drawing pictures. She, like the others, had been lost to the prosecution.
The afternoon was filled with foul language that no longer had the power to move anyone because all if it was known by heart. The more the defense team talked, the further the jury went away. I know the feeling and when the tide turns, there is no swimming back.
We heard things being, “morally problematic”, coined by the defense attorney. The jury wants facts, evidence and things they can see and touch. Juan Martinez and Dr. Janeen DeMarte and taken them on an information highway while Kirk Nurmi left them in a fog with no sense of direction. The least anything felt like in the afternoon was a search for truth or justice. Instead, it was stories based on malingering and truths based on falsehoods.
A particularly juicy tidbit is when Kirk Nurmi stated to Dr. DeMarte, “You would agree that Miss Arias is a stalker.” The confident Dr. DeMarte agreed. I think she had most of the jury in the palm of her hand because she was the only one in the room that could defend truth and the life of Travis Alexander.
The jury did not take one note when the defense team argued, “Travis Alexander took advantage of Jodi Arias’ Borderline Personality Disorder so he could have sex with her.”
A reasonable juror, which all sixteen of them are, will quickly realize that it was an impossible act by Travis as she did not receive the diagnosis until long after his murdered body was laid to rest.
This jury will remember this day long after the trial ends. They could barely be contained getting outside the courthouse door for the weekend.
It is amazing to each that this day of the defense turned into a great win for Travis Alexander and his family. The thoughts of a reasonable man will think of this day throughout the weekend in frustration because each will struggle with the purpose of it.
The momentum had changed in the courtroom. The witness list is getting meager. The mind of the juror is doing its best to be fair and impartial. Each has been told that decisions cannot be made until the alternates are picked and twelve are released to the jury room. It is a difficult task when they have been angered.
All of them are thinking that Arias will come back up and testify. They will not make up their minds until they hear it from the killer’s mouth. They need to hear ownership and remorse.
She can wear whatever sweater she wants as she sits with astute attention in the defendant’s seat. The juror doesn’t care what she wears and all wonder why she is not wearing stripes even though she has been convicted of first degree murder.
The Chameleon will not get on the stand because she wants to wear the colors of the innocent. She will hide behind her lie while a family still struggles for closure.
Only the truth will save her and there is a preponderance of evidence that says the truth will go to the grave with her
.
If the trial had ended today, death would have been at the door of the killer and it is clothed in the words and the testimony of Dr. Janeen DeMarte and Juan Martinez…the collective voice of Travis Alexander.
No comments:
Post a Comment