The death penalty retrial of Jodi Arias was going to start in about forty-five minutes. I was comfortably early as walked the ten blocks to the courthouse. The air was clean with a slight breeze while the sun warmed my back in seventy-one degree temperatures. I walked briskly as I looked forward to the day. I came around the back corner of the South Tower. Recently having learned a two block shortcut, I was happy I was making good time.
There is a long walkway between the South Tower, Superior Court where I was a juror for the Marissa DeVault trial, and the Central Tower, Superior Court for the retrial of Jodi Arias. I was looking into space in front of me when I saw two people walking a block ahead. It took me moments to realize I was seeing the walk of Juan Martinez which I distinctly remembered from the courtroom. The person next to him was walking briskly in her high heels.
I hardly thought about it as I broke into a run. I saw the opportunity to exercise a freedom that a juror never gets to do. I could actually meet a witness without getting dismissed. In those seconds as I ran toward them, a hundred thoughts went through my mind. I felt as if I were chasing after an old friend. In a sense, she was as I had sat five feet from her while I was in the jury box and had been in the rare position of seeing her in both the first phase and the third phase of the Marissa DeVault trial.
Dr. Janeen DeMarte was the most impactful witness of all the witness at the 2014 trial of the murder of Dale Harrell. It was the Doctor’s testimony that stood in the deliberation room while the defense psychologist’s testimony of Karp, King and Conti were laid to ruin. We gave little concern to how long she had been licensed as a psychologist. We only remembered her impact. The only thing we thought negative was that she may have gotten somewhat defensive when Alan Tavasoli cross examined her.
I slowed down only feet behind Juan Martinez and Dr. DeMarte. I did not want to startle them in any way. Besides, I was out of breath and I did not want to interrupt them only to be gasping for air. I moved ahead of Dr. De Marte and turned around, extending my hand. Juan looked at me funny for a moment.
“Hi, I’m Paul,” I said, still out of breath. “I’m so sorry to bother you but I had to meet you. I was a juror for the Marissa DeVault trial and I feel like we know each other. You testified for Dale Harrell and Eric Basta.”
She looked at me a little startled but once I mentioned being a juror, she warmed up immediately. I don’t think she recognized me. She put her hand out, “So good to meet you,” she said warmly.
“I just wanted to say that our jurors really liked what you said and did on the stand. You were the most important psychologist of all of them,” I said hurriedly. “You are doing a great job in this trial and I wanted to say you improved from before. Despite how you are being treated, you are holding yourself very well. Keep it up,” I gushed. I couldn’t believe I said that a second after I said it, especially to person I respected so much.
“Why thank you,” she answered, smiling. “That’s very nice of you to say.”
“You’re phenomenal and I want you to know that thousands of people really support and admire you for your work for Travis Alexander,” I said. I was walking backwards in pace with the Doctor and Juan Martinez. It is a rare circumstance, indeed, for Juan to be upstaged. He just smiled.
“One more thing,” I said. “I don’t want to slow you down. I have a message from the victim’s twin sister from the trial. She’s the sister of the victim, Dale Harrell. She really wants to thank you for assisting in justice for her brother. You really mean a lot to her. Do you mind if I leave a number for you to call her?”
“Sure,” she answered. “Absolutely.”
I shook her hand one more time. To a juror, this was akin to meeting a rock star. I would never forget meeting her and thanking her. It was not only for me, it was for my fellow jurors who spent hours discussing her and the knowledge she gave us. The handshake was for the thousands that believe in justice and are the collective interest of the spirit of Travis Alexander, Dale Harrell and all the victims she speaks for when on the witness stand.
It felt like only moments later that we were seated in the courtroom with judge Stephens at her usual perch. Dr. DeMarte was reminded of her still being under oath as she sat and the jury watched with interest. She was wearing a smoky gray colored business skirt with a silk black blouse and her signature black conservative high heels. She set her briefcase to the side and laid a few manila folders in front of her. She pulled the microphone forward.
Kirk Nurmi walked toward the podium and placed his legal pad down and walked parallel to the witness. His chin was in the crook of his hand with the other hand was in his pocket. He wore a charcoal black suit with a blue shirt complimented with a dark blue tie. One cannot ignore how tall a man he is. He looked toward the carpet and then at Dr. DeMarte.
“Do you realize that the American Psychological Association prohibits you from counting time as credentials while as a student?” he fired off the bat. We didn’t get the usual history of the question and I don’t believe he greeted Dr. DeMarte with wishes for a good morning, contrary to the last time he went after her.
“That is not what it says,” she answered.
The defense attorney suddenly started taking long, brisk strides parallel to her and the jury. “How can you boast false credentials? It is deceptive and fraudulent, isn’t it?”
She leaned to the microphone and stated, “No.”
“Maybe you can tell me the date. Can we agree that is February 9, 2015?”
“Yes.”
“Tell me,” he said, continuing his long step pace. “How does that equate to eight years of experience?”
“That’s not accurate,” she said.
“Let me show you Exhibit Number 923,” he said. He carried a magazine in his hands and went through the machinations of every principal person receiving a copy of a particular page. The jury waited patiently.
“You have an advertisement in Psychology Today. Do you see that?” he asked.
“Yes.”
“You are responsible for its content, am I right?”
“Yes,” Dr. DeMarte answered.
He slaps the paper in his hand. “It says years in practice: eight years?” he questions sarcastically.
Dr. DeMarte was amazingly calm despite the increased volume of Kirk Nurmi. “That refers to my experience. It includes the times that I saw patients and consulted regularly with colleagues. If you look above that, it states that I received my degree in 2009.”
Kirk Nurmi abruptly turned around and started yelling at her. He does not give her a chance to answer any of his rapid sequence of questions. “What are you practicing, Doctor? Boasting? Does this help you keep your part time job with the state?!”
“No,” she answered calmly.
Juan Martinez was out of his chair before Dr. DeMarte could finish her answer, objecting vehemently. The jury was told to disregard the last sequence of questions.
There are very few times that a jury finds it acceptable to holler at a witness. One of those times might be if the witness is a convict wearing an orange jump suit or gray vertical stripes. Another time might be when the defendant is on the stand. Speaking as a former juror, we are not comfortable with educated citizens being treated without respect. The volume tends to cloud the fact finding that the jury is looking for. Should a juror be leaning to one side, it can cause them to be more fixed in their position. There is a thought that yelling something does not make the facts more truthful. The weight is in the words, not the volume.
Kirk Nurmi continued his tirade. “You are holding Exhibit Number 839. Is that a letter from Dr. Geffner?”
“Yes,” Dr. DeMarte answered with barely a look at the evidence in her hands.
“Didn’t Dr. Geffner advise you to be careful of disclosing confidential information?”
“Yes.”
Kirk Nurmi took strides toward the defense table, picked up a labeled document, had it copied and distributed. He pace was fast. “Look at line five of Exhibit 915! Do you see page fifty five of that testimony?”
Dr. DeMarte leaned forward. “Yes?”
“Why don’t you read it for us?”
“It reads that we discussed the concept of PTSD,” she said as she looked at the document. “Also discussed PSD. Looked at items and we were taking notes.”
“Yes,” Kirk Nurmi emphasized. “You gave Juan Martinez those results, didn’t you?”
“No,” she corrected. “You are misstating the rule.”
Kirk Nurmi turned sharply toward the prosecution table without lowering his voice. “Is there an exception to the rule for Mr. Martinez? Is that what you are telling us?”
The Doctor looked toward the jury. “The test questions are confidential. We are not to give out copies because the integrity of these standard tests can be compromised. The rule does state that when we are involved in an investigation, information may be exchanged. It is not inappropriate in any way.”
“Oh,” he said slowly, as if beginning to understand. “So it is okay to give the prosecutor results and have him write it down. Is it accepted practice to violate copyright laws of your tests?”
“No,” she answered. “That’s not how it works.
I was surprised at how well the Doctor maintained her composure. The jury was watching her reactions intently.
“Miss DeMarte,” Kirk Nurmi said, “You shared copyrighted information and you violated your ethical duties, didn’t you?”
“No, I did not,” she stated. She was firm without becoming defensive.
“But you shared information with Juan Martinez? Did you sit next to each other?”
“No. We sat across from each other. We shared information as I was hired to do.”
“Do you not see that that is an ethical violation?” He looked at her accusingly.
“You are misunderstanding the rule,” she repeated.
Kirk Nurmi shook his head and went back to the podium. He glanced at his legal pad while I looked at the jury. They were not taking notes during the attempted crucifixion.
“We were talking about,” he started, “well, let me back up. Regarding the MMPI and the TSI, you said you looked the aggression factor at face validity?”
She agreed.
“How can you do that? Just by looking at test results and discarding them? When did you become a guru in psychological servitude?”
Dr. DeMarte calmly leaned forward to the microphone. “What is the question?”
Kirk Nurmi shook his head in disgust.
Of course, Juan Martinez had voiced many objections throughout and this time was no different.
“I withdraw the question,” he said before judge Stephens could make a ruling. “Since she doesn’t seem to understand.”
“Now, let’s talk about this,” he said, changing directions. Everyone had Exhibit Number 456 in their hands. “You used journal entries to say that Jodi Arias could not have witnessed Travis Alexander masturbating to little boys. We spoke about this, didn’t we?”
“We did not speak about this,” Dr. DeMarte responded.
Kirk Nurmi raised his voice again. “You were asked and you told us that domestic violence was not in the journals. Do you remember that?”
“Yes.”
“Did you get your degree in journalism in your vast experience as a student?”
The objection by Juan Martinez could be heard in the adjacent tower as it was that loud and adamant.
“Tell me this, then,” he redirected. “Are there rules about what goes in and stays out of a journal?”
“No.”
Kirk Nurmi puts a copy of a page of Arias’ journal on the projector for the courtroom to see on the various screens. “It reads that on Thursday, January 24, 2008, I haven’t written anything because there has been nothing to report. Do you see that?”
“I do,” she confirms.
“Tell me, Doctor. Is this the face value that you base the incident of Travis Alexander?”
“Yes,” she answered. She was still calm and resolute in her answers.
“Let’s talk about the DAPS Test,” Kirk Nurmi said. “As I see it, Dr. Geffner was able to issue a test and you were not. So, you’re spitting in the face of Dr. Geffner’s results?”
“No,” she answered.
“You’re just Dr. Death making comments on a test you did not give who misrepresents her qualifications,” Nurmi said, his voice thick with sarcasm. He headed back to the podium, picked up his legal pad and returned to the defense table while muttering he had no more questions.
Juan Martinez did not wait until Kirk Nurmi sat down before he was on the stage in front of Dr. DeMarte and the jury. He started pacing right away.
“One of your ethical obligations is to protect the integrity of these psychological examinations, right?”
“Yes,” the Doctor answered. “Part of my responsibility is to maintain the integrity of test security. This information is important to our field within the profession of psychology and we make sure these examinations are not replicated in any way.”
“Now, does this include the people who hire you in an investigation?” Juan Martinez asked.
“In our profession, it is important that we communicate fully in an investigation and part of our duty is to make sure people are fully informed. We are under obligation to make that happen once we are part of an investigation,” she explained to the jury.
“Is it abnormal to speak with a prosecutor, to communicate your results and diagnosis?”
“No, it is standard procedure,” she answered. She looked at the jury again. “In this case, we sat across from each other and I gave information. We discuss how each test works and how the psychology of it applies.”
“Would that include discussing Borderline Personality Disorder as well as Adjustment Disorders?” Juan asked. He was looking somewhere over the jury but not at them as he asked his questions.
“Yes.”
“You called them disorders. How does that apply to mental illness?”
Again, Dr. DeMarte looked to the jury. “A disorder is another name or label for a mental illness.”
Juan Martinez turned around and clasped his hands behind his back as he made a slow, purposeful pace. “You indicated to us that mental illness is just a label. Let me ask you this. Did the defendant know the difference between right and wrong?”
“Yes, she did.”
“Now, what of people saying the defendant was bi-polar? Does this assist you in your evaluations of how people interact? Do you take at face value comments that people make in your review of evidence?”
“Yes, I can” the Doctor responded.
Juan Martinez walked to the prosecution table and took an exhibit that Detective Flores handed to him. He had it copied for the court. “Let’s take a look at Exhibit Number 872.”
He put it on the projector. Juan then looked at Dr. DeMarte and turned toward the screen in front of the jury, reading aloud, “At a family function, Jodi Arias would be snide. She would say things sarcastically with a snide smile. She could be a total bitch.” He looked back toward his witness. “Does this assist you when reaching a conclusion regarding Borderline Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder?”
The Doctor turned her chair toward the jury. “This is an example of some of the things we look at besides test results. We want to know how people characterize her and how she interacts with people. She was very intrusive at times.”
“Let’s go ahead and look at Exhibit Number 925,” Juan directs her. “It reads that the defendant was never diagnosed with a mental illness nor has she ever received psychological treatment. Is that right?” He was aggressive without hollering at the witness.
Dr. DeMarte agreed.
“I want you to look at Exhibit Number 927. Will you look through the pages of your evaluation and count how many times you used the term mental illness. Can you do that for us?”
Dr. DeMarte nodded and flipped through the pages of the document. Finally, she looked up and answered, “Three.”
“I know we have discussed this but regarding this label, isn’t a mental illness another name for psychological disorder?”
“Yes.”
“The defendant was assessed to be fully competent?” he asked with a casual wave in the direction of the defense table.
“Yes.”
“Let me look at an example,” Juan said as he looked toward DeMarte. “Let us say you were to test inmates in a prison. If you assign each to have a psychological disorder, would I be correct in saying they all have a mental illness?”
“Yes.”
Juan keeps a jury’s attention by changing gears quickly. Today was no different when he said, “Isn’t it true that the defendant was found hiding under a Christmas tree in the house of Travis Alexander, uninvited? What does that tell you about the defendant?”
“His behavior was intrusive as demonstrated by being there uninvited. People with Borderline Personality disorder do not have boundaries in relationships and this is an example of it.”
Juan walked to the prosecution table, got another document, passed it to the court and displayed it on the screen. Jurors were looking at it intently and many appeared to be copying the text from the screen while Juan took them on a journey to hell’s alley. The air suddenly got creepy with an intrusiveness of evidence displayed.
“Let’s look at a journal entry from June 7, 2008 and see what you took as face value. The defendant writes in this journal stating that she is seeing the beauty of Oregon. She is writing in regards to the victim, Travis Alexander saying she realizes his door is always open. “Do you see that?” he asks, pointing to the last line.
Dr. DeMarte nods. It looks like she has seen this many times before.
“She then writes that she wanted to get ahold of him before he went to Cancun. What do you consider as the face value of this journal entry? What date was Travis Alexander murdered?”
“He died the day before the journal entry,” the Doctor stated.
“How is this important to you in your evaluation of Borderline Personality Disorder?”
“One of the most important things of note by this entry is that Travis Alexander was already dead at this time but she is pretending that he is alive.”
Juan Martinez quickly moved to a printing of a text message from Arias to Travis Alexander dated the same day as his brutal murder. It reads, “Hey, I need to know when you’re going to deposit that check.” Again, Martinez clarifies that Travis had already been murdered.
There are some jurors that will remember a check in the top drawer of Travis Alexander’s office desk. There are other jurors who will sneak looks at the defendant while some will not because they are feeling a great dislike for her.
Jodi arias’ journal entry of July 9, 2009 appeared on the screen. It was dated over a month after Travis died. It spoke volumes about the defendant and many jurors were writing it from the screen as if word for word.
She had written it on or around her birthday. Arias had been speaking with Ryan and there were rumblings and rumors that Arias had somehow been involved in the murder of Travis Alexander. She questions herself asking if it might have had to do with her moral behavior with Travis. She explains that it must be some serious business when people are talking about murder and homicide. She comments that whoever he pissed off could not have been warranted to kill him that way.
Arias scribbles in her journal that she wants answers and has no idea who could be responsible for this crime. She confidently writes, “I am no Lady Justice…“
“So, do you take this at face value and consider the context of when it was written?” Juan Martinez pursues. “Do you consider that she writes this is spite of the murder she had committed?”
“I consider what is written against the facts,” DeMarte answers.
This will bother the jury. The journal entry does not have the feel of someone with a disorder or a mental illness. The facts speak against a woman who premeditated the murder of Travis Alexander and did it in a cruel way. They will see the journal entry as a calculated move to confuse investigators and draw attention away from her. It also serves to discredit anything written in the journal as all had become suspect in a variety of lies.
As quickly as Juan Martinez started, he was done asking her questions.
Judge Stephens immediately looked toward the jury, peering over her glasses from the bench. “Are there any questions from the jury?”
Randy, the Bailiff, got up and strutted authoritatively to the jury box and pulled a stack of papers out and made his way to the bench. The attorneys stepped to the bench in a sidebar to review each question.
Arizona is one of very few states that allow the jury to query each witness at the conclusion of their testimony. It is done via the process of a juror question form. The jury may write the question during testimony as a question occurs to them. They may have written the question the last time Dr. DeMarte was on the stand. Personally, I wrote questions as they occurred to me when I was in the jury box. When we were called for questions, most of us pulled them out of the pockets of our juror notebook. It was not uncommon to hear a question asked where testimony had later revealed the answer.
“Is it your assessment that the defendant was mentally ill prior to the murder?” judge Stephens read to the Doctor.
“It is,” Dr. DeMarte answered as she turned her chair around to speak with the jury. “This disorder can develop, as it usually does, when a person is in their teens.”
“How many tests are available to diagnose Jodi Arias and PTSD?” the question read.
“I don’t have an exact number but there are multiple tests,” she answered.
Judge Stephens picked up the next question. “Is knowledge of sexual assault as bad as an actual memory of it?”
“A person who has experienced sexual assault will display signs of that trauma with intrusive thoughts, certain behaviors as well as experiencing manifestations of reliving that trauma in nightmares, for example,” she explained.
Another question asked how much experience the Doctor had in dealing with both domestic violence and victims of sexual abuse. She answered that her experience was from 2004 forward. A testing question surfaced, as well, pursuing the number of tests that she had given to Arias of which she responded that there were four.
“Travis Alexander gave Jodi Arias all his passwords,” the question begins. “Why would this be considered intrusiveness?”
Again, the Doctor explains to the jury, “Certainly he gave her his passwords at the beginning of their relationship. But, as time moved forward, there is documentation that he went through effort to change those passwords because she was demonstrating intrusive behavior.”
“How long did Jodi Arias work for the Purple Plum?” a question asked.
Dr. DeMarte did not have the immediate answer but eventually disclosed that it was twice for relatively short periods.
“Travis Alexander communicated with other women. Were they aware of his relationship with Jodi Arias?”
Dr. DeMarte thought about it a moment and stated that other women were aware of Jodi Arias and sexual relationship with Travis Alexander but all would probably agree that they did not know the extent of it.
“Is Borderline Personality Disorder a disorder or mental illness?” the judge asked, as she spoke for an anonymous juror.
“One can label it either way. Saying it is a mental illness is just a label we sometimes use,” Dr. DeMarte explained.
“In your opinion,” the judge read, “does disassociation play into Borderline Personality Disorder?”
“Yes,” DeMarte answered calmly. “There is a self- preservation factor that weighs heavily in this diagnosis along with signs of paranoia.”
A final question read, “Did you monitor the defendant beyond four visits?”
She answered in the negative and sat patiently as Juan Martinez and Kirk Nurmi questioned her regarding the questions and as they searched for additional clarity for the jury. I don’t know that the final questions provided much more information that the jury needed to know. It was re-established that PTSD and domestic violence had no consistent or corroborating reports to confirm either.
“Alright, ladies and gentlemen,” judge Stephens said as she turned her attention to the jury…
Kirk Nurmi had just resumed his seat and Dr. DeMarte’s contribution in the search for justice for Travis Alexander was complete.
From my experience behind the secret walls of the deliberation room, and having the experience of weighing Dr. DeMarte’s testimony against other psychologists, I am confident that the damage she did to the defense team would not arise until the point that the jurors were dispatched to the deliberation room. She is a strong witness into the mind of the killer. She was a greater witness in the voice she gave for Travis Alexander. These jurors will realize quickly, some passionately, that they are in the deliberation room to decide not the fate of the killer but rather justice for Travis Alexander and his survivors. It is that difference that will sway the jury in the end.
“…we are dismissed until Wednesday at 9:30 AM,” judge Stephens continued. “There will be no court tomorrow. However, before you leave, we will need to sit down with each of you in chambers.”
I did not have to walk back to the jury room with them to know that each one of their hearts sank. It is not the inconvenience of being held back. They are used to the delays and inconvenience of being a juror. It is the waiting period while each juror is interviewed one at a time in the presence of two family members, the court reporter, the defendant, both teams of attorneys and judge Stephens.I have been in the seat before and it is not unlike the intimidation of being in the witness chair. Butterflies dance with abandon in your stomach.
Is it possible a juror’s integrity was compromised? Each juror remembers the wrath of the court that was rained upon them early in the trial when a rookie juror walked up to Beth Karas and asked, “Are you Nancy Grace?” The complete entourage surrounded them as each was asked what outside contact they had experienced with the media or the public. It was a nerve racking experience for each juror, most innocent of any wrongdoing, with only one being guilty and summarily dismissed.
Another scenario is reasonable. The trial was supposed to end December 18, 2014. These jurors have given their availability for February. It is possible that a number of questions in the juror basket had to do with March. It occurs to me that last year, our jury and the court had to work out varied options to account for Spring break. This would be a good way to handle the situation.
It is all speculation and we will know on Wednesday if a juror has been dismissed.
I was driving home, pondering the thoughts of the day. I remembered meeting Dr. DeMarte with Juan Martinez early in the morning on the long walkway between two courthouses. I had been honored to meet her as would have each of the eleven other jurors I had deliberated with. Her strength in testimony came alive without the interjection of objections and the halt of sidebars.
Jurors love evidence that they can see, touch and feel. Dr. DeMarte’s testimony would stand as close it could to being something the jury could touch in the deliberation room in the difficult and elusive subject of psychology. She gave a visual into the mind of a killer as well as a picture of the trap that Travis Alexander had fallen prey to.
There will come a day not too far down the road when the alternates with be selected, with four going ‘on call’, and twelve will be dispatched to the deliberation room.
One day, this trial will be years behind us. In a worst case scenario, Jodi Arias will have served two years in solitary confinement before she is released to the general population of the prison. If she were to stay free of violations, she might even earn the right and privilege to work. It is certain that she will have a sizable restitution amount which she will owe the survivors of Travis Alexander.
A prison guard will come to her cell and bring her to the prison kitchen. Large guards move about carrying guns, stun guns and other paraphernalia on their belts. The clang of pots and the roar of the industrial dishwasher can be heard in the background.
Arias sits in a flat back chair as a guard reviews her file. The guard flips through pages in her file. She has fat fingers which look as rough as the walls that enclose Arias every night. She looks up at the prisoner and then back at the file.
“Do you want to work front or back?” the supervisor asks.
The prisoner furrows her eyebrows. “Front or back?” she questions.
The guard is irritated. She exhales and looks at another page with interest. She looks back at Arias. “If you work the back, you wash dishes, you cook, you clean and you prep. If you work the front, you serve, you pick up and you clean.”
Arias thinks for a second.
The guard looks at Arias and smiles. “It says here that you worked in a little French restaurant.”
“Yes, I did,” she answers.
“Ain’t that cute?” the guard comments as she scratches behind her ear. “Did they teach you any French while you were there? I bet the inmates here would like a little of that.”
“A little,” Arias answers.
The guard starts laughing and leans forward. “Why don’t you speak some French for me?”
“Like what?” Arias says with a nervous laugh.
The guard opens her file and appears to scan it. “Here you go! It says here that you said you are not Lady Justice. Say that in French for me.”
Arias looks down. It takes her a moment and says it slow and carefully, translating each word in her head. “Je ne suis pas Lady Justice.”
I pull into my driveway after an hour drive home. I thought about it if she were here I would confirm, “No, Jodi Arias, you are not.”
The jury is…
