Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Jodi Arias' Domestic Violence Expert Says Email Proves Travis Alexander Was Abusive
Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2013-03-30 18:54
Article here. Excerpt:
'Jodi Arias’ defense team may have scored its first big win Thursday when a domestic violence expert testified about previously undisclosed emails from Travis Alexander’s close friends that indicate he had a history of being abusive.
"They have basically advised Ms. Arias to move on from the relationship ... that Mr. Alexander has been abusive to women." psychotherapist Alyce LaViolette testified.
...
Prosecutor Juan Martinez objected to much of the defense expert's testimony, calling it was hearsay. However, the judge overruled the majority of the objections.
The jury could view LaViolette's testimony as crucial in determining whether there is merit to Arias' claim that she was a victim of domestic violence.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
"previously undisclosed emails"
OK, sorry, I am no lawyer (though I do play one on TV :) ), but I have heard of this thing known as a "preliminary hearing" and this other thing called "voire dire". As I understand it, at least with preliminary hearings, both sides in a criminal case, among other things, offer evidence in front of a judge who then decide if it may be relevant to the case, tainted on its face, etc. If it does not seem fit to enter into the proceedings, it's either thrown out or "suppressed". Bringing previously-unvetted evidence into the actual trial is considered unusual, requiring a compelling reason (i.e., "we just found it!").
Please, someone with an actual background in criminal trial work, correct me if I am off base here.
So how the heck did "previously undisclosed emails" get allowed into the discussion? And why the heck did the judge overrule the objection to them as hearsay when in fact, given the fact the witness wasn't even allowed to read them off, her testimony obviously was??
There is a party whose testimony is *not* however getting heard. That is because dead men tell no tales. No one perhaps knows this better than the former Mrs. Arias!