Before Trial Jodi Arias Tried to Preclude State From Calling Travis The Victim

I’ve written a great deal about the Jodi Arias case and my work continues. In my review of documents associated with the case I found an interesting defense motion.JodiNotVictim

It is probably standard practice in self-defense cases but the following defense motion is particularly despicable (though in line with what you would expect from Jodi Arias).

Leading up to the trial, the defense filed a motion to preclude the state and all witnesses, from referring to Travis Alexander as the “victim” during the trial.

The defense argued that the use of the term “victim” would be prejudicial.

If Travis was the victim, then Jodi Arias would be seen as the perpetrator, the guilty party, the murderer.

The state responded that the word “victim” is routinely used in criminal cases and does not imply that Jodi Arias is guilty of murder.

The state also noted that the very fact that Mr. Alexander was murdered makes him a “victim” as defined by Arizona law.

Travis Alexander was a victim and Jodi Arias was in fact the perpetrator. Those are indisputable facts.

Thankfully, Judge Sherry Stephens agreed with the state. The defendant wasn’t able to successfully establish that the term “victim” would unfairly prejudice her and it was allowed to be used during the trial.

Judge Sherry agreed to include a preliminary instruction that defined the term “victim” for the jury so there would be no confusion about its meaning.

This is yet another instance of Jodi Arias taking every opportunity to trash the victim.

28 thoughts on “Before Trial Jodi Arias Tried to Preclude State From Calling Travis The Victim

  1. Of course this would be what Jodi would want. She is running her whole trial. You are stabbed 29 times, slit throat, and a gunshot and your not a victim? Why don’t we do this to Arias and see what she thinks.

  2. Yes, Dr K, I found this profoundly disturbing when I read all the court notes from the previous yrs prior to the trial, way back in Feb 2013. I do not believe that such a motion is modis operandi by defense counsel in murder trials. I’m not saying that it hasn’t been attempted before, just that it indicates a distinct level of depravity and lack of ethics to argue such a disingenuous motion, IMO. Actually, it is perfect fit for this defense team & client.

  3. Despicable indeed. Words cannot express how disgusted I am with Jodi Arias. I want it to go away once and for all. She will always portray herself as a “survivor” and expect people to recognize her as a celebrity and hero.

  4. You have to give Nurmi credit. He took all the lemons and tried to make Lemonade.
    But really…Did he really expect that one to slip by? I hardly think so.But he tried.
    Sleazy and greasy is all I have to say about this latest tidbit.

  5. I believe that this motion came straight from Arias. What ramifications would result if a defendant says they want a motion such as this put forward and the defense attorney refuses, knowing that it is useless and wrong?

  6. I don’t understand the big deal. This would seem to be SOP for a defense. IMO, nothing wrong with her lawyers filing this motion. That it didn’t prevail with JSS doesn’t mean it had no merit.

    BTW, I had never seen that picture of her before. Love it!

    • Yeah how could it possibly not have merit. I mean, stabbing someone 29 times, shooting him in the head and slitting his throat all the way through his esophagus doesn’t necessarily make him her victim or anything….

  7. Well, if her defense is self-defence, and she is presumed not guilty in the trial, then yes it definitely may have had merit. You can’t/shouldn’t look backwards from the trial results to judge a lawyer’s early motion like this. The lawyers can’t try their case from emotion. They have to proceed as if her story is true, even if they suspect it isn’t.
    And it was *her* story. I don’t believe for a second that Nurmi and Willmott helped JA create the self defense story in any sort of active way. Why would they risk their careers and reputations for someone like Jodi Arias?

    • I agree that second guessing at the end of a trial a lawyer’s reason for an early motion serves absolutely no purpose.
      I also agree that Arias directed her entire defense – completely.
      Kurt Nurmi had no choice but to defend her after 3 unsuccessful attempts of being taken off the case.
      My question has been – what ramifications would result if a lawyer refused to do as his client wishes – like refuse to enter the motion to have the word “victim” not used. Who is responsible – the client or the lawyer retained to defend to the best of their ability?

    • If that were the case, no one would ever be the victim in a first degree murder trial. In order to charge someone with murder, there has to actually be a victim who is dead. Then the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the defendant murdered the victim, regardless of whether the defendant wants to call it self defense, accident or an alien invasion.

      What Jodi wanted to do was try Travis with herself as the victim, even though he’s the dead one and she’s not. Hopefully, the next jury will rectify that little problem.

      • Uppity, I agree. To me, Jodi switched identities with Travis. She claimed he was obsessed with her, jealous, a violent abuser and a sexual deviant who tried to kill her. Yet, she was the one who manipulated him with sex, went into jealous rages and accused him of cheating on her after they broke up and he moved on, moved to Mesa to be with him after they broke up, stalked him and slashed his tires and then slashed his throat after stabbing him 29 times and before shooting him in the head.

        In her testimony, allocution and tweets she describes herself as a victim of domestic violence without one ounce of evidence to back it up. Hundreds of victims of domestic violence, who know an abuser when they see one, are offended and say she is making a mockery of their cause because they could see from the evidence that Travis Alexander was a victim of domestic violence and she is the perpetrator.

        Arias describes Travis Alexander as a violent man who was always angry and screaming at her, backhanded her, kicked her in the ribs and broke her finger, choked her to the point she lost consciousness and body slammed her and threatened to kill her because she dropped his camera. She testified that she was a pacifist who never got angry. Yet, in a text message to Alexander on Valentine’s Day 2007 when she falsely testified he sent her a package with boy’s underwear she writes that she goes into rages and kicks holes in doors and walls and hurts people.

        Alexander’s friends all described him as a good natured man who they never saw get angry. Three former girlfriends, Mimi Hall, Lisa Diadone and Deanna Reid testified that Travis was sweet, sensitive and understanding when they broke up with him and that he never verbally or physically abused them. On video, Travis Alexander is seen joking as he tells a story of how a robber put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger and the gun jammed and another incident when he rolled his snowmobile and escaped without a scratch. Alexander never killed Jodi when she slashed his tires, wrecked his BMW or repeatedly hacked his bank and Facebook accounts and threatened his female friends.

        Travis Alexander’s friends and Jodi herself described him as someone who wanted to help people. He fed stray dogs and the homeless. He took a homeless home man to his home, let him shower, loaned him clothes and took him to a restaurant and got him a job washing dishes. He loaned people money. He let friends stay in his home free. He let Jodi store her belongings in his garage, paid her $200 a month to do his housework, let her buy his BMW just to help her out. She repaid him by wrecking his BMW and leaving it in Phoenix for Travis to get back from the tow truck and repair and brutally murdering him after he text messaged her that she was an evil sociopath and the worst thing to happen to him.

        Yet, in her testimony in trial she describes herself as a woman who loaned Alexander money and was helping Alexander with her problem with his attraction to boys. She gets him brochures (which don’t exist) and sleeps with him so he will not molest little boys and 12 year old girls. All a big fat lie to reverse the role and make her look like the good guy and him the bad guy.

        In her allocution and tweets, she claims she is selling Survivor T shirts she designed and 100 per cent of the proceeds go to help battered women since she is a survivor of domestic violence. No shelter or battered woman’s organization has reported getting a dime and there is no proof she has sold one t shirt or that Travis Alexander ever laid one finger on her.

        She also claims if she gets life instead of death she will teach inmates English and sign language, start a book club and a recycling program in Perryville Prison, which isn’t even possible because the first few years she will be in maximum security cells and not in general population.

        I hope the new jury sees through her victim act and sentences her to death.

        • Observer, you summed it up so perfectly. My ex-husband behaved just like Jodi.

          He beat me while I was pregnant & many other instances of abuse occurred. One day, (while holding the baby in my arms and my 3 year old watching) he punched me in the face causing me to get over 20 stitches in my face. I went to a shelter with my kids and spent some time trying to regroup – hardest summer of my life. I never fought back, my goal was to get as far away as possible. This is the life of an abuse victim. Embarrassment, fear, low self esteem, the list goes on and on.

          Jodi was the abuser and it sickens me the way she portrays herself the victim!

          • Know what you mean. After 35 yrs of being away from my ex he still tells our kids I was a cheat. I did fight back and always lost. Lots of black eyes and bruises on me back then. Looking back how stupid was I.

  8. The motion to attempt to keep the state from calling Travis Alexander a “victim” is as ridiculous as the motion Zimmerman attorneys filed to stop the state from using the words “profiling, vigilante, wannabe cop or self appointed neighborhood watch captain.” The judge ruled the prosecutors could use all the words except “racial profiling.”

Leave a Comment