Legally Speaking: Decision time coming up for Jodi Arias jury

Feb 18, 2015, 7:04 PM | Updated: Apr 27, 2015, 8:38 pm
...

Will it be life or death for Jodi Arias and what does that actually mean?

Some sarcastically have said that the day would never come, but it will, although much later than originally anticipated.

The State v. Jodi Arias trial will end soon. Last week Judge Sherry Stephens announced the trial was on track to be completed by the end of February.

Now that the end (of the trial) is in sight, the time is ripe to discuss exactly what punishment Arias could get.

In the summer of 2008 Jodi Arias was charged with first-degree murder for the death of Travis Alexander and she was convicted in May of 2013.

Under Arizona Revised Statute 13-1105(A)(1):

A person commits first degree murder if: (1) intending or knowing that the person’s conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person … with premeditation …

Murder 1 carries a sentencing range of life to death, which sounds simple; however, there is confusion about what exactly the term “life” means.

That is because it has changed over the years. Since Arias murdered Travis Alexander in 2008, we have to look at the sentencing statutes that were in effect then.
Under the 2008 sentencing statutes, Jodi Arias faces a potential sentence of:

• life (25 years with the possibility of parole)

• natural life (no possibility of parole)

or

• death

Had this premeditated murder happened now, the only two possibilities would be life or death.

The possibility of parole no longer exists. The defendant must be sentenced to life without the possibility of release if convicted of premeditated murder, or the killing of a police officer.

In fact, now in a premeditated killing juries are often given an instruction similar to this:
The defendant in this case has been convicted of the crime of first-degree murder. Under Arizona law every person found guilty of first-degree murder shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of release from prison.

In State v. Arias the first jury was given the instruction:

Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the Defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.

If you unanimously find the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years.

Life without the possibility of release from prison means exactly what it says. The sentence of life without the possibility of release from prison means the defendant will never be eligible to be released from prison for any reasons for the rest of the defendant’s life.

At the current time, there is no procedure for granting parole if the defendant is sentenced to life with the possibility of release from prison after 25 years.

This was an instruction given to the first jury and it is highly probable the second jury will be given the same instruction.

Here are the possibilities for Arias:

• If the jury unanimously agrees on death, then Arias will be sentenced to spend the rest of her life on death row before she is executed by lethal injection.

• If the jury instead unanimously agrees to life, then the judge decides between life with possibility of parole or natural life.

• If this jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, death is taken off the table and the judge must then decide between life with possibility of parole or natural life.

The jury does not have a say in whether Arias is given the possibility of parole, its job is limited to the decision of life or death.

The first jury couldn’t get the job done, will the second jury be able to?

Monica Lindstrom

(Facebook File Photo/Phoenix Police Department)...
Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Police may need to be part of Phoenix oversight office

Phoenix's requirement that no current or former law enforcement be part of a new police oversight office appears to be in direct conflict with recently signed Arizona laws, writes KTAR News legal expert Monica Lindstrom.
4 months ago
With coronavirus vaccines on the horizon, Arizona employers could require their employees to get th...
Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Arizona employees could be required to get virus vaccine

With coronavirus vaccines on the horizon, Arizona employers could require their employees to get the virus vaccine but there would be exceptions.
10 months ago
(AP Photo/Matt York)...
Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Maricopa County ballot lawsuit could have merit

KTAR legal expert Monica Lindstrom says the Maricopa County ballot lawsuit could have merit, whether it's for affecting ongoing races or correcting a procedural issue for the next election.
11 months ago
(KTAR News Photo/Kevin Stone)...
Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Why Arizona’s voter registration deadline was extended

A judge conducted a balancing test before ruling that Arizona's voter registration deadline should be extended, writes KTAR legal expert Monica Lindstrom.
12 months ago
(AP Photo)...
Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Mountainside not throwing in towel on Ducey lawsuit

In the epic legal battle of Ducey v. Mountainside, all thought Gov. Doug Ducey had won, but Mountainside Fitness is not done yet.
1 year ago
(Facebook Photo/Mountainside Fitness)...
Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Mountainside Fitness has good case against Ducey

KTAR legal expert Monica Lindstrom believes Mountainside Fitness has a good case to remain open despite Gov. Doug Ducey's executive order.
1 year ago
Legally Speaking: Decision time coming up for Jodi Arias jury