Your Legal Lady

Click HERE to watch my Wild About Trial discussion of both cases.

Today was quite the day in the legal news world, with both OJ Simpson testifying in his bid for a new trial and Jodi Arias being found eligible for the death penalty. The key to placing Arias on the road to the death penalty was today’s aggravation phase, where the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Travis Alexander was killed in a “cruel manner.” Juan Martinez gave a powerful performance as he recounted for the jurors, with the help of a medical examiner, how Alexander was stabbed 27 times with his throat sliced before being shot in the head. Martinez told the jury, “The last thing he saw before he lapsed into unconsciousness … was that blade coming to his throat. And the last thing he felt before he left this earth was pain.” Jurors then took only three hours to find indeed that Arias killed Alexander in a cruel manner, making her eligible for the death penalty.

In this next phase, the defense will get the chance to present witnesses, including Arias’ family, to testify as to why she should be granted leniency. The big question is whether Arias herself will again take the stand. As Jon Leiberman and I discussed on our Wild About Trial Spreecast, her defense attorneys will be pressing her to stay off the stand but given Arias’ narcissistic need for attention, we would not be surprised if she ignored her attorneys and indeed took the stand again. Also, that local FOX News interview Arias did right after the verdict could come into play. In the interview, Arias said, “longevity runs in my family, and I don’t want to spend the rest of my natural life in one place. I believe death is the ultimate freedom, and I’d rather have my freedom as soon as I can get it.” In Arias’ mind, a life sentence would be a worse punishment, so the question is, will the jury give her what she wants? Though the jury took just 13 hours to find her guilty of 1st degree murder and just 3 hours to find her eligible for the death penalty, I expect a longer deliberation in deciding her ultimate fate, especially since the jury must be unanimous if they decide she deserves the death penalty.

As for OJ Simpson, he’s claiming he was not adequately represented by his attorney, Yale Galanter in his trial stemming from a 2008 conviction for armed robbery, assault and kidnapping. Simpson was convicted of leading a group of associates into a room at the Palace Station hotel and casino and using threats, guns and force to take back items from two dealers. He claims his attorney told him that he could demand his property back from two dealers, and if they refused to return it, he could use some force, so he relied on that information. Yet, ignorance of the law is NO excuse. Just because his attorney told him his act was legal and he believed that to be true would not be a defense to his crimes. ”The overall advice that he gave me is that you have a right to get your stuff. He gave me an example that if you’re walking the street and you see your laptop in a car, you can use force to break the window of the car,” Simpson told the court. Simpson is also claiming there was a conflict of interest in the case because his attorney had a working relationship with the media. He also claims his attorney prevented him from testifying. All criminal defendants have a right to take the stand in their own defense but their attorneys often strongly advise them not to do so, which was likely the case here.

The bid seems like a doomed last ditch effort to me, yet, his new attorney feels confident he will be successful, stating, ”there are 19 issues here in our writ and all you need is one of them to be granted and Mr. Simpson gets a new trial,” said Osmaldo Fumo. “It just seems overwhelming that more than one of them should or would be granted and I’m confident he’ll get a new trial.”

Click HERE to watch my analysis of the two cases on my weekly Wild About Trial Spreecasts.