Return to Transcripts main page


Week 16 Highlights in Jodi Arias Murder Trial

Aired April 19, 2013 - 20:00   ET



JANEEN DEMARTE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: There`s constant fluctuations. There`s a lot of manipulation that`s involved with people who have borderline personality disorder.

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: He called me a skank. He called me Pollyanna. He called me porn star.

He made me feel like I was the most freaking beautiful woman on the whole planet.

DEMARTE: Unstable interpersonal relationships.

ARIAS: He began to have anal sex with me.

Kind of felt like a used piece of toilet paper, like a prostitute, sort of.

(INAUDIBLE) shut and lock the door and (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: So you did enjoy the sex, then, is that what you`re telling me?

ARIAS: At times I did.

DEMARTE: Unstable emotions.

ARIAS: "He makes me sick and he makes me happy. He makes me sad and miserable."

DEMARTE: Those are the six criteria.

MARTINEZ: And they`re the six criteria for what?

DEMARTE: Battered women`s syndrome.

MARTINEZ: And in this case, do you have an opinion as to whether or not, given everything that you`ve reviewed, the defendant has battered women`s syndrome?

DEMARTE: She does not meet that criteria. She does not have battered women`s syndrome.


NANCY GRACE, HOST: This week, week 16 of the Jodi Arias murder one trial, brought so many happenings. The week was kicked off with a big snafu in the court.

You know, I have found very often that court administrators, court personnel, judges, bailiffs, court reporters, lawyers -- we`re all so used to handling cases, criminal cases, that sometimes certain people forget that it`s a very human equation.

This week, in order to see a screen, to preview some evidence outside the jury`s presence, the judge placed the victim`s family, Travis Alexander`s family, in the same jury box with Jodi Arias. Can you imagine sitting just a few inches away from the person that you believe massacred your brother, your loved one, to be that close to them, close enough to put your own hands around Arias`s neck?

Well, it didn`t take a court order for a few moments to go by, and suddenly, the judge summoned the lawyers to the bench and the families were separated from Arias.

But you know, to many of us crime victims, we remember what that moment is like when you are confronted in court with the person that massacred the one you love the most. And then to be sitting, be forced to be sitting just inches away from them? To me that was not just a courtroom snafu, that was an emotional travesty for Travis`s family.

Also this week, we see another attempt by the defense to muddy the water, so to speak. Some time ago, this came out on YouTube, where someone had very carefully studied the photo of Travis Alexander in the shower just before his death. And if you look very carefully into his eyes, you can see mirrored in his eyes some sort of an image.

This week, the defense wanted to bring in newly discovered evidence. Of course, we talked about it on our show several weeks ago.


GRACE: I want to show you a disturbing new theory that has emerged. Let`s see the shot of Travis Alexander`s eye. Take a look very carefully. I want to see the one and two-shot we have prepared.

Take a look at this theory. After very, very careful consideration, H.J. Blankenship (ph) has spotted the possibility of two people there in the iris of Travis Alexander`s eye. The defense wanted to bring in newly discovered evidence, as they put it, that showed Arias just before the murder, seconds before the murder, holding nothing but a camera in her hands as reflected in Travis`s eye.

MARTINEZ: Assuming my eyes are 20/20 and I said to you -- and I`m looking at exhibit number 3 -- I don`t see anything that you have here, would you have any reason to dispute what my eyes were seeing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Calls for speculation.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would say you`re not looking at it through equipment I have been able to look at it for.

MARTINEZ: Well, but the equipment isn`t here for the jury to see, is it?


MARTINEZ: Yes or no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if you`re looking at it on that monitor, it`s much better than on the RGB monitor.


GRACE: Martinez, of course, made light of it and said that he thought he saw a dog in the reflection.

Bottom line, the defense wanted to take the jury out of the courthouse, into a science-type lab so they could look at enhanced photos of the reflection in Travis`s eye. When it was all said and done the judge allowed a stipulation to be read to the jury that says Jodi Arias was holding a camera just before the murder.

Well, we know that, so I don`t think the defense won very much there. We know she had a camera at some point because we`ve seen the pictures.


MARTINEZ: (INAUDIBLE) I were to say to you, I`m looking at that with all the enhancements in the world, I can`t see it, you wouldn`t be able to dispute that, would you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That would be up to the jury.

MARTINEZ: That`s right, it would be up to the jury to decide what they`ve seen, not you, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct. I just...

MARTINEZ: I don`t have anything else. Thank you.


GRACE: But that was just another, let me say, red herring, you know, in court this week. Of course, this trial has been full of red herrings.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want you to sign my cane.



MARTINEZ: Oh, my gosh.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The law provides that to prove prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show first that the state`s actions were improper. Setting that aside, I`m going to go to the second showing that must be made, and that is that there is a reasonable likelihood that the misconduct could affect the jury`s verdict, thereby denying the defendant a fair trial.


GRACE: Throughout the trial, we have seen the defense on many occasions ask for charges against Jodi Arias to be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. They do this by making motions for mistrial.

There are several reasons that they do that. One is to object, make an objection, but second, when you are trying to preserve an issue on appeal -- in other words, make it an issue that an appellate court can rightfully look at and reverse on -- typically, most jurisdictions want the trial lawyer to ask for a mistrial because they`re saying, Well, there`s nothing for us to cure because maybe there was a problem, but you never asked for a mistrial.

There`s nothing for the appellate court to correct. You did that all on your own, defense lawyer. You did not ask for a mistrial, so there`s nothing for us to grant at this late stage.

So in order to preserve the record for appeal and make it possible to reverse on those particular issues, defense attorneys always follow up major objections with a motion for mistrial.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In this case, there is no evidence that signing autographs and posing for photographs under these very limited circumstances could affect the jury`s verdict because there were no jurors present. Mistrial is the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged. The court cannot make that finding, so the motion for mistrial is denied.



JENNIFER WILMOTT, ARIAS`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: But you don`t consider yourself an expert in domestic violence, do you.

DEMARTE: Depends on how you define expert.

WILMOTT: Do you define yourself as an expert in domestic violence?

DEMARTE: I would not call myself an expert in domestic violence specifically.

WILMOTT: You see that Jodi answered that question, repeated emotional and psychological abuse, right?

DEMARTE: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jodi Arias, his crazy ex-girlfriend, slashing his tires all the time, stalking.

SANDY ARIAS, JODI ARIAS`S MOTHER: Jodi has mental problems. Jodi would freak out all the time!

WILMOTT: ... describe the traumatic event.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yelling, screaming.

SANDY ARIAS: Jodi is bipolar and she needs help!

MARTINEZ: "Get away from me" is a response to stalking, isn`t it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then he said, Don`t be surprised if I don`t show up one of these times and you find me dead somewhere.


GRACE: There was a closed-door hearing during this trial, where audio was played showing Martinez attacking, so to speak, the first defense shrink, Dick Samuels.

MARTINEZ: All of the answers here are based on the fact that she had an assault by a stranger, right?


MARTINEZ: In terms of what she was telling you, you believed that she wasn`t telling you the truth. You remember telling us that?

SAMUELS: Yes, that`s correct.


GRACE: While the defense says Martinez was attacking Samuels, I think it was just a vigorous cross-examination. And when you put a witness like Samuels up on the stand, you can expect a vigorous cross-examination.


MARTINEZ: These images are of these two individuals coming in and killing Mr. Alexander, right?

SAMUELS: Well, at that time, yes, that is what I believed.

MARTINEZ: And 23, she was asked if she had any bad dreams or nightmares about this killing of Mr. Alexander by these two people, and she said? Zero, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: Which means that not at all or only one time. Based on this, she does say she doesn`t have any nightmares about the traumatic event, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: In terms of reliving the event, number 24, she answered 1, which is once a week or less, right?


MARTINEZ: And again, we`re talking about the same event that at that point involved a man and a woman, right?

SAMUELS: Well, we don`t know that.

MARTINEZ: Well, yes, you do know that because that`s what she told you (INAUDIBLE) right?

SAMUELS: That`s what she told me, but I want to make it very, very clear...

MARTINEZ: Is that what she told you...


GRACE: The defense team has complained to the judge that the prosecution is getting a lot of attention during this trial, certainly not in the courtroom. Maybe he has admirers outside the courtroom, but that`s his business. What matters is what happens inside the courtroom and what the jury is privy to.

But then on the other hand, the prosecution, Martinez, turned the tables by claiming Jodi Arias doesn`t have any room to talk about public attention. She`s the one that is strategizing and maneuvering public tweets in the evenings to everyone outside of court.


MARTINEZ: One example that I can give you where the state has no control over social media is the defendant. There`s been allegations that she has been tweeting, I think is the word. I don`t have any of that, so I`m not familiar with that. But know that I`ve been told that she`s been tweeting (INAUDIBLE) through I guess it`s an acquaintance of hers, female acquaintance of hers, and there are things that have been going out.

So if we`re talking about the flames of -- of interest by the media, whether it`s conventional or social, in this case, they`re being fanned by the defendant herself. One can`t forget that she`s a witness in this case and she`s actually violating the court`s rule about discussing her testimony, so -- if we`re be looking at that.

And quite frankly, as I think of it now, I`m asking the court to issue an order that she desist from that because, again, she has testified and she is discussing her testimony. And again, if we`re going to talk about disparaging comments that are made, again, I don`t have an account, so I don`t know the exact words. I don`t watch television coverage of this particular trial because -- I just don`t. But I`ve been told that she indicates something about the prosecutor, how tall he is.

This is the type of conduct that they`re complaining the prosecutor is doing, but when you take a look at it, it`s actually created by the defendant. And I`ve gone at length to go over that because there is this constant attack on the prosecutor about his conduct, about what the media says about him. What the media and the people out there choose to believe is up to them. I have no control over it, and it appears, however, that the defendant does have control (INAUDIBLE) seems to be attempting to manipulate it.

So I have my written response. I think it addresses the court`s issues or the defendant`s issues. And I ask the court to deny the defendant`s request, again, for another mistrial. Thank you.


GRACE: I`ve been the victim of one of the tweets in which Jodi Arias claimed she gave the finger, shot a bird at me from inside the courtroom. So we know Arias is doing this. But once again, it`s neither here nor there because if the jury doesn`t see it, the jury doesn`t know about it, it doesn`t affect the trial. And if it doesn`t affect the trial, then I don`t care about it.



DEMARTE: Even reading her journals, the way that she talks about her boyfriend, it has this very, for lack of a better word, a saccharine kind of feel to it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Travis always told me she liked the name Iris for a girl."

ARIAS: There`s an excitement about the future. He said that the hot (INAUDIBLE) status, or I don`t remember what he said. He made the comment. I took it as a compliment.

DEMARTE: I found it to be strange and immature.

ARIAS: I really enjoy (INAUDIBLE) sunsets (ph) (INAUDIBLE) people (ph).

DEMARTE: Her appearance had indicated that -- she was described as being happy as hell when they came to visit her in jail. I was curious about what that immaturity could mean.

WILMOTT: What you found out is that she actually has a pretty high IQ, right?.

DEMARTE: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: She believed that her IQ was as high as Einstein`s. Do you know anything about that?



GRACE: The jury has requested to ask or pose nearly 200 questions to the defense`s second shrink, Alyce LaViolette. Now, we remember when Dick Samuels was on the stand and they had a similar number for him. I don`t think it bodes well for LaViolette that that many questions have piled up, questions like, Do you have inappropriate feelings for Jodi Arias? Ouch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "When discussing Jodi being manipulative at the Purple Plum (ph) and what the witness said about Jodi" -- I`m sorry -- "what the waitress said about Jodi, when the prosecutor was marking the exhibit, you looked at Jodi, gave a half smile and shrugged your shoulders. Why do you keep doing this?"

LAVIOLETTE: Well, I didn`t even know I was doing it, truthfully. I do shrug my shoulders. I do. But I -- I don`t even remember doing that. I mean, I don`t even know what to say to that question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Do you have personal feelings for Jodi or feel sorry for her?"

LAVIOLETTE: I have feelings. I have -- I have liked Jodi in terms of working with her and in terms of having that cooperative relationship with her. But I mean, we haven`t had a relationship other than the 44 hours that I`ve spent in jail with her. So we don`t -- we don`t have a friendship. We don`t have a relationship other than that. And I`ve had that relationship with other people that I have worked with who have been in jail, as well.

I`m pretty clear on my own boundaries, so I don`t think that`s been a problem. And I -- and I -- absolutely, if I thought that would get in my way -- in the same way I do with my clients, if something personal would get in my way of having an effective relationship, I would step away from it.


GRACE: We`ve already lost two of the jurors, juror number 5 and juror number 11. We still have 16 jurors left. We only need 12. But there is no indication that the case is close to wrapping up. It`s getting dangerous at this point. There are fewer and fewer alternates for this case to go forward.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you happy in your relationship with Travis?

ARIAS: Yes, I was. Yes. During the relationship, I was very happy. You know, and it wasn`t always perfect. Our relationship was by no means perfect. But just knowing him has taught me a lot.

MARTINEZ: Give me the examples that you believe show that she meets that criteria of borderline personality disorder (INAUDIBLE) post-traumatic stress disorder.

DEMARTE: She had a strong desire to maintain relationships. She would engage in behaviors that, again, to an outsider may be questionable as to how this would keep someone from abandoning them. She was found hiding behind a Christmas tree.

MARTINEZ: Whose Christmas tree?

DEMARTE: At Mr. Alexander`s house.

MARTINEZ: All right. Any other examples of these efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment?

DEMARTE: She would show up unannounced repeatedly.

MARTINEZ: Would that create problems between her and Mr. Alexander?


MARTINEZ: Anything else...

DEMARTE: There were...

MARTINEZ: ... as it applies to these efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.

DEMARTE: There`s indication that this occurred in previous relationships, also.

MARTINEZ: And for example, what are you talking about?

DEMARTE: For example, her relationship with Matt McCartney (ph).


DEMARTE: She -- there was indication in the records that he tried to end the relationship before she was willing to allow that to happen. In fact, he had already moved on, was dating someone else who, she later confronted.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, your honor. At this point, the defense rests.


GRACE: When I first heard the words "the defense rests," I almost couldn`t believe it. I will have to say that the case dragged on for about maybe 28 days too long. I think that they created juror fatigue, as it is euphemistically called.

That doesn`t mean that the jurors are tired, it means they`re tired of you. But every time Martinez would get up to do a cross-examine, they would perk up. But then when the defense started again, they would visibly settle back down in their seats.

I`ve been watching the state`s first rebuttal witness, Dr. Janeen DeMarte, on the stand carefully. She has a very sharp and quick demeanor. She answers questions very quickly.


WILMOTT: And in the PDS (ph) test, that is something specific for post-traumatic stress, isn`t it?


WILMOTT: OK, and that`s one of your specialties, right?



GRACE: As opposed to Dick Samuels for the defense, who never seemed to have the right test or the right document or the right report.


MARTINEZ: Where -- where is that?

SAMUELS: I don`t have it with me, apparently.

MARTINEZ: Well, why don`t you have it with you?

SAMUELS: I must have left it on my desk.


GRACE: They were always at his desk, somewhere on the desk, out who knows where. DeMarte always has those documents and that verification with her. She`s extremely fast on her feet, as well. And she stays in good spirits even when she`s under attack. That goes a long way with a jury.


WILMOTT: You also testified that you found it unbelievable that when Jodi is driving towards Hoover Dam and she realizes that she has blood on her hands. Do you remember talking about that?

DEMARTE: I do remember talking about that.

WILMOTT: OK. And you said that you found it unbelievable that when she saw that she had blood on her hands, she knew something bad had happened, right?

DEMARTE: No, that`s not what I said.

WILMOTT: Well, but -- she has told you that, right, that she knew something bad had happened?

DEMARTE: That she had killed him.


GRACE: We saw not so much LaViolette but Richard Samuels get defensive and angry on cross-exam.


MARTINEZ: So we get back to the "48 Hours" interview, where you`re saying -- I told -- we discussed this, and the question was, Well, isn`t it true that she discussed thoughts, feelings, conversations associated with the trauma in the "48 Hours" interview?


MARTINEZ: So again, that speaks against what`s in number one, doesn`t it.

SAMUELS: I`m sorry, I don`t see it that way.

MARTINEZ: Right. You wouldn`t see it that way because you have feelings for the defendant, right?

SAMUELS: I beg your pardon, sir!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection. It`s argumentative (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May we approach, Your Honor?



GRACE: Interesting thing about DeMarte is she keeps up a good demeanor. She doesn`t seem to let anything bother her and she just keeps going.


DEMARTE: Per her report that she had no memory of what happened, I find that unbelievable.

WILMOTT: OK. But also per her same report that she told you, though, her last memories were after she shot him, right?


WILMOTT: So she remembers shooting him, shooting Mr. Alexander, right?


WILMOTT: And she remembers him coming after her as she`s shooting, right?


WILMOTT: And she remembers that after she shoots him, he falls on top of her, right?


WILMOTT: And she remembers that she had to roll away from him, right?


WILMOTT: And she remembers that she had to run down the hall.


WILMOTT: And that she remembers that she`s running away from him.



GRACE: When DeMarte was first asked on the stand what she thought of Arias`s experts spending upwards of 40 hours with her, she was very taken aback and correctly responded that 40 hours to do an evaluation was way, way too much and becomes therapeutic.


MARTINEZ: Why is that?

DEMARTE: Well, in clinical practice just generally, in evaluations, first of all, we`re not afforded the opportunity to spend that much time. Typical clinical interviews, if we`re talking about just regular evaluations, range anywhere from an hour to maybe three or four hours.

In forensic evaluations, it certainly is more time because usually, we do have access to more records. They tend to be a little bit more complicated. So clinical interviewing certainly can last longer.

MARTINEZ: So with the 44 hours, is there a danger associated with spending that much time with an individual talking?

DEMARTE: The first thing that I think of when somebody spends 44 hours with another individual in a clinical setting is that it becomes therapeutic, or comes to mind maybe some of my students who weren`t very good at clinical interviews yet and they really didn`t know what to look for and they ended up taking much more time doing it.


GRACE: In other words, as a treating physician, not an evaluator. Once you become a treating physician, the physician begins to identify with the patient. You`re no longer just evaluating them, they have become your patient, your client, your friend. And we saw that happen with Richard Samuels and Alyce LaViolette.


WILMOTT: You would agree that there were times when Mr. Alexander was quite upset with Jodi, right?


WILMOTT: And he showed his anger with Jodi in his text messages, didn`t he?


WILMOTT: And he called her all kinds of names.

DEMARTE: He called her names, yes.

WILMOTT: Do you know what character assassination is?


WILMOTT: And isn`t that when names become actually so severe that it cuts down the person`s own character, their own being?

DEMARTE: I think that would be one definition, yes.

WILMOTT: OK. And you`d agree that a lot of these names that he was calling her was actually character association, wasn`t it?

DEMARTE: They were harsh names, yes.

WILMOTT: And you wouldn`t consider that to be OK.

DEMARTE: No, that`s not OK.

WILMOTT: And in fact, that was abusive, wasn`t it?

DEMARTE: Abuse implies that it`s a pattern of behavior. I would say that that behavior was certainly inappropriate and not healthy communications style.

WILMOTT: OK. But you don`t consider it abusive?

DEMARTE: I would say again the word "abuse" implies a pattern of behavior.

WILMOTT: Well, let`s not -- we can talk about patterns in a second, but the word...


WILMOTT: I`m talking about the word "abuse." So you mean that unless it`s repeated, this one particular incident wouldn`t be considered abusive to you.

DEMARTE: If we define abuse as a misuse of something...



WILMOTT: Hold on a second. What I`m asking you is, this one particular instance on May 26th, let`s say, when Mr. Alexander, as you`ve agreed, was calling her names consistent with character assassination -- you would -- you wouldn`t agree that that`s abusive?

DEMARTE: I am trying to explain to you what I mean.




WILMOTT: Are you taking that back?

DEMARTE: I`m not taking anything back. You`re changing my words.

WILMOTT: Right. I know that. But what I`m saying is...

DEMARTE: I`d like to see what you`re referring to.

WILMOTT: Do you not remember that?

DEMARTE: Again, I`d like to see the documents that you`re referring to.

WILMOTT: No, not I`m not talking about that.

DEMARTE: I`d like to clarify. Can I speak?

WILMOTT: Are you understanding so far?

DEMARTE: I think you`re using different language than I am.

WILMOTT: I want to make sure that I`m clear with this question.

DEMARTE: So it`s hypothetical?

WILMOTT: Sure, let`s do it as a hypothetical.

DEMARTE: Can you restate that question in a different way?

WILMOTT: It`s a yes or no question.

DEMARTE: I don`t believe I can answer in yes or no.

WILMOTT: Let me make sure that you understand this, OK?

DEMARTE: Please clarify.

I again would like to clarify that.

WILMOTT: So then that`s a no.

DEMARTE: No, I just said I can`t answer you in yes or no.

WILMOTT: You`re not giving me any information.

DEMARTE: What I`ve been trying to clarify.

WILMOTT: I`m moving on.

DEMARTE: I`m trying to explain to you what I mean.

WILMOTT: OK. Is that -- did you clarify enough?

DEMARTE: I did. Thank you.

WILMOTT: All right. You`re welcome.


GRACE: This jury will not be asking DeMarte questions like, Was there any friendly touching or hugging between DeMarte and Arias, the way they did LaViolette. There will not be suggestions of inappropriate feelings for Arias, as it was suggested for Richard Samuels, because she went in, she performed the analysis and she left.


WILMOTT: OK, so if somebody called someone you know or you love a whore or a slut, you would just tell them that`s a misuse of words, right?

DEMARTE: I`d say that`s inappropriate.

WILMOTT: OK. And despite knowing that there is this name calling that`s going on and escalating, throughout the relationship, you would still not term this as a pattern verbal abuse, right?

DEMARTE: That`s correct.

WILMOTT: And you would make that opinion based on the fact or despite the fact that you are not a domestic violence expert.

DEMARTE: I`ve worked with a lot of people who have experienced domestic violence.

WILMOTT: But you told us yesterday that you were not a domestic violence expert, right?

DEMARTE: I did, based on the idea that I do not have a license in domestic violence.

WILMOTT: What license is there on domestic violence?

DEMARTE: That`s exactly why I said that. There is no license in domestic violence. I told you that I`m a licensed clinical psychologist and I`m an expert as a clinical psychologist because my definition of expert is license.

WILMOTT: You -- are we going to go back to this...


WILMOTT: ... the fact that you`re saying that somebody needs to be licensed to be an expert in domestic violence?

DEMARTE: No, I was asking you what your definition was, and you didn`t provide one for me. And my definition would be licensure indicates someone has an expertise in that area and...

WILMOTT: So anybody who doesn`t have a license in something means that they are not an expert, is that what you`re telling me?

DEMARTE: It depends on the definition.

WILMOTT: OK, so according to your depending on a definition now, you`re taking it back that you -- you think you are an expert in domestic violence? Is that where we`re going?

DEMARTE: Yes, I have a lot of experience in domestic violence.

WILMOTT: OK. So yesterday, you were not an expert in domestic violence, but now today you are.

DEMARTE: I just gave you an example of why I said that -- or not an example, I gave you the reason why, that I`m basing it on licensure status. I indicated that I have a license as a clinical psychologist.


GRACE: She read all of the appropriate materials, did the interviews as appropriate, and came up with a conclusion very, very unlike Richard Samuels and Alyce LaViolette.


MARTINEZ: You were told about these tests that you could actually run and compare yourself, right?

DEMARTE: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: But with regard to Ms. LaViolette, is there any objective way that you could go back and look at something to say, Oh, I see, this is how she reached the result and I`ve been able to verify that result?

DEMARTE: No. There was no report. There was no test data.




MARTINEZ: ... actually provided the defendant with a gift.


MARTINEZ: Well, sir, do you remember providing her with a book called "Erroneous Zones"?


WILMOTT: Did you ever give Jodi any magazines or books?


MARTINEZ: Seems to be a little bit of the blurring of the lines here, don`t you agree?


GRACE: We noticed that when LaViolette first started her testimony, she said she went into the evaluation, and first and foremost apologized to Jodi Arias for having read her journals.


MARTINEZ: Ma`am, in this case, you actually are biased in favor of the defendant, aren`t you.

LAVIOLETTE: Do I believe the evidence that supports domestic violence? Yes. I think bias is an incorrect word, Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: No, that is the correct word. Isn`t it true that you are biased in favor of the defendant? Yes or no.

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t believe I`m biased.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, do you remember that the first thing that you did upon meeting the defendant when you went to visit her was that you apologized to her?


MARTINEZ: And you apologized to her because you had read some of the items that were involved in this case, hadn`t you.



GRACE: And she felt badly about that. DeMarte felt no such apology was necessary, that that was her job to read all the relevant material and make an analysis. And where Martinez is going with this is to suggest LaViolette had feelings, be they friendship or otherwise, inappropriate feelings for Arias. That`s where he is headed when he asked DeMarte if she walked in and apologized to Arias. Of course, she did not.


DEMARTE: It would certainly give the impression that that person feels bad for them or has a relationship outside of that independent evaluator. It`s odd. I don`t know of people who go in and apologize. It doesn`t make sense to me.

MARTINEZ: If an individual, if you, for example, were to go in and apologize and you said that you feel bad -- if you felt bad walking into the interview, do you think that that`s a problem in terms of your objective conduct of this interview?

DEMARTE: Yes. And I think that`s primarily why -- or one of the reasons why some psychologists choose to not be evaluators because they have a difficult time (INAUDIBLE) objective approach and not feeling compassion towards a person, being able to go in there and be an objective evaluator.

SAMUELS: I just happen to be a compassionate person. I`ve done this with other clients that I`ve evaluated, if I feel it would help them.

MARTINEZ: Have you ever in your experience ever provided, for example, a book to somebody?



GRACE: Prosecutor Martinez also asked DeMarte what she thought of giving gifts, such as books, to the subject, that being Jodi Arias. Well, DeMarte, of course, dismissed that immediately and said that was not wise. Also, that it was a very bad idea to give someone like Jodi Arias a self- help book because then she would tailor her testimony and all of her statements and interrogations based on what she saw in the self-help book. In other words, it helps her construct a defense as a battered woman or as post-traumatic stress disorder sufferer.


DEMARTE: I would be concerned about how that book might influence their response to any of my testing or how they responded to the clinical interview.


GRACE: Some of the examples that DeMarte used to show Arias may have borderline personality disorder -- which of course, does not rise to the level of insanity or post-traumatic stress disorder sufferer -- those examples, for instance, stalking Travis Alexander, reading his e-mails, hacking into his e-mails, moving from one state to the next to be closer to him, to observe him and to spy on him after the breakup, the barrage of e- mails, texts and phone calls she made to him, coming by his place uninvited or unsolicited -- those were some of the examples she cited as somewhat of a personality disorder.

DeMarte also likened her, not in IQ -- her IQ was labeled as superior in certain aspects -- but as to her demeanor, as to her personality, not her IQ, DeMarte likened Arias`s personality to a high school girl. Her antics with Travis Alexander, the way she behaved, the spying, the hacking, the ups and downs of the relationship and how it affected her is very much akin to an 8th grade girl with her first crush, basically, is what DeMarte said.

And I tend to agree with her completely, except that it was an 8th grade girl on a first crush personality inside a grown woman`s body with the ability to commit murder.


GRACE: DeMarte made a very incisive and astute observation, and that is Arias couldn`t possibly have PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, based on a made-up event, right, all right, A made-up event. That event could be the two ninjas coming in and killing Travis. That event could be Travis attacking her. That event could be her ever-changing scenario about exactly how Travis`s death went down.

If she`s making something up -- and we know that she is -- she can`t possibly have post-traumatic stress disorder.


MARTINEZ: If the trauma was not related to a stranger, in terms of the opinion in this case, is it worth anything?

DEMARTE: No, other than it`s an other evidence that Ms. Arias decided to lie on a test.



GRACE: Also, as pointed out in court, when you have post-traumatic stress disorder, you -- you don`t have a very long time, typically, where you can`t remember. Your memory goes in and out. And that is an issue with the way Arias describes her lack of memory.


MARTINEZ: After you dropped him off, you were supposed to go to work, weren`t you.


MARTINEZ: That`s what you told us on direct examination, right?

ARIAS: That`s right.

MARTINEZ: And after you went to work -- and you didn`t tell us about anything that was in between there on direct examination, did you.

ARIAS: I don`t know.

WILMOTT: And she remembers that she had to run down the hall.


WILMOTT: And that she remembers that she`s running away from him.


WILMOTT: And she remembers the last thing that he tells her is that, I`m going to (EXPLETIVE DELETED)kill you, bitch, right?

DEMARTE: As he was running after her.



WILMOTT: OK. So given all the things that she does remember up until that point, it`s not a huge leap to think that something bad had happened when blood is on her hands, right?

DEMARTE: You`re using different words now.

WILMOTT: No, I`m just asking you. Generally speaking, it`s not a huge leap to assume that something bad happened when she sees blood`s on her hand.

DEMARTE: I disagree.

WILMOTT: So you think that`s not a logical leap, then.

DEMARTE: I agree that that`s not a logical leap.

WILMOTT: OK, so -- all right, so it`s not logical, then, to assume that something bad had happened when you know that you just shot somebody and you know he was coming after you and you know that you were terrified. And then hours later, you see blood on your hands.

DEMARTE: You`re using the words "something bad that happened," and I`m referring to the fact that she said, I knew I killed him.


GRACE: In my estimation, the defense is nitpicking DeMarte to death. They are numbing the jury even further and not making any headway. Wilmott seems to have taken on or tried to take on the mannerisms of Juan Martinez, and it doesn`t work for her. That is not her style, and I don`t think it`s working with the jury.


WILMOTT: With battered women based on your experience, you`re expecting battered women to report that, right?

DEMARTE: No, not all the time.

WILMOTT: Well, then you`re aware that they minimize, right?


WILMOTT: You`re aware that they oftentimes they don`t report.

DEMARTE: Yes, I am.

WILMOTT: And you`re aware that oftentimes, they don`t call the police when they`re it by their loved ones.

DEMARTE: I am aware of that.

WILMOTT: And you`re aware that they don`t go to the doctor when they`re hurt by their loved ones.



GRACE: We don`t know how far Juan Martinez is going to go in his rebuttal case. We don`t know how many witnesses he`s going to call. But I would predict it`s going to be a short rebuttal case with no more than five witnesses. After that, I do not believe the defense is going to put on a surrebuttal. We`ll go straight into closing arguments, and finally a verdict.