The Arizona Court of Appeals delayed its decision on whether to reverse Jodi Arias’ 2013 murder conviction after attorneys presented oral arguments about the fairness of the trial to a three-panel judge at the Supreme Court building in downtown Thursday.
The main topics of contention were over who was to blame for the media coverage at the time and whether it had unfairly influenced the outcome of the trial. Arias’ attorneys also argued that prosecutor Juan Martinez committed prosecutorial misconduct.
Arias’ attorney Cory Engle said Arias did not receive a fair trial due to “cumulative misconduct”, the prosecuting attorney’s “nobody in this trial is telling me the truth” mindset, and the prosecution asserting experts had personal relationships with Arias.
Arias killed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in 2008 in Mesa. Alexander had a slit throat, nearly 30 stab wounds and a gunshot wound to the head. Arias’ defense team argued the act was in self-defense. Arias was convicted for first-degree murder in 2013, but the first sentencing trial ended in deadlock.
A second sentencing trial was held in 2015, also ending in jury deadlock. A judge sentenced Arias to life imprisonment without parole.
“The theme of this case was, ‘everybody else you should ignore except for me,’ and not because of the evidence but because of the prejudice and sympathy that (the prosecutor) had attempted to invoke in the jury against those witnesses,” Engle said.
Specifically, Judge Sherry Stephens’ failure to control the media’s influence on the trial and jury and Prosecutor Juan Martinez’s interactions with the media unfairly impacted the result, Engle said.
The panel, comprised of Judge Kenton Jones, Judge Jennifer Campbell, and Judge Michael Brown had questions regarding Arias’ involvement with the media because she had also given interviews during the trial.
“It doesn’t appear she ever gave up her desire to get her story out,” Campbell said.
In response, Arias’ attorney claimed that she had only given three interviews during the entirety of the trial, while Martinez gave more and signed autographs outside of the courthouse. Martinez also claimed that “what happens outside of the courthouse is not misconduct,” according to Engle.
But the judges expressed skepticism about the credibility of pointing fingers in the matter of who was to blame for the media coverage.
“When you make a challenge about publicity, how do we determine from a cold record who was at fault for turning the publicity band-wagon?” Campbell said.
“Isn’t it ludicrous to sit down and say we can look at the conduct of Ms. Arias and we can look at the conduct of Mr. Martinez and apply no standard but just simply assume? Assume that one did greater damage when she was out there telling stories as widely as Mr. Martinez?” Jones said.
While the justices and attorneys argued the legitimacy of the media’s impact on a fair trial, not all agree with their doubts.
“I was on the court beat for 16 years, and I never saw anything like this. It was just unimaginable, the circus that went on,” said Michael Kiefer, a retired Arizona Republic reporter who covered the Arias trial.
Assistant Attorney General Terry Crist said while Martinez committed “instances” of misconduct, it was not enough to result in jury prejudice, the basis for the appeal.
“We would argue that the prosecutor may have done some things that violated the rules occasionally,” Crist said, “and the court sustained objections when appropriate.”
But the justices questioned whether the objections were evidence that Martinez had not committed misconduct. Martinez received 39 sustained objections over the course of the trial.
“It is 39 objections sustained. Not just objections made, but sustained,” Jones said. “How does that not register in the prosecution’s mind that something may be off in the questions?”
At least seven State Bar of Arizona complaints have been filed against Martinez since 2015, according to the Arizona Republic.
The Court of Appeals will announce its decision on their website at an unspecified later date. Arias’ appeal sought to overturn her guilty verdict, at which point she would be safe from double jeopardy — she can’t be tried twice for the same crime. If denied the appeal, Arias may appeal to the federal level.
The defense and prosecution declined to comment further on this story.
Contact the reporter at hrein@asu.edu
Hailey Rein is the Education Editor at Downtown Devil and a senior at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass communications. In addition, she is a digital producer at azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic. In her free time, she enjoys being with her dogs and watching a rom-com.
