http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjf5h9It's no surprise Jodi is suffering from "migraines" today given what is likely to be an explosive cross from Juan Martinez. Back in October, Jodi fought relentlessly to have LaVoilette's notes from their meeting deemed a "work product", arguing that it could be self-incriminating.
Remember that during the pre-trial hearing on August 8, 2011, LaVoilette exposed yet another Arias lie by stating that Jodi told her Travis masturbating to pictures of young boys on his laptop - directly contradicted Jodi's previous story of seeing them on his bed. This sent Martinez into a frenzy where he immediately requested to see ALL of LaVoilette's documents & notes, which would likely expose yet more lies to therapists/psychologists who evaluated her.
The judge ruled to allow Martinez full access to her notes. I can already hear the fireworks!
Here is a transcript of the ruling:
The Court has reviewed the redacted and unredacted copies of Ms. LaViolette’s notes.
Rule 15.2(c)(2), Ariz.R.Crim.P., provides that a defendant shall provide the State with the
names and addresses of experts expected to be called in the trial, along with the experts’ reports.
The underlying policy of discovery rules is to “facilitat[e] the search for the truth and prevent[ ]
surprise.” State v. Roque, 213 Ariz.193, 207, ¶ 33, 141 P.3d 368, 382 (2006). Rule 15.2(e)(2),
Ariz.R.Crim.P., provides the defendant shall provide any completed written reports, statements
and examination notes made by experts in connection with that case. The facts or data in a
particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or
made known to the expert at or before the hearing. The expert must disclose all facts or data
considered by them in reaching their conclusions. This includes facts or data, even that which
was considered and rejected. Notes taken by an expert witness regarding interviews of witnesses
or a defendant, or regarding testing, are information the expert has considered in forming an
opinion. Such information is discoverable and may be delved into on cross examination. See
Rules 703 and 705, Ariz.R.Evid. and State v. Mauro, 159 Ariz. 186, 199, 766 P.2d 59, 72 (1988).
Defendant contends some of Ms. LaViolette’s notes should not be disclosed because they
constitute work product. See Rule 15.4(b)(1), Ariz.R.Crim.P. The work product doctrine is not
absolute and is waived if the party elects to present the expert as a witness. State ex rel. Corbin v.
Ybarra, 161 Ariz. 188, 193, 777 P.2d 686, 691 (1989). As noted, the defendant has noticed her
intention to call Ms. LaViolette as an expert witness in the guilt phase. She has therefore waived
the work product privilege and her right against self-incrimination with respect to work prepared
by Ms. LaViolette. See State v. Sucharew, 205 Ariz. 16, 22, 66 P.3d 59, 65 (App. 2003).
The court finds the defendant failed to establish providing Ms. LaViolette’s notes violate
her rights under the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution or Art.
2 §§ 4, 15, 23 and 24 of the Arizona Constitution.
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
