Jodi Arial trial is a critical case that had a victim convicted for not only murder but also a felony. Although it was difficult for the jury to reach a unanimous conclusion on the sentence that they could effect on the victim, it was evident that Arial was guilty of brutally murdering his former boyfriend. On scrutinizing the proceedings of the case, there are several pros as well as cons that exude through the different witnesses. The role plaid by two expert witnesses Dr. Demarte and Dr. Samuels go a long way in helping to pinpoint both the weaknesses as well as the strength that are evident in the case.
Pros in the Case
One of the aspects to be considered in dealing with a court trial of the above manner is the mental state of the suspect. In taking Dr. Demarte, a psychologist to be one of the core witnesses, it is possible for the court to get a clarification whether there is a mental issue that might have influenced the individual in question to commit murder. With such an answer in hand, it is easier for the jury to make the decision concerning the sentence in the case that they find the suspect guilty. On the other hand, with the information, it can also help them to decide whether the suspect is guilty or not.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
To a large extent, concrete evidence goes a long way in either winning or losing a case. On the other hand, it helps the jury in deciding on not only where the truth lies but also in making the decision about which side stands to win the case and consequently which sentence to pass. The interview with Demarte to a large extent aims at establishing whether the above witness gives the court true and credible information about the case, as a witness. In almost all instances, she is able to give answers that are not convoluted. This can show her credibility as a psychologist. Multiple questions are thrown at her randomly concerning a report that she was presented with by Dr Samuels. She is asked multiple questions concerning the MCMI score. She gives all the answers confidently with a strong voice. This show her credibility in psychology. With the conclusion that the jury reaches on her professionalism and credibility as a psychologist, they can gauge the weight of her answers on witnessing against the suspect. Closely related to the above, a cross examination of the answers presented on the sheet as well as the answer she presents as she witness against the suspect help in gauging the level of truthfulness of the witness. Through long-term experience in doing the above, the jury can hence make a decision of whether the suspect is guilty or not.
Essentially, Dr. Demarte's body language in the form of her posture which is upright to a large extent portrays the confidence she has on the questions she is asked about the possibility of being biased in evaluating individuals due to the influence of compassion. Also, her voice is not shaky, and in most instances, she gives direct unambiguous answers to the questions asked. This shows that she has prepared well for the case. Besides, it shows the depth of her knowledge on the subject at hand. The Jury is hence likely to benefit from such upfront answers from her as they are likely to trust what she is saying.
In most circumstances, in a trial, consistencies, as well as inconsistencies on the part of the witness as well as the victim, are sought for as indicators of either legit or otherwise answers. Dr. Damarte, to a large extent consistently insist that based on her analysis of the suspect, she disagrees that she had memory loss, a factor that led her to commit murder. Besides, she consistently refers to her knowledge on the subject. The above makes her not only professional in the manner she reports, but it does also show the critical analysis carried out on the suspect before the court. Hence her answers being solid and the court can be confident in her claims.
In a better part of the interview, Dr. Damarte sits not only upright but also maintains eye contact with the person interviewing her. Besides, in most circumstances, she listens with the aim of giving the right answer and not only for the sake of answering the prosecutor. As a result, there are little to no occasions in which she has had to ask for a clarification of the questions asked. She does not also take much time in answering the questions asked of her. The above does not only save time of the proceedings, it also has other indicators such as the deep knowledge she processes on psychology. Also, it probably indicates good preparation on the side of the witness, before she appeared before the jury.
Although the several clarifications, as well as time taken by Dr Samuels, might be viewed as a sign of not having confidence or contradicting oneself, On the other hand, it can be interpreted as a sign of a desire to internalize each and every question asked by the prosecutor with an aim of providing answers that might not be mistaken. He severally disagrees with the prosecutor when he pushes him to agree that through the provision of a self-help book, he had crossed the ethical line. He gives a clarification that his main aim was to do anything possible to invoke aspects that could help him in conducting his evaluations. His clarifications, hence, go a long way in ensuring that most of his statements are not mistaken.
In most instances, Dr. Samuels uses an appeal to ethos. An example is the presentation of a pencil drawing of the state of memory of an individual suffering from true dissociative amnesia. With the drawing presented, his knowledge about the subject he speaks about is less likely to be doubted in comparison to in a situation where he does not provide such a visual illustration. Besides the above, he severally clarifies aspects that he is asked about the state of mind of the suspect while referring to his long-term experience in psychological evaluation, MICM scores as well as how trained psychologist are supposed to conduct an analysis. With the above, it is likely that he will remain on track and give correct information about the evaluation of the suspect since most of the answers he provides are not reliant on what he thinks but what is correct in psychology. Closely related to the above, In some instances, he requests to revisit his notes so as to ensure that he gives the right dates. On his side, this is an advantage because with what is previously researched and written, he is likely to give the court the right information, one that is likely to defend when called upon in any other sitting.
Throughout the questioning with the prosecutor, Dr. Samuels manages to remain calm, even when the prosecutor raises his voice. The above enables him not only to be composed but also gives him the ability to synthesize the questions directed to him. To a large extent, hence, he is able to think through the questions and hence answer them appropriately.
Cons Evident In the Case
Dr. Demarte, A psychologist who was one of the key individual testifying against Jodi Arias, admits the possibility of her feeling compassion towards the victim in the case that he or she evaluates her. Due to the above variable, it is highly possible that the testimony obtained from the above witness is bias, since in the case that she feels sorry for her, she is likely to help her evade her predicament, an aspect that is likely not only to be unethical in the above contest but is also likely to alter the information presented to the court by either the suspect or the person testifying against her.
Although Dr. Damarte is consistent with her reporting and her voice is strong in a big part of the interview with the prosecutor, in a big part of the questioning process, she keeps on swinging on the chair. The above might lead the person interviewing her to question aspects such as her confidence in the matter she is reporting.
Dr. Samuels’ interview to a large extent is convoluted. Specifically, on the aspect of gifting and compassion, there are many instances that he asks for a clarification of the questions that are asked by the prosecutor. Although the above could be looked as a positive aspect as he aims at getting the questions right so that he could provide right answers, on the other hand, it can be viewed as a trick he employees to indirectly borrow time so as to find a way in which he can present the case in to the questions he doesn't know. The above, to some extent, show some loopholes in his testimony. A good example of the above is when he agrees that he provided the defendant with a self-help book but at first he disagrees that the book could be viewed as a gift and hence in one way or another was an aspect that could have influenced the defendant. Another example closely related to the above is when he disagrees that his act of providing the suspect with a book might have made his analysis on her biased. The above answers are likely to make the jury question his understanding of ethical boundaries in psychology. In testifying for the suspect, his actions are likely to betray him.
In some of the questions directed to DR Samuel by the Juror, the answers given were not straight forward. One of the questions posed, for example, was if he considered himself an impartial evaluator in the case. He responds that he tried to be at all times. The above answer raises questions on his confidence about being impartial. In the case that the above question was responded by a yes or no, it would have appeared more straightforward and also show the juror that he is confident of what he is saying. He, however, went ahead to defend himself by explaining why he thinks he was impartial, instead of giving a straightforward answer such as yes or no. The above could be interpreted as self-defense in the case that the individual is partial but wants to portray himself otherwise.
Aside not being able to provide direct answers to some of the questions that are directed to him, Dr. Samuels at some point admits that there was an omission that was present in his report. He goes ahead to say that he had reviewed the report but had not presented the corrections to the court in written form. The above can lead to a doubt on the other materials that he presented whether they were actually thoroughly reviewed before he presented them to the court. Closely related to the above, he is seen to have problems in recalling the correct date he made the changes. Upon being told to refer his notes so as to provide the court with the exact date, he is not in a position to put a hand on the notes that indicate the correct date. The above might lead to the jury having less information, especially one that is related to the dates the different evaluations were carried out and hence they might find inconsistencies I the reporting, some of which might not help them in decision making.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both Dr. Samuels and Dr. Damarte, through how they carry out themselves and how they answer the questions directed towards them establish their credibility and give answers that might help the court in passing the sentence. On the other handsome some postures as well as how the answers are presented could influence the court to doubt their credibility and in addition help little in making the decision about the sentence to be passed by the court.
