Pros and Cons of Jodi Arias Trial, Essay Example

Dr. Janeen Demartes Review

Dr. DeMartes’s testimony was overly strong. She demonstrated proficiency in her career field as a psychologist evaluator in the courtroom and an expert witness. Although she had less experience than the defense experts, she was able to finalize her steps amicably. She was dressed in an appropriate manner that suggested professionalism. This aspect is vital because it is the first impression the jurors use to judge a witness and determine whether they are appropriately fit to provide an accurate statement. Therefore, she was able to secure an amount of respect and credibility from the jurors. Further, she maintained adequate eye contact with the prosecutors and the judge throughout the process of the court proceedings. This image was a strong indicator of confidence in her responses. More so, Dr. DeMartes used appropriate hand gestures and facial expressions, such as raising eyebrows when responding to questions, which engaged the prosecutors in her conversation. The use of gestures and facial expressions was essential to enable the jurors to understand what she meant adequately.

Dr. DeMartes was honest with the jury. She was able to admit that she was not an expert at the time on the issues of domestic violence, which changed the jury’s perception of her by increasing more trust in her. They viewed her as a sincere person. It is, therefore, likely that the jury paid attention to her testimony. She answered the questions with an appropriate volume, which portrayed confidence in her responses. Using a high-pitched volume would make the jury feel lectured, while maintaining a low tone would indicate agnostic responses to her testimony. Thus, she expressed honesty throughout the proceedings.

Dr. DeMartes’ content was adequate to disapprove the diagnosis that the defendant had a psychological disorder. This evidence was in terms of the symptoms being inconsistent with the diagnosis. Dr. DeMartes adequately explained that centered on how memories formed surrounding traumatic events, she was able to stand her ground without doubt and describe to the jury the pattern that should indicate traumatic memory loss, discrediting Dr. Samuels’s report. Disapproval marked a significant score in presenting her argument.

Moreover, Dr. DeMartes was calm throughout the process of prosecution. Even though some of the prosecutors were rude to her, she was composed and did not use harsh words to respond to the claims alleged by the prosecutor. For instance, she said, “if those memories were not encoded, you cannot get them back.” By doing so, she was able to prevent the prosecutor from using the case against her. More so, she took enough time to listen to the attorney’s questions with understanding to articulate firm responses. Listening keenly is vital to ensure that the responses are adequate and provide sufficient information required by the attorney. It prevents double statements and drives the main point to the audience.

Further, the answers given by Dr. DeMartes were short and precise. For instance, she said, “I am aware of that,” “that is correct,” and many other multiple times she just said “yes.” She avoided a lot of unnecessary explanations that would give the attorney the chance to ask many more questions. Providing clear and concise answers gives the attorney a hard time challenging the witness. However, long answers provide unneeded information; they allow the prosecutor to cross-examine them and pin the witness down with their confusion. Therefore, as a witness, one should not give prosecutors the leeway to ask unnecessary questions that may confuse the truth. Additionally, Dr. DeMartes did not answer questions that were unclear to her. This approach protected her from being discredited by the jury in instances where she could give responses that would question her intelligence in her field. Precision was the key to convincing the listeners.

At times, prosecutors go the extra mile of subjecting claims to witnesses. For Dr. DeMartes, she did not concur with the prosecutor. She flatly conceded the claims, which is highly advisable in any court hearing. When the prosecutor inquired on whether name-calling was abusive and tried to imply it as abusive, Dr. DeMartes continuously objected to the claims and said abuse meant a pattern of behavior. More so, she was able to offer an accurate and appropriate explanation when needed by the prosecutor. When asked about the base rate scores, she was able to offer a credible explanation of base rate scores and their importance. She said that, in any psychological test, there is always a threshold that is designated through research to inform the psychologist on whether the base score rates are meaningful or not. She stated that if it passes the threshold, it is meaningful, but if it fails to pass the threshold, it is not clinically relevant. Therefore, despite Dr.DeMartes having less experience in her career, she did well as a witness in the court hearing.

However, despite Dr. DeMartes being an expert and proficient in her statements, there are a number of flaws that she exhibited as a witness. She was sarcastic at times and rude to the prosecutor when asked about the number of children and adults she had evaluated.  She pointed out that she was not sitting there writing down and tallying. This response was inappropriate. She was supposed to answer calmly that she did not perform a countdown on them. More so, there are instances where she swung her chair, which mainly indicated uncertainty about her responses. Moreover, it could have indicated nervousness in the responses, which may communicate to the jury uncertainty or probably telling a lie.

As a witness, one should be keen to answer questions when asked. For Dr. DeMartes, there are some instances when she asked the prosecutor to repeat the question. This part may indicate a lack of interest or keenness in the questions asked, and this may discredit one as an expert witness. Further, she used the facial expression of a smirk. Smirk may mean that she is dissatisfied or even bored by the continuous repetition of the same question by the prosecutor. This con indicates to the jury the unwillingness to clarify answers or even answer the question presented by the prosecutor. But, besides all that, she did well as a professional witness.

Dr. Samuels Review

Dr. Samuels’s testimony was moderately strong. There were instances when he demonstrated proficiency in his field as a psychologist evaluator and as a witness. Moreover, there are times that he was not proficient as a witness. Throughout the proceeding, he maintained eye contact with the prosecutor. This act is an indicator that he had confidence and believed in his point of view. Sustained and focused eye contact also showed that he was listening and paying attention to the proceedings. It made the jury view him as a qualified, skilled, and competent psychologist.

Dr. Samuels came to the courtroom dressed decently and professionally. This outfit made the jury considers him as a respectful person; more so, it made them pay attention to what he was saying. They also had confidence in him, and attendees had to respect whatever he said as a witness in the case. Thus, the professional look is crucial in case presentations.

Dr. Samuels was composed and calm. Even when the prosecutor asked difficult and confusing questions, he responded calmly after carefully listening to the question. Even when they cut him off in the middle of his response, without giving him a chance to complete his sentences, he still remained calm and did not lose his temper. This part is important since the jury saw a composed person who does not let his emotions take over. It is a display that makes the jury have trust with his responses since it is not based on emotions but on facts and events that took place.

Further, Dr. Samuels is polite. He occasionally called the prosecutor sir, which portrays him as a person who respects the court and the entire court proceedings. Failure to respect the court could have had him kicked out without getting a chance to present his statement. More so, he showed politeness when he stopped talking when the given prosecutors cut him off. This composure shows that he had respect for the prosecutor and the rest of the jury. It made the jury see him as a polite person who focused on delivering his presentation without arguments and in a composed manner.

Furthermore, Dr. Samuel used the right gestures and non-verbal cues in his presentation in court. His nonverbal signals matched what he was saying. This approach, in turn, created much trust with the jury since it ensured clarity in the entire proceedings. It is an aspect that makes the jury not lose interest in what one has to say in witness presentations. It also makes the jury understand the message well.

Dr. Samuels had short and precise answers. This factor is seen when presenting his answers with a “no” or a “yes.” He answered the questions in very short responses that were precise; it shows an understanding of the content well. It also helps the jury follow the proceedings without any confusion and with much ease. Additionally, based on the questions and evidence presented by the prosecutor, it is probable that Dr. Samuels was able to create rapport between him and his client. The link triggered the client to open up and present adequate and clear information about the events that transpired before Travis was killed. Thus, clear answering provided reliable information.

Moreover, it is vital for expert witnesses to take their time before answering any question to allow them to devise appropriate answers that prevent the prosecutor from throwing the witness off by rapid-fire questions. Therefore, Dr. Samuels was able to maintain a professional and thoughtful pace and adequately respond to the questions asked by the prosecutor. This part can be seen when he tries to explain different aspects of the proceedings. It portrays him as a person who has adequate content on the subject matter involved. The jury can have confidence in his presentation since he showed that he had professional comprehension and skills as an evaluator. It is also crucial for the jury to understand all angles of the presentation, and his descriptions are what can make them understand.

According to Brodskey and Wilson (2013), it is critical and ethical for a forensic evaluator to have a little bit of empathy when evaluating a client. Lack of empathy may probably depict a cold and callous examiner self-representation. Therefore, it may result in biased and negative results, which may be presented in the court. It helps in building rapport and results in a successful psychological assessment. As for Dr. Samuels, he did right to provide his client with a book, which acted as a self-help book. Therefore, it was wrong for the prosecutor to accuse him of giving it as a gift to the client. Empathy does not warrant accusation.

Dr. Samuels was an experienced clinician who had practiced his career for over thirty years. Therefore, his statements in court should have been considered by the prosecutor. According to Dvoskin and Guy (2008), jurors prefer testimonies from experienced clinicians. This was more of the reasons why the jurors should have considered his testimony and evidence of the mental health problem of the defendant as presented. However, the prosecutor had the authority to question him. Thus, his testimony played a vital part in the case.

Additionally, it is crucial for expert witnesses to adequately practice and cross-examine questions that may be probably asked by the prosecutor after the providence of the notes and evidence. As for Dr. Samuels, he was adequately prepared for that, as he was sure that the question about him providing a book to the defendant would be asked. Therefore, the question did not come to him as a surprise, and he was prepared on what answer he would give in case he was asked about it. His response was that the book was not a gift but rather a self-help reading that would help the defendant from depression and having suicidal thoughts. This prior preparation helped Dr. Samuels from being unsure of the questioning, which would have discredited his statements.

On the downside, Dr. Samuels was a mess in the courtroom. He was not appropriately organized as a witness ought to be. This led to him being discredited as a witness, failing in his performance. He said that he had left some of the important documents on his desk. As a witness, it is essential to be well-organized in terms of answering questions and presenting proper documents that support any claim. Therefore, when he forgot some of the credentials on his desk, it painted the picture of forgetfulness to the jury. Thus, the jury lost trust in his evidence since if someone could forget important documents, how then could he act as a witness to provide evidence of past events as a witness. This aspect was an epic failure for him.

Further, Dr. Samuels did not stand firm on his grounds. He kept on changing his theories and statements about the incidences that happened. These changes were a bad move for him since they gave the prosecutor the chance to pin him down with his statements. For instance, what was in the audiotape record was different from what he was presenting in the court. This undertaking made Dr. Samuels seem dishonest to the jury, which may have led to his performance being discredited.

There were also instances when Dr. Samuels gave long explanations to unasked questions. In a court hearing, a witness is not supposed to answer questions in long sentences. Such answering is highly discouraged since it gives the prosecutor the opportunity to use some of the words said against the witness. It is clearly evident when he speculated about what happened in the defendant’s home. Therefore, the use of the word speculation gave the prosecutor an opportunity to pin him down on unsure explanations.

On the one hand, Dr. Samuels used gestures that were inappropriate in the courtroom. For instance, he pointed fingers at the prosecutor, which the jury might have judged as being disrespectful to them. More so, Dr. Samuels fired questions back to the prosecutor instead of answering those asked. This undertaking is not appropriate since expert witnesses should at all times answer questions asked to the best of their ability and be as honest as possible. This approach disqualified his performance as an expert witness. Expert witnesses listen to questions keenly and answer questions accordingly instead of answering questions with other questions.

On the other hand, Dr. Samuels occasionally raised his voice at the prosecutor to indicate annoyance. That gesture was blemish because it signaled the jury that he was high-tempered.  It demonstrated a lack of objectivity because he expected to be asked specific questions that may be he had crammed or practiced before. It made the jury think of him as dishonest. Further, there are instances that he leaned back and swayed with the chair, which pointed him out as nervous or even unsure of what he was saying in his responses.

More so, despite Dr. Samuels having a long career experience, he did not recognize it was inappropriate to offer a gift to his client as a forensics evaluator because it would interfere with his judgment. Therefore, he clarified to the audience that it was not a gift to the client, whereas he initially committed his money to buy the book. Additionally, he did not seem to have adequately gone through his notes because when asked questions by the prosecutor, he gave contradicting answers, which were not in line with his submitted report. Lack of awareness and knowledge discredited his presentation.

Further, an expert witness should always acknowledge a lack of knowledge when faced with a difficult question. It is vital for a witness to accept their limit because it adds to their credibility and wisdom (Dvoskin and Guy, 2008). For instance, for Dr. Samuels, in his description of the word compassion, he agreed with webster’s description, but later, he refuted the claims. It demonstrated him as a bit foolish in his statement because he wanted to argue against something that he had already agreed to. Therefore, he wanted to criticize the statement in a way that favored him as a witness. This statement highly discredited him as an expert witness. He should have admitted a lack of proper knowledge about it.

According to Dvoskin and Guy (2008), it is crucial for expert witnesses to take an amicable stance and see themselves as just witnesses instead of experts in their area in the courtroom. It is the responsibility of a lawyer to win a case and the duty of a witness to answer the questions accurately as asked. As for Dr. Samuels, he was determined to save Jodi and not geared toward answering questions as the prosecutor asked them. More so, there are occasions where he tried to depict the prosecutor as not a professional in the psychological field; therefore, he should accept whatever he said because he was a specialist in the field and the prosecutor was not an expert. These cons discredited him as a reliable witness to win the case.

References

Brodsky, S. L., & Wilson, J. K. (2013). Empathy in forensic evaluations: A systematic reconsideration. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(2), 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2042.

Dvoskin, J. A., & Guy, L. S. (2008). On being an expert witness: It’s not about you. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 202-212. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel-Dvoskin/publication/232914746_On_Being_an_Expert_Witness_It%27s_not_about_you/links/00463516f77747d582000000/On-Being-an-Expert-Witness-Its-not-about-you.pdf

Jodi Arias Trial