Return to Transcripts main page


Domestic Violence Expert, Prosecutor Butt Heads

Aired April 8, 2013 - 19:00   ET


RYAN SMITH, HLN ANCHOR: ... at 10 Eastern right here on HLN. And don`t worry, Alyce LaViolette`s testimony continues right now on JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, AS explosive cross-examination continues, brand-new exclusive, never-before-seen photos of victim Travis Alexander. He`s skeet shooting. He`s having fun with his buddies, courtesy of his good friend, Dave Hall. Travis Alexander, the man not here to defend himself from personal attacks by the defense.

Also tonight, diary entries that reveal Jodi`s sexual obsession with Travis. You will hear them read to you tonight.

We`re going to go back into court for more head butting between prosecutor Juan Martinez and the defense expert, who says Travis abused Jodi. Listen to a little of their back and forth.



ALYCE LAVIOLETTE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT: I don`t lie about what I do, Mr. Martinez.


LAVIOLETTE: You`ve mischaracterized what I just said.


MARTINEZ: Is that yes or no?

LAVIOLETTE: I think I just answered that question.

MARTINEZ: Is that yes or no?

LAVIOLETTE: Mr. Martinez, I`m just trying to give you a more effective answer.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am...

LAVIOLETTE: If you are trying to trick me with a year, you can`t trick me with a year.


MARTINEZ: I`m not asking you what you looked at.

LAVIOLETTE: If you`re asking me to be a history major, I`m not a history major.


MARTINEZ: Are you done with your answer?


MARTINEZ: Now answer my question.

LAVIOLETTE: It`s out of context, Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am...

LAVIOLETTE: It`s not representing what I said.

MARTINEZ: You are a -- you`re a lie detector, right?


LAVIOLETTE: I think you`re mischaracterizing me.

MARTINEZ: Are you done?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, boy. For more of this grueling cross- examination, back into court. Prosecutor Juan Martinez grilling defense battered-woman expert Alyce LaViolette. Let`s listen.

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t know if I apologized to her or if I didn`t. I honestly, I don`t. My first case was `84 and I remember going in and meeting with her in jail, and I don`t know if I apologized. I can`t imagine I did.

MARTINEZ: What you say is you don`t know? You don`t know, is that what you`re saying?

LAVIOLETTE: I would say unlikely, because the circumstances were different.

MARTINEZ: So this is a different case where you could have shown respect a different way, right?

LAVIOLETTE: This case?


LAVIOLETTE: This case seemed -- it seemed to me that was a really good way to show respect at the beginning.

MARTINEZ: I understand that that`s what you say that you wanted to accomplish by apologizing, but there are different ways of showing respect, aren`t there?


MARTINEZ: You could have sat across from her and began talking to her about what happened in a very respectful way, couldn`t you?

LAVIOLETTE: I did that.

MARTINEZ: Well, you could have done that, and that way, that would have shown her that you were respectful, right?


MARTINEZ: And, in fact, you told us that 90 percent of all communication in a clinical setting is nonverbal, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I did. I`m really sorry I said that, I guess.

MARTINEZ: Yes or no?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I did tell you that.

MARTINEZ: So if you really wanted to show her the respect and show her that you were going to do this in a respectful manner, if 90 percent of the statements are nonverbal, you didn`t have to say anything at all, did you?




MARTINEZ: So you felt that, with regard to apologies, those are the only exceptions to your 90 percent rule?

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

MARTINEZ: Well, you did make the statement about the 90 percent, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Ninety percent, and generally speaking, you start by talking with somebody, connecting with them before they have a context to - - to even assess your body language.

MARTINEZ: Well, ma`am, you spent 44 hours on this case, right?


MARTINEZ: So that was sufficient time in the beginning to assess -- for her to assess your body language and that you felt respectful, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Not the first five minutes when I met her, no, Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: No one forced you to open your mouth those first five minutes and say, "I am sorry," did they?

LAVIOLETTE: I`m not sure that I did it within the first five minutes, but I did it relatively soon and nobody forced me. No, they did not.

MARTINEZ: And the five minutes that I just used, you were the one that just told me about it, right? That`s the time that you told me, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I did not -- I don`t know that it did it within the first five minutes, Mr. Martinez. I don`t know that I did that. What I do know is that I did it relatively soon, but that we had no basis for communication prior to that, so had I sat silently, that wouldn`t have worked.

Did I have to make an apology? Probably, you could say no. I would say I thought it was a respectful and good thing to do. It was my decision to do it. So you can argue with that decision, but that`s my decision, and I believe it was the right decision to make.

MARTINEZ: You may believe it was the right decision, but if your statement is true about the 90 percent, isn`t it also true that -- well, how long did you meet the first time with her? It wasn`t five minutes and it wasn`t 30, was it? It was more than that.

LAVIOLETTE: It was eight hours, I believe.

MARTINEZ: Right. And the first time you met for eight hours, you could have, through your body language -- not a set rule -- after maybe one or two hours attempted to convey this to her through this nonverbal communication that you have talked to us about, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I think I probably apologized to her before two hours.

MARTINEZ: I understand that. But my point is you didn`t have to apologize immediately upon walking in, right?


MARTINEZ: You could have waited one or two hours to see how she dealt with you, to see whether or not she was going to trust you, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I guess I`m not sure why this is such an issue.

MARTINEZ: Judge, she`s being nonresponsive. Ma`am, do you understand that you`re here to answer my questions, right?


MARTINEZ: So my question to you is, in terms of this apology, it`s true that it wasn`t necessary within the first five minutes or the first half hour because you spent actually eight hours with her, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I felt that it was necessary. That`s why I did it.

MARTINEZ: I understand that you felt that it was necessary, but you weren`t compelled to apologize, were you?

WILLMOTT: Objection, asked and answered several times.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: And during this conversation you talked to her about what happened, right?


MARTINEZ: And during this conversation, one of the other things that happened is that you had a really good feeling about her, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I had a more positive feeling than I did prior to meeting with her, but I don`t know that really good -- I had a much better feeling about her after I spoke with her.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that you and I had a conversation back on November 14th of 2012?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, it is.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that you indicated to me that you looked at the materials, and you received a lot of information, and you had a good feeling about her?

LAVIOLETTE: I did. I said a good feeling. I did, yes.

MARTINEZ: And so this good feeling you had about her, again, this is on a personal level, feelings, isn`t it?

LAVIOLETTE: It was -- yes. She answered questions that I had -- she filled in blanks that I had.

MARTINEZ: Right. And so as a result of that, you developed, if you will, something inside your brain, which is the thing that creates the testimony that we have here. In there was a good feeling. You apologized because you felt bad. Now you have a good feeling after talking to her, right?

LAVIOLETTE: A good feeling -- I have a better feeling to pursue the case, for sure.

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking about a better feeling to pursue the case. I`m asking about a good feeling about her, because that`s what you told me, that you developed a good feeling about her. Do you remember telling me that?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I do. Yes, I do.

MARTINEZ: And so now not only have you apologized, now, in your mind, which is what you`ve told us how you arrive at your opinions in this case, something that we can`t look at, correct, we can`t go inside your brain, open it up and look at the way things develop, can we?

LAVIOLETTE: No, but you mischaracterized what I said.

MARTINEZ: I understand that...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re going to pause very briefly. If it kind of feels like one of those heavyweight bouts where the fighters are just hanging onto each other because they`re so tired and trying to get some slams in, it is like that. We`re going to tell you why in a little bit.

But first let`s debate it with our expert sidebar panel. This woman spoke to Jodi Arias for 44 hours, interviewed her, but she didn`t speak to anybody else. So the prosecutor is saying her conclusions show bias in favor of Jodi Arias that she accepted her stories at face value. Who`s winning? Let`s go to Wendy Murphy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Look, I think it was proved a long time ago, when it was clear she based her decision only on lies by the defendant, that she`s not an objective witness, which means she carries very little weight in the courtroom. She`s a hired gun who will lie for money. She`s not the first person who takes a pile of cash and says crazy things under oath.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Danny Cevallos for the defense.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Look, experts are there to give their opinion. I don`t -- she`s not necessarily a hired gun. Every expert is technically a hired gun. She`s bound by her own rules of ethics and her own -- her own ability in the field or standing in the field to not just take money and lie. She`s not a hired gun in that sense.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Lieberman.

JON LIEBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: I think Mr. Martinez has shown that she`s selective and subjective in what she chose to believe, and she chose to believe Jodi Arias` lies because she never got the opportunity to interview Travis Alexander, because Jodi had already killed him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And I thought it was fascinating that prosecutor Juan Martinez points out that, oh, she told a couple of stories, the same stories about several different boyfriends. But apparently, this was the first time that this particular witness found out about that, while she was on the witness stand.

Juror No. 5 finally speaking out on camera. She was kicked off the jury for a mysterious misconduct. Then she came back to court last week to watch the trial as a spectator. Now she`s talking.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What was it like being in court today on the other side of the aisle?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, it was a different experience, definitely. But I was glad that I came back. I was able to come back and, you know, be part of it again. So I`m looking forward to giving my interview and saying my side of the story, and to really go out there and say what really happened. But I need to get home first and talk to my legal advisers and go from there.




SANDRA ARIAS, JODI`S MOTHER: How can somebody -- you say she did this, come back and just be normal?


S. ARIAS: And Jodi -- Jodi has mental problems.

WILLIAM ARIAS, JODI`S FATHER: Tell her we want to come visit her, "Where are you going to stay?" She didn`t want us to stay in her house. She was afraid we would snoop through her stuff.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Interrogation tapes of Jodi`s mother and father, revealing that they thought Jodi Arias, their daughter, was crazy. Bipolar.

Let`s go back into court and hear more of this cross-examination.

MARTINEZ: I understand that you believe that. So now you have this good feeling, and then you continue on with the case, right?


MARTINEZ: Isn`t it clear to you, as you sit here today, that perhaps there`s an issue of bias on your part on behalf of the defendant, given your feelings and what you`ve done?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I don`t believe that there is.

MARTINEZ: So you can set all these good feelings aside, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I have good feelings...

WILLMOTT: Objection, mischaracterizing what was happening in the interview with regard to good feelings.

STEPHENS: Overruled.


LAVIOLETTE: I think that -- that what you`re talking about is that I have positive feelings, and that would really interfere with my look at some objective material.

And I`m not saying that I`m not a human being, and I`m not affected by good feelings. I`m saying that I look at lots of things, because I take this case very seriously. It`s a very serious case.

MARTINEZ: But in this case there are no objective materials, are there, like a test, are there?

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t think tests are objective.

MARTINEZ: So you`re saying, for example, if we have a DNA test, that`s not objective?

LAVIOLETTE: I`m not talking about DNA. I`m talking -- I thought you were talking psychological testing.

MARTINEZ: No. We`re talking about things like that.

LAVIOLETTE: No. No, I`m not saying that. I`m saying that I look at materials that are written from a variety of sources, including Mr. Alexander, and I took all of that into account. And I didn`t just take Ms. Arias`s words into account.

MARTINEZ: One of the things that you told us or you told me during the interview and you told us during testimony was the defendant suffered from low self-esteem. Do you remember telling us that?


MARTINEZ: Well, ma`am, one of the things that, with regard to low self-esteem, isn`t it true that when the defendant was about to be evaluated, isn`t it true that she was happy because she believed that her I.Q. was as high as Einstein`s? Do you know anything about that?


MARTINEZ: And, in fact, that speaks against somebody who has low self-esteem, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Not necessarily.

MARTINEZ: So the fact that the defendant was happy to have her I.Q. tested, because she believed she`s on the level with Einstein, doesn`t it indicate to you this individual does not suffer from a low self-esteem issue?

LAVIOLETTE: Most people who talk about how smart they are don`t feel that they`re that smart, or they`re really interested as -- by the way, I did do testing as an undergraduate. When I did my practice tests, people were very interested in their I.Q., because it`s interesting. So there could be a number of reasons why she was excited about that. I don`t know. I wasn`t there.

MARTINEZ: Well, but the bottom line is, you had it in your notes, right? You read that?


MARTINEZ: And you`re saying that, well, all these other people have these reasons why they want to know what their I.Q. is. You don`t know that`s why the defendant wanted to know about her I.Q., right?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I don`t.

MARTINEZ: Because you didn`t ask her, right?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I didn`t.

MARTINEZ: And it could be that she has a very high self-esteem, and she believes it and this is going to be confirmation for her...

WILLMOTT: Objection, speculation.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: ... that she is smarter than almost anyone else.

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t believe her behavior demonstrates high self- esteem, Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: You`re talking about behavior. We`re talking with about an I.Q. test and her indication that she believes that her I.Q. may be as high as Einstein`s.

LAVIOLETTE: Self-esteem is not just about I.Q., Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: Right. It could be about other things. For example, one of the things that we know about her is that, whenever she had an issue with people, she would correct everybody`s grammar, right?

LAVIOLETTE: There were people who said that, yes.

MARTINEZ: Well, this is part of what you read going into this interview with her, right, the first interview, right?


MARTINEZ: And so you now know this information. You`re walking into this interview knowing that she`s corrected other people with regards to their grammar.

LAVIOLETTE: Actually, I don`t know that I had read that yet. I`m not sure. I was given a limited amount of information prior to going in to see Ms. Arias, and I can`t exactly tell you which things I was given a year and a half ago prior to meeting with her.

MARTINEZ: But at least you now know that that`s something that is out there and you have in your notes, correct?


MARTINEZ: So now we have a situation where she believes she`s intelligent. She corrects other people`s grammar. Isn`t that an indication to you, ma`am, about somebody who has a high sense of self?

LAVIOLETTE: Not at all.

WILLMOTT: Objection.

MARTINEZ: All right. The other thing, ma`am, do you remember when she was in jail up in Yreka and the defendant`s manifesto? You know anything about that?

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t know anything about that.

MARTINEZ: Do you remember that that was in your notes?

LAVIOLETTE: I remember hearing about it. I`ve never seen it.

MARTINEZ: You haven`t seen it. I`m not asking if you`ve seen the manifesto, but you`ve heard about it, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I`ve only heard that there was a manifesto. I don`t honestly know anything about it.

MARTINEZ: And I understand you may not have seen it, but isn`t it true that the defendant was signing or autographing copies of the manifesto...

WILLMOTT: Objection. May we approach?

STEPHENS: You may.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, this is a fascinating exchange. And you saw Jodi in the courtroom smile when there was a reference to her belief that she had a very high I.Q., rating somewhere up there with Einstein.

And, of course, the argument here is that this defense expert who says she`s a battered woman, has been talking about her low self-esteem, and the prosecutor is like, "Unh-uh, she has very high self-esteem. She thinks she`s a genius. She corrects other people`s grammar. This is a slugfest."

Straight out to Selin Darkalstanian. You`ve been in the court there, our senior producer, and I`ve likened it to a slugfest, because they are so exhausted. What, this is her seventh day on the stand. And apparently, she was treated, actually, like a prize fighter during one of the breaks. Tell us about it.

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: That`s right. This morning, Jane, before court started, Alyce LaViolette, the defense expert, has an entire row of supporters sitting in court. So there were two females and one male behind her rubbing her shoulders, getting her ready as if she was entering the ring ready to fight, as if this is a true boxing match. She actually has her entourage prepping her and telling her that she can do well and she can do this. And you can see they`re rubbing her shoulders in support right before she was about to take the stand.

And there`s a female in the audience -- in the public gallery, I was actually watching her as Alyce LaViolette was answering Juan Martinez`s questions. And every time Alyce would -- would have the correct answer or would not let Martinez, you know, get her into a corner, she would smile, and she would nod her head.

So Alyce LaViolette definitely has her supporters in court, rooting for her like this is an actual boxing match.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, my God. This is wild. This is like a boxing match with fans, like, "Oh, yes, yes." Unbelievable stuff.

Now, Jodi testified in court about Travis`s wild sex fantasies. Listen to what she wrote in her diary about those fantasies. And we`ll be back with more testimony.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`ve explored about 90 percent of all our fantasies. We`ve yet to pull over on the freeway and do it on the hood of the car in the middle of the day. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. We haven`t done the mile high yet and probably never will. And we`ve yet to act out the Little Red Riding Hood stint in the woods, which after last night is still scheduled to happen.




LAVIOLETTE: Yes. I`m not using the Brothers Grimm version. I`m using the Walt Disney cartoon.


MARTINEZ: The wicked stepmother in her circumstance is her mother, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I didn`t say that.

Martinez: No. I`m the one that`s asking the question. Isn`t that true?

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t equate her mother with the wicked stepmother.

ADRIANA CASELOTTI, VOICE ACTRESS: Anyone could see that the prince was charming.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. There was a lot of bizarre testimony in court because this witness, who is testifying for the defense that Jodi Arias was a battered woman and was abused by Travis Alexander, also made a presentation at one point in her career entitled "Was Snow White a Battered Woman?"

Prosecutor Juan Martinez jumping on that to try to show that, oh, you can turn Snow White into a battered woman, you can turn anybody into a battered woman, because Snow White is a fairy tale.

Let`s go back into court as these two continue to slug it out, like some tired prize fighters, and let`s see who`s winning.

STEPHENS: Continue.

MARTINEZ: With regard to this manifesto, I understand you haven`t seen it, but in your notes, doesn`t it indicate that the defendant actually signed copies of the manifesto to distribute, in case she became famous?

LAVIOLETTE: I believe those were in my notes.

MARTINEZ: And, again, if that is true, doesn`t that speak against the idea that the defendant lacked self-esteem?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I don`t think it does at all. I think you can also have self-esteem issues in particular -- in particular areas of your life, but I don`t think because somebody writes something and thinks it`s great - - she may think she`s a good writer, and that may be part of feeling good about herself because most of us have areas that we feel good about ourselves, but it doesn`t mean we have high self-esteem in the rest of our lives.

MARTINEZ: You`re also familiar with the result of the MMCI, correct, the test?

LAVIOLETTE: I took notes on it, but as you`ve already mentioned, I`m not an expert in testing.

MARTINEZ: Right, but you did note in it when you were talking about self-esteem, right? You took note of what the results were on self-esteem?


MARTINEZ: And you actually thought it was important enough to write them in your notes, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I took notes on everything that was in the test but, as you said, I`m not an expert on testing so being able to interpret that is another thing, but I did take notes on it, sure.

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking you to interpret it. I`m asking whether or not your notes reflect that the defendant has no self-esteem problems.

LAVIOLETTE: That -- that was at that time, which was years after she left the relationship -- you know, one of the things about the testing, if you want to bring up testing, it was done after Ms. Arias was in jail for a significant period of time.

MARTINEZ: I understand but there`s a test that says she has no self- esteem problems, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Right? There`s a test that says that, right?

LAVIOLETTE: If I wrote that in my notes, then that`s what I wrote in my notes.

MARTINEZ: Did you want to look at your notes?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. All right. Now this defense expert, battered woman`s expert, Alyce LaViolette, looking at her notes.

He is trying to attack her credibility, the fact that she accepted Jodi`s stories at face value, even though some of her stories had a familiar ring because she had told the same stories about previous boyfriends, which is fascinating, because obviously it`s suspicious.

During the interrogation by police of Jodi`s parents, Jodi`s mom and dad expressed a big worry that she was mentally ill, saying she`s got severe mood swings, that she could be bipolar. Listen to this.


S. ARIAS: She would call me in the morning all happy and call me an hour or two later in tears, crying and sobbing about something she department want to talk about. I had one friend call me in the middle of the night, and he had even called a hotline for bipolar people. He said -- said Jodi is bipolar, and she needs help.

W. ARIAS: I told her one time when she`s -- she called me and started yelling. I said, "Have you ever thought of yourself as being bipolar?"




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am mortified that my phone was stolen. It had a hugely scandalous text message from him -- 10 pages that he sent last week. It would make a steamy romance novel sound like a script from a G- rated Disney movie. I also had one or two reported conversations that were equally as scandalous. I never did figure out how to play those back for him.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Speaking of shocking, we`re learning now in court that this defendant actually signed her manifesto, which I`m presuming, they can correct me if I`m wrong, the prosecutor is referring to those diary entries, those journal entries in case she became famous which raises all sorts of questions that we`re going to debate in a moment.

But, first, let`s go back into court where prosecutor Juan Martinez is grilling defense expert Alyce LaViolette over her methods for concluding that Jodi Arias is a victim of domestic violence.



ALYCE LAVIOLETTE, DEFENSE WITNESS: Yes, you`re looking -- I`m sorry?

MARTINEZ: If I may have that please.


MARTINEZ: This is a page which is a copy of your notes, correct?


MARTINEZ: And this is in your handwriting, correct?


MARTINEZ: And one of the things that it talks about is the MCMI, correct?


MARTINEZ: You looked at it, right?

LAVIOLETTE: The MCMI was at the report. Sure, yes.

MARTINEZ: And it was important enough for you to look at that report so that you could include it as part of your assessment, right?


MARTINEZ: And in it you looked at the social functioning scales, right?


MARTINEZ: And you found in your own handwriting that they were within --

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection. It`s a testimony with regard with what`s in her notes about something that`s not in evidence.


MARTINEZ: That it was in the normal range, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Her social functioning -- that`s not the same as self- esteem.

MARTINEZ: Well, it does talk about self-image, doesn`t it?

LAVIOLETTE: It says it`s within the normal range.

MARTINEZ: Right. And her self-image is within the normal range, correct?


MARTINEZ: And you`re saying now that somebody`s self-image doesn`t have anything to do with self-esteem?

WILLMOTT: Judge -- objection. May we approach?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We have another sidebar. Meanwhile, we have breaking news just in. We understand two new motions have been filed, one requesting a mistrial, and the other asking to preclude some evidence. We`re going to hear about what exactly all that means in just a second but, first, let`s debate the stunner we just heard in court.

All right. Wendy Murphy, I`ve always suspected that this woman who thinks she is as smart as Einstein may have on some level understood that she would ultimately be arrested and was hoping on some level, on some deep level, to get the kind of negative attention or fame that she could not achieve as a positive member of society but now we just got confirmation of it. Prosecutor Juan Martinez saying she signed her manifesto in the event that she became famous. Let`s debate it.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, the one thing I`ll say about this stuff about her opinion of herself is not only is it very clear that she had, you know, very serious ideas about herself as somebody special, this is evidence of grandiosity and narcissism which, by the way, is correlated with psychopathy and sociopathy meaning she`s the type who can kill because she`s so self-centered she doesn`t have that compassion, that feeling for others.

I think this is going to destroy Alyce LaViolette because again we`re hearing over and over again that the stuff that undermines Alyce`s testimony, Alyce keeps saying, "Oh, I didn`t see that I didn`t see that and I didn`t see that." She intentionally didn`t see all that stuff. She is being destroyed on the stand. It is painful.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Danny Cevallos for the defense, is she being destroyed? Is she being forced to admit she took a pathological liar`s word at face value?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, let`s ask that question. That`s a good question. What have we been hearing Juan Martinez focus on? We`ve heard him focus on minutiae in her curriculum vitae, whether or not she was a keynote speaker or a keynote breakout speaker. He is trying to kill her with the death of a thousand bee stings -- one bee sting won`t do it, a thousand might do it.

But when he`s doing so, is he really affecting the jury by questioning whether or not she was a keynote speaker on her CV? I mean at this point this jury has been through so much, don`t you think there`s a possibility that Juan Martinez`s demeanor may be aggravating more than it is effective? It`s a possibility.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman, he has to keep his rage and his anger for important points not whether or not she said she was the keynote speaker or the keynote something or other speaker.

LEIBERRMAN: Yes, but I have to disagree with Danny. I mean Mr. Martinez is building, building, building; he is showing that from the minutia to the big things this witness is not credible. And when you see - - look at what he`s dealing with -- when you see Jodi Arias smile in court, she is on trial for murder. She should not be smiling in court.


CEVALLOS: This has been months.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to take a very brief break and we`re going to come back with more testimony on the other side. It`s heating up. Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Here are your shoes. Why don`t you go ahead and put those on. Go ahead. Stop right there and just turn around. Put your hands behind your back.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re going to go back to court in a second. But first, we have breaking news and apparently it concerns the attitudes of prosecutor Juan Martinez. Is there a motion about how rough he is being with some of these witnesses?

Stay right there. More testimony in a moment.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s no doubt in my mind that you did this -- none. So you can go until you`re blue in the face and tell me you weren`t there and you had nothing to do with it. I don`t believe you. I want to know why. It`s killing me inside that I don`t know why.

JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: There`s no reason for it. There`s no reason why. There`s no reason I would ever want to hurt him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s no way anybody else.

ARIAS: He never raped me.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutor Juan Martinez showing temper in court because he is dealing with a pathological liar who now admits she killed a man by slitting his throat, stabbing him 29 times and shooting him in the face, and he`s cross-examining this woman who is an expert for the defense who says, oh, she`s a battered woman. So that she can argue that all of that violence was justified. But now there`s new controversy over prosecutor Juan Martinez`s tone.

Let`s go back into the courtroom and hear more of that tone and then we`ll bring that you breaking news -- back into court.


STEPHENS: You may continue.

MARTINEZ: You have now told us that this was self-image was within the normal range, correct?


MARTINEZ: We now have an individual who has a test that says her self-image is within the normal range, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Given two years after the incident.

MARTINEZ: I understand that. But that`s what it says, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Within the normal range at the time it was given, correct.

MARTINEZ: You`ve said that before. We assume that. We also have an individual who`s very happy about being tested because she believes that she`s as smart as Einstein, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection. (inaudible)

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: That her IQ is as high as Einstein`s?

WILLMOTT: Same objection.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, she says that.

MARTINEZ: And she is signing manifestos because she believes she`s going to be famous.

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t know if she believes she`s going to be famous, but she`s signing manifestos.

MARTINEZ: Do you want to look at your notes where you indicate that?

LAVIOLETTE: If I said that in my notes then it`s --

MARTINEZ: No, I`m asking you if you want to look at your notes so that you can make sure that you`re accurate. You want to look at this?


MARTINEZ: All right.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now this is new photo of -- a number of new photos that have just come in from Dave Hall, a good buddy of Travis Alexander. And there he is skeet shooting with his buddy and having a good time. And we`ve obtained these new photos.

This is a man, again, who is being called an abuser by this witness who`s on the stand and the prosecutors pointed out, you didn`t talk to Travis Alexander because he was dead, but you didn`t talk to anybody except Jodi Arias, the person who killed him, the person who lied two different times with two different stories.

A short break and then back with more testimony on the other side. Stay right there.



MARTINEZ: Doesn`t it seem a little strange to you that in 50 percent of her relationship she is working at a restaurant when somebody, either one or two people come up to her and tell her about her boyfriend cheating? Doesn`t that raise a red flag for you?

LAVIOLETTE: I really would want to get clarification.

MARTINEZ: You don`t know that that is true, do you?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I don`t. I would check the story out.

MARTINEZ: But you didn`t in this case did you, before you came in and gave us your opinion.

LAVIOLETTE: I didn`t know about the (inaudible)

MARTINEZ: Right and that means that your assessment is incomplete.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: This prosecutor pointing out that this woman he says anyway is gullible, taking her stories at face value. Even though they have a familiar ring, it turns out there were two occasions where Jodi Arias claimed that a mysterious woman walked in to where she was waiting tables and said a boyfriend is cheating on you. She didn`t just do it with Travis she did it with a previous boyfriend. So the stories are being repeated. The prosecutor said that`s because she is lying.

Let`s go straight out to Beth Karas. Beth, I understand that there are new motions and one of them has to do with the prosecutor`s tone.

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Well, it`s -- the motion for prosecutorial misconduct is based upon basically the conduct in this trial that Juan Martinez has thrown evidence, dropped evidence, thrown pencils, badgered witnesses. They don`t say he`s withheld evidence from them but they say he has absolutely prevented them from being able to effectively assist in defending Jodi Arias and that this case has to be retried.

I don`t know what -- you know, they had just filed this. I don`t know what the judge is going to do with it. They are also trying to preclude some of his rebuttal evidence which we expect we`ll hear in the next week or two.

They are saying that evidence about the shelving in the closet that Travis Alexander had, they don`t know that it is the same shelving. They don`t know that the items on the shelf now are the same as when Travis Alexander died that day and that putting the weight on the edge of the shelf which would cause it to flip up, that Jodi Arias never put a step on the shelf the way she says. That they were held by tins. There is no evidence that these are the same shelves and if the weight is the same and they are constructed the same. So they want to preclude that evidence altogether.

So these are pending motions. We`ll see what the judge does with them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. Well, it tells me, first of all, this is going to be a significant rebuttal case because we thought that primarily the rebuttal case was the prosecution expert and then testimony about the gas can that he says is key to premeditation. Now we`re hearing also that the shelving -- oh my gosh.

But very quickly, Wendy Murphy, very briefly, we want to get back into court, can you attack a prosecutor for throwing a pencil or for raising his voice and saying we have to throw out the whole case?

MURPHY: This motion is making my blood boil. Think about this. Martinez is angry like the whole country is angry because all these people are lying under oath in the court of law. He is doing his best to keep cool and there is a motion to sanction him for being angry about that. Are you kidding me? How about a motion to sanction people for lying? How about that one?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, I`m sure a lot of the viewers share your anger. Everybody`s angry. I`m going to try not to be angry. I have also been criticized for my tone at times so I can relate to prosecutor Martinez right now.

We are going to take a short break. Back with more testimony in just a moment.



MARTINEZ: You`re willing to come into court like you did last Thursday in the morning and part of the afternoon and give an opinion about a relationship involving people such as Mr. Alexander and Chaitanya Lay without talking to Chaitanya Lay and without talking to Travis Alexander, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: I`ve looked at far more than that, Mr. Martinez.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And now a new defense motion saying essentially prosecutor Martinez is playing too rough, his tone is wrong. He is argumentative, he`s throwing pencils and there should be a mistrial based on that. Of course Wendy Murphy says her blood is boiling right now because that is so ridiculous.

So Danny Cevallos, you speak for the defense, what do you think of this I would say motion de jure for a mistrial?

CEVALLOS: With all due respect to my fellow panel members, phooey on all of you. Because I was saying this five or ten minutes ago and nobody bought it that the prosecutor`s demeanor is getting a little too out of control. I understand his passion. I get it. But there is a difference, Attorney Murphy, between passion and emotion and frustration and courtroom decorum. That can prejudice the case when the prosecutor goes too far. There is such a thing as prosecutorial misconduct. It does exist. And it is --


MURPHY: There is also such a thing as perjury. There`s also this thing called perjury.


CEVALLOS: It`s a ground for mistrial.

LEIBERMAN: Oh please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: Mr. Martinez is standing for Travis Alexander and he is standing for the people of Arizona. I think he is doing a phenomenal job. And I think in rebuttal and in closing you`re going to see this all come together.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, one thing we don`t know is whether he is doing a phenomenal job or not. I mean here is the bottom line. We don`t know. The phenomenal job will be whoever wins the verdict. Ok?

During the Casey Anthony case everybody was high fiving the prosecutor. There were cheers as he walked in and they lost.

LEIBERMAN: This is such a different case.

MURPHY: Not me. Not me.

LEIBERMAN: No, I wasn`t either.

MURPHY: I don`t think it will be acquittal.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think that we can`t tell whether it is effective or not. That is the whole point. You might think it is, somebody else thinks it`s not. Somebody thinks it`s just right. Somebody thinks it`s too much. Whatever works? If it turns out that he gets a conviction then it will have been a good move.

Nancy Grace up next with more testimony.