CONVICTION-Juan Martinez

with Code Program for a special offer. That's Stamps dot Com Code Program.

a month. Learn more at talis dot com. Slash Online Security conditions apply. Now. You can be more cyber safe with Canada's most comprehensive all in one protection TALS Online Security powered by Norton LifeLock. Safeguard your data, devices and identity, starting at only ten dollars a month. Learn more at talis dot com Slash online security conditions apply Radio.

bizarre behavior surrounding the crime and its aftermath came to light. Unwavering, Arius and her defense team continued to play off the salacious details of the case until she was finally found guilty and controversially sentenced to life behind bars. Now speaking openly for the first time, Prosecutor Martinez will unearth new details from the investigation that were never revealed at trial, exploring key facts from the case and the pieces of Evan.

Then he chose to keep close to the vest throughout the trials. His bullish and unfaltering prosecution strategy was both commended and criticized, and in his book, Martinez will illuminate the unique tactics he utilized in this case and how they led to a successful conviction, and for the first time, discuss how he felt about losing the death penalty sentence he'd pursued for years. Pardon Me Now. Speaking of Pardon Me, going beyond the news reports, Martinez will explore the truth

behind the multiple facades of Jody Arius. Sparring with her from across the stand, Martinez came to know Arias like no one else could, dissecting what it took for a seemingly normal girl to become a deluded, cunning, and unrepentant murder. This book is the definitive account of the case that shocked America. The book that we're featuring this evening is Conviction, the untold story of putting Jody Arius behind bars With my special guest prosecutor and author One Martinez. Welcome to

the program. And thank you for agreeing this interview. One Martinez.

lower grade felonies, but not murder. I would say that I did kidnappings, armed robberies, that sort of thing, and I continued on in nineteen ninety six when I was moved or to what we called back then what is now known as the Litigation Capital Litigation Bureau with the Homicide Bureau, and since October of nineteen ninety six, that

is the place that I have called home. So since then I've been doing the sort of the high profile kind of case, well, murder cases, and now specifically I do only or i'll do mostly but only really restricted to the capital prosecutions where the state is seeking the imposition of the death penalty.

things because it was past eight o'clock. And when I received the call from the sergeant at the Mason Police Department. And when he called, he said, well, we have this thing out here in East Mesa, and he kind of realized that my on called duties were over, and he was sort of apologetic and said, well, you know, if you want, I will go ahead and call the next

person on the list. And I thought, well, no, I mean, he had told me that the police had been there the night before and that's when they discovered the body, and it was really just thirty minutes past the time that my duties were over. So I just thought, well, in fairness, I should get out there and take a look at what's there, rather than turning to the next person that was on the list. So I guess it was just a situation where I didn't want to slough off the work to somebody else.

and there's a few books. But so with that, not everybody knows that the involvement that the prosecution, you as a prosecutor, is involved with the crime initially, so that's why you're there, involved in going to the crime scene. But tell us the relationship and how it is separate. Obviously you're there at that time at the crime scene, but you're not per se involved with the investigation. So tell us how that actually works.

go inside. As you pointed out, my role in going inside is just to observe so that whatever the person who committed the killing is apprehended, I will have a better understanding of the facts involved in this case and specifically the crime scene. So when I'm there, my role is just to look around, take a look at what's there. For example, in this case, it was this two story house, whether or not it had an east west it faced the east west, things like that, or where the body

was found. In this case, it was the shower, and just generally look at the layout. And I remember specifically in this case that I was struck by the cleanliness of the home. Usually when there has been a murder, there's there's there's furniture that's in disarray, knocked over, pushed about. Not in this case, and the bottom there was it was very clean. The only thing that I remember being out of place was a dry vacuum cleaner, a wet

vacuum cleaner. Somebody I had obviously been cleaning the tile downstairs, and and the downstairs actually belied what was upstairs, And so walked through the bottom, then went upstairs. And when I went upstairs, that's when I walked through the walked through closet from the master bedroom into the into the bathroom, where really you could see everything that had happened. But my role there was not to advise the police and

tell them do this or do that. It was just to take a look it's and see what was there, so that I wouldn't just have to rely on pictures and it would make my presentation that much more effective at trial.

the police. So tell us, please explain that relationship of what you do with the information that the investigators gather, what do you do with that information?

developments that they made me have in the case. And so, even though, as I said before, I don't direct investigation, he would call me with updates and he would let me know how far the investigation had progressed, what was going on, so that when there came a time when I believed and at that point it would be my judgment, when I believed that a charge was appropriate, I would already have, if you will, all of this background to it, because he'd been filling me in as he went along,

and he would submit the case, and at that point I would decide what charge to bring forth in this case. Based on everything that I saw and everything that was presented, I decided to file the charge of first degree murder.

I review every bit of evidence that comes in. And the benefit to me of that is that I can take something that perhaps is designated or applies to something else and take a look at it and then pull it in and say, well, wait a minute, it actually applies to this other thing. So it makes me I think a bit more prepared, although I will say that

that requires a lot of work. I mean, I know that there were many many weekends that I missed and that I'm not sure where I'm going to get those back, But there were many many weekends that I missed because I was reading the documents in this case. This was this was the most document intensive case that I've ever dealt with, And so that way when I go in, I would I know everything that's that's been presented to me.

I know everything that's gone on to the defense. So for example, when it comes down to making either an argument to the court or or cross examining somebody, I will know what's in the file. I mean, that's not to say that for other people that the other approach doesn't work, But for me, maybe perhaps I'm a bit of a I don't know, a person who wants to be in control of the case. And and I guess you know that there has to be one one general and I guess that would be me or one chief.

I guess that would be sure.

the washing machine. It's been run through the cycle, so you know, I'm not really hopeful that anything won't come from it, but I wanted to just take a look at it, see where it is and how it sits. And he opened the lid and we looked inside and and there was this camera and it was sort of nustled among a towel and I think another article of clothing. At that point, I to give them what I know. It didn't seem to me that they were going to be able to extract anything from from that camera, or

any photographs or anything that was a noteworthy. But I remember thinking, well, why would somebody put a camera in the washing machine? It just didn't see It just seemed out of place. And I could I could, I could understand why he wanted me to see what was there, but at that point I can't speak for him, but I thought to myself, well, I'm not sure that we're going to be able to get anything from this. Probably not, but it just sure does raise a red flag.

victim they call in. So when he told me about it, I was at the crime scene and her name up came up as someone who was somewhat of a stalker, kind of claim kind of girlfriend. When her name came up, we just kind of looked at each other and he said, well, I'm gonna call her back. I'm going to record it, but I'm not sure that anything's gonna come from it, but you know, I'll just call her. Maybe she knows something.

But at that point, we really didn't think. I didn't think that it was going to lead to anything for a number of reasons. Number one, mister Alexander was a pretty big guy, and it seemed that a woman would have a difficult time overpowering him. And if someone had done this, you wouldn't expect them to be calling the police. So we kind of agreed that that was a falloup

that we had to make sure was completed. And but again she made the call, and in fact, on June tenth of two thousand and eight, he actually got her on the phone and they discussed a number of things and he recorded it, and that actually turned out something to be very important because that was something I was able to use later where she indicated that during that conversation that mister Alexander did not have a gun in his house and if he was going to defend himself, he would only use his fist.

a gun involved, did not bring up the caliber. When he had that conversation with Jody Arias on June tenth, all he asked was how's it going that sort of thing and just let her speak, And she's the one that brought up the thing about the gun. And then the detective asked her, well, does he have a gun sort of thing, and that's when Arius said, no, he doesn't have any Kuna.

to stop there. I know that you're going to be coming up to visit me up here in northern California. We can go into Oregon. So she leaves a message clearly indicating that she's never been there, sort of to throw I guess the police offer trail. Not content with that, she also sends mister Alexander a text message asking him if he received a check that she had sent him.

She had actually bought the body car from him and was making payments, and so she sent him a text, knowing that he was dead, for asking him whether or

not he had received it. And the last thing that she did is she sent him an email again indicating that she's sorry that she couldn't show up, So she tried to cover her tracks using what was available out there electronically, and that actually is something again when you take a look at it, it just goes into the planning, the lack of confusion that was associated with this, and so in a sense, rather than help her out, those are some of the things that actually made it seem

that she had planned this a little bit more than she wanted to admit and was not in this fog or did not have any memory issues like she claimed.

weren't looking for any items that were deleted, and what the police were able to find worth three sets of photographs. The first set, which was on June fourth of two thousand and eight, was sometime around one point thirty and it shows the couple of the two of them engaged in some sort of sexual escapade, let's say. And that was part of what due to the the media's attention to the case, because there were some salacious photographs of him and her enjoying themselves in a carnal sort of way.

Then after that there was another set of photographs, the ones that mister Alexander posing in the shower. Obviously he doesn't have any clothing on, so it's not like he has a gun on him, a NiFe or anything like that. And Jody Arius is taking those photographs. But what really sets this case apart, and all of those were deleted, the ones that those photographs that I've talked about, all

those were deleted. But what makes this case even probably more interesting or unique than all the other cases, is that there's what I'm labeling is that third set of photographs, and these were taken immediately within forty eight within forty five seconds, or approximately forty five seconds after the ones in the shower and in it. The first photograph that you get is a photograph that is inadvertent or accidental

of the lights above the shower. Clearly that's about the time that attack is either has started or is taking place. And then a couple of minutes or so later, you actually see Jody Arius's foot in front of Travis Alexander's head as she goes to lift his right hand, and you could see these already bleeding from throats, so she's already sliced his throat. And what's again what makes this

remarkable is that this was an invertent photograph. It is clear that what happened is she probably dropped the camera or stepped on the camera, but more likely than not, she dropped the camera causing it to strike the button to take the photograph which showed her foot. Then subsequently, as she's dragging the body back, there's another inadvertent photograph, so there's a total three that shows her actually dragging

him down. This last one shows the baseboards as she's going along towards towards the sink where she shot him in the head. So what really makes this case unique is those three inadvert photographs. It's just it's something that I've never seen before. It's something that I don't think most people will ever see that in the middle of a killing, inadvertent photographs are being taken as the events unfold.

Arius about this kind of evidence and her reaction. So tell us when that happens in relation to this July ninth grand jury that you present to them. And so tell us about those two things, so that we know the timeline of when those two things occurred.

after the presentation of the evidence. I was the person who questioned Detective Flores, and their deliberations are unsecret, and after that they make a decision whether or not the case will go forward, and they take a vote, and that vote signifies if it's something that the case is

going to go forward. Then they issue what's called a true bill, and true bill is nothing more in indication that they have agreed that a charge is appropriate, and in this case, the charge that they indicated was appropriate was premeditated first degree murder. Within the week, Detective Flores went to Guayrika, California, because that's where Jordy Arius was living, and he went there not to say alone, not to

do anything like that. He went to arrest her. He already at that point had an arrest warrant, and when he went there, he was able to find her, they were able to take her into custody, and after taking her into custody on the fifteenth of July, he began to question her, and initially her story was that, well, I wasn't at the Travis Alexander's house, wasn't there on the date that he was killed, so it really wasn't me, even though the detective already had the photographs showing that

that wasn't true. After that initial day of conversations, the next day there was more discussions and at that point Jody Arius changed her story and said, you know, got to tell you what I told you yesterday was not the truth. And what actually happened was that while I was taking those photographs in the shower of him in the shower, two individuals showed up, a man and a woman, and according to them, what they were there was to

kill Travis Alexander. And she even went so far as to say that the gun was put to her head and that she was lucky to have escaped with a warning that if she ever said anything, well, they were going to do damage or harm to her family, and that's why she hadn't said anything. So she had quite the story, but and it was all recorded, so she couldn't go back and say, well, no, I didn't say what the police are claiming that I said. So she

initially gave two stories. One she wasn't there. She changed that and then said that it was actually two other people that had killed mister Alexander.

all of this to Travis. She couldn't explain why they let her go and why they would allow her to leave if she had seen what had happened, and she couldn't explain what she didn't call the police. One would think that if you had seen your ex boyfriend murdereds somebody that you'd been intimate with, that you would have at least called the police once they let you go,

But of course she didn't do that. So it uh not not only did she continue with that story, but what that showed me is that she was someone who relished being in the limelight, somebody who relished being the center of attention. And so uh that that told me that, uh that later on she would throughout this these proceedings. Maybe that's that's the role that she would partake of, that she would always want to be in the center

of attention. Specifically, Uh, take the witness stand. I took that to mean that she probably was going to take the witness stand, and and ultimately that turned out to be the case.

The thing, the reason that's beneficial for her is that mister Alexander, unfortunately, the other person that was there, could not contradict what she was saying because he was dead. She'd removed the only other witness that was president. So in a certain way, I knew that she was going to take the witness fan and she, of course probably well she knew that mister Alexander wouldn't be there to contradict it. So in a sense, that's a pretty good tactic.

conviction for this person. So on two evidentiary fronts, we'll say, the rent a car and you and so there was a rented car, so you can tell us about that, but also after that we can talk about what was found at the house the car. The car was parked in front of her parents place to rent a car. Then there was an investigation from there. But it's also

what you found in the home. And we're talking about the infamous shoe box with receipts, right, So first tell us about how police proceed with the rented car.

a place called reating, California to be airport. It is clear that she did that so that she wouldn't she would run less of a risk of being recognized because way Rica, Backman had a population of approximately seven thousand people, so it was a very small town. And if she was renting a car, chances are somebody would know that it was that it was her that was renting the car, and so it would increase the chances of her getting caught.

So she rented the car and reading, and when asked about the car and she was given a red car, she told the person renting it, well, you know, I really don't want the red car. And the reason I don't want the red car is because that caused attention and the police may notice it more. I want a white car. And she was actually took the white car so that it would be less noticeable to the police.

Of course, we did have those receipts, and the police did find them in this in from the shoe box that they found during the execution of the warrant of the place that she lived in way Rica. But what they didn't find was any receipts for gasoline here in the state of Arizona. They only found a number of receipts there for purchases or buys that she made in California, specifically Pasadena, and then there were other receipts for items that she bought, for example, on her trip back from Utah.

So there was this big, gaping empty hole where there were no receipts for that time. What I was able to find was that there was one receipt from Selinas, California. I was at that point already alerted or had already learned that she had tried or had actually called an ex boyfriend to borrow two five gallon gas cans for her trip. And I'm sort of fond of saying or because i remember thinking, well, why would she ask why would she need gas cans, especially two five gallon ones

to travel on the road there? I know, and I don't live in California, but I'm positive that they have gas stations there. So immediately that was kind of a bit of a red flag for me. But then as I looked at the receipts, there was one from Salinas, California, a Walmart, and in it it had the notation the last item something about a Carol Carb k E ro O carb. When I called Walmart, they told me that, well,

that's actually another that's a five gallon gas can. So then she has the amount or she has fifteen extra gallons of gas can. And if you multiply that out, let's say thirty miles a gallon was firing a little more, that gives her a range of four hundred and fifty extra miles. And if you add, if you multiply that might or add that to the miles that she already got for the tank of gas, which was which was

approximately twelve point five gallons. You could see that she could make the trip from California from the border of California all the way through Arizona and her way all the way up to up to Utah without having to stop for gas. Because if you add that up, you're looking at approximately maybe eight hundred miles that you could go.

That was a range, and there's approximately four hundred miles from California to Mesa and then another three hundred from Mesa to Las Vegas, so you're looking at seven hundred So it's a trip that she not only could make, she actually did make with the eight of those three five gallon gas cans.

Sounds very very much movie esque in this in this part of the book where you're you're looking and and this is the thing that stumps you. This is the big breakthrough is these gas cans. And of course, even when you see that information that Darryl Burro Brewer said that Jody Arius had called a couple of months before and said, I'd like to borrow these gas cans, that

it wasn't evident to you at first. But you've got to say that you were fortunate that you even had that information in the first place, weren't you.

be prepared to do so. And I think that, as I said, yes, I do believe that I was a bit lucky that I I because the line involving the gas cans and the ex boyfriend Daryl Brewer was just buried and all these documents and there was hundreds of pages, maybe thousands, I don't remember the count right now, but buried in there was two or three, maybe four or five lines saying setting that out, and it was sort of like a throwaway kind of part of the conversation

because mister Burrow was being asked about her character and what kind of person she was, what her relationship was with her with his child, and so when that that interview, for whatever reason, he said, well, you know, I received a call for her in from her in late May asking to borrow two gas cans for a trip to Mesa, Arizona. That immediately told me that this wasn't a trip where she was impulsive after speaking to Travis and decided to just on that on the on the spur of the

moment go to Arizona. That that told me that she was it was planned, and it also told me that that that she planned to kill him before she left Wa Rica, because nobody would undertake such elaborate preparation. But I will admit that having those items turned over to me by the defense certainly provided one of the keys to the prosecution, probably the primary key I would not have been. I would not have thought to ask Daryl Browray, did she call you to borrow?

But what I found was the most fascinating of this book is the cunning and the clever tactic that Detective Florist did in this as well, because you got to see his interviews and you went over those interviews and those telephones, every bit of information that he had gotten.

You were reviewing it. Which so even though you weren't working together, there was a sort of a tandem cooperation between you in terms of you definitely benefited from the information like him pushing her to tell the circuitous route that she tried to claim that she did, and showed it to be, you know, basically an impossible, incredulous route.

But you also at that time were learning in preparation for trial, as you say, what you were going to be facing at trial in the character of Judie Arias, weren't you sure?

better term, that almost seemed believable. The way I try to describe it, or the way it seems to me, is that we all know that the sun rises in the east, and so if I not that this happened, but if I'm sure that, if I would have asked her, isn't it true that the sun rises in the east, she would have looked at me and said, well, I'm not too sure because I have a room that has a west facing window, and every morning when I wake up, there's sunshine coming in, So I'm not really sure if

it rises in the east. So I mean that showed me that this was the type of person that was very skilled at sort of turning what is an obvious true truth and then maybe spinning it, and then conversely taking what is not true and making it seem like the truth. So I knew that going in and so, and of course I was able to see that when she spoke to Detective Floor. So when when it when it came down to it at the end there, I knew that this was somebody that I could not take lightly.

This was somebody that I needed to perhaps be a bit firm with her, because if I wasn't, she would just tell her story the way that she wanted. And so in fact, that's why I adopted the strategy that I did, to be, like I said, extremely stern with her on the witness stand and asking her questions like isn't it true? Whatever the question was. Sometimes I would even say is that a yes or no? Because she wouldn't answer questions directly.

development in that she changes lawyers. And that's like we talked about how you got the document about Daryl Brewer. What is the reason for the change in lawyers, And as a result of the change in lawyers, what do you notified about and what do you see is coming down the pike?

I mean they changed the plea. In other words, they indicated that they had a different defense than the previous set, and they indicated that it was their view that they intended to present evidence to show that this was a case of self defense. What that meant to me immediately was that the two stories before that she had said before were not true, the one about her not being there and the other one about the two individuals of

the man and the woman being there. What she was now saying was that that what she did, the killing, the stabbing, the slicing of the throat, and the shooting of the head, that that was all justified. And that's the term that's use. And the reason it was justified, according to her was that there was a history here, and there was a history of physical and verbal abuse

along with sexual abuse. And then just to sort of round out this idea that under the circumstances, she was justified in killing him or that it was the right

thing for her to do legally. And I mean, it's like you can say that the defense can be even if you cut it down to the bone, you can say, well, the person had a coming to him, They had a coming to him because of what they were doing at the time, and in her case, what he was doing at the time was that he was attacking her, and based on everything that had happened in the past, well, her belief that he was attacking her and might kill her was reasonable, That's what she was saying. So he

sort of had it coming to him. And not only did he sort of have it coming to him, he was an individual who was a pedophile. With all of that, then we sort of I had to step back, take a look at everything else and see what there was to contradict what she was saying. One of the things that that I had to keep in mind back then was that the investigation had been geared to identifying the

person who had done all of this. When when when she said no I wasn't there or was somebody else, we still or not we I mean the police were still in the process of identifying who did this. Well, once she said this was in self defense, all of their investigations sort of went out the window because now it's just a new issue. The issue is, yes she was there, but was she justified in doing the the stabbing,

the slicing, in the shooting. And that's when I, of course, if you will, have to have to sort of turn the focus of the investigation and look at other things so that I could deal with it at trial.

not want to share with the defense. So tell us what that key issue is that is held back.

a gas can. So rather than do that, I was the one that actually did the calling, and I was the one that took a look at all this stuff, and I would hell that information from him. I part of it was that if if I'm out there talking about it, who knows what what maybe said later on down the line by people. So that information was with me totally, and I made the decision not to let

him know. And I remember when I asked her about the gas cans and or I asked Daryl Brewer about the gas cans, because he took the stand before her. When I sat down, he kind of looked at me and he said, what the heck, what was that all about. I didn't know that about these gas canons? And I

told him, of course she didn't. And the reason was that I just they had given me the information so I could in turn use it, and so I didn't have obligation to let them know what I was thinking, and so I did not tip my hand to the information that I was using. So it's not that it was any games that were being played or anything. It was just my strategy with regard to the case. I remembered that even an opening statement they were maintaining that had her trip to Mesa was spur of the moment.

When I heard that, I knew that that couldn't be true, that couldn't be the case because there were these pre gas cans that indicated that she had actually planned it. And again I waited till the very end to ask her about the third gas can, and I remember asking her, well, what is it this? You know, you claim that you took the third gas can back from Walmart, and why is it that you were using it to fill up with that you filled it up with gas in Salt

Lake City. I vividly remember that at first she didn't have an answer, but she responded as she did, as she always used seemed to do, and she responded and said, well, I was never insulting. So of course I could prove that she was there because of all the receipts. But I mean, that was the strategy involved with me with the gas cands. And so if the jury sees that, hopefully they are swayed that this person is not somebody that is credible.

by mister Alexander. After looking at the letters and a number of things in those letters, I came to the conclusion, obviously I'm not an expert, but just based on what I knew about the case and based on what I had seen, that they were actually not written by mister Alexander. And so one of the things that I did is that I actually made a request of the court, and it called emotion, that these letters be excluded because they

were forged or fraudulent. And one of the things that I did to try to advance my position was to go to the jail to see if there were any writings from Jody Arias, so that I could see what her writing was like. And one of the some of the items that had been confiscated from her was a three by five card that had some writing on it, and that writing was almost exactly alike like the writing that was in the letters. So immediately it seemed to sort of again sort of have the bell ring in

my head saying something's not right here. I then obtained original letters written by mister Alexander, and I had a handwriting analysis done, and the person who did the handwriting analysis his opinion, he's a documentary examiner. His name's Alan Kreidle. He's with the Arizona Department of Public Safety, but his opinion was that more likely than not, those letters were forged.

And not only were those letters forged, the three by five card that I had that had been seized or taken from Jody Arias, whoever had written that three by five card was actually trying to emulate or simulate mister Alexander's writing, and that that was the person who probably

wrote the letter. So I was able to show through this what we call circumstantial elevenents, but really the circumstances that she had actually probably was the person that they were forged, and that she was probably the person who forged them. Adding to this, while I was again at the jail standing there at one time, and I noticed that there was a she had a visitor, and she attempted to give a couple of magazines to this visitor.

And in those magazines, the people at the jail were able to find that she had written messages on various pages sort of encrypted, and the message was and we don't know the I don't know who these messages were too, but they were right before the hearing involving the letters,

and it's saying something you messed up. And obviously it was a much harsher word from you messed up when you spoke to my lawyers, something like that, you need to come in and see me so that we can get your story, so that it corroborates what I've been saying for the last year or so. So given all of that, what ended up happening is that that was presented, the letters were withdrawn and they never saw the light of day.

much attention this one person involved. Now you cite a case of and because the death penalty is important, we won't get into any kind of debate even remotely, but you do talk about Joseph Andreano and you cite this example of how you justify pursuing this death penalty case because you use the example of Joseph Andriano and then the provisions that there must be an infliction of physical or mental anguish. She should should know or should have known that he would have suffered. So tell us why

Jody Arius qualifies as compared to Joseph Andreano. Tell us how you why you compared them, and how you justify that Jody Arius deserves the death penalty that you pursued.

He was dying of cancer and was already going to die, but that wasn't enough for her, so she went on the Internet and under the name of Van Newton, purchased some chemical that is used in propellant for airbags, so amazing, and gave it to him, and of course he didn't die quick enough. He was vomiting, but he didn't die quick enough. So what she did actually after that is that she beat him over the head and he would have died from that, and then after that she slit

his throat. So I cited it because it had some of the same elements and she was the first person sentenced to death by a jury. I didn't do it to say that the jury was wrong or anything like that. I just show that that case is and I do not make the decision as to whether or not a case the definitely is going to be sought. That is made by the county attorney, that is the political person, and so I had nothing to do with that, and

that was his decision and his decision solely. And so of course, not every case that goes to trial there's a conviction. And so just because the state believes that the definitely is appropriate, that's not That's not how it works. And in this case, the jury decided, at least on the second phase that by a vote of eleven to one in favor of the definitely, it has to be unanimous here in Arizona that that would not be that would not be the case because it was not a

unanimous verdict. And for me, I mean, I accept what the jury has to say. I'm I understand that's how the system works. And I don't even really after the comes in. I do not waste my time worrying about why they did it, why they didn't do it. I don't speak to the jurors and say, well, what caused you not to vote for it? What caused you to vote for it? That's their decision, and you know, I believe that their deliberations are sacred and they should be protected.

So in this particular case, once the decision was made, that it was going to be in a sense hung jury and that that would mean the imposition of life. I just moved on.

You reviewed those interviews, You listened to the phone calls. You knew Jody arias as well as anybody possibly could. What was your strategy in terms of how you would we touched on it, but how you would try to get rattle her on the stand. She was the star witness, so she was the most important witness. What was your strategy and what was your approach before you went into the trial.

down would not be productive. It just wouldn't, because that's not the type of conversation that would be conducive to anything other than having her repeat what she had said before, because it would be a bit too slow. The other thing was that I had already I already knew that unless she was pushed, she would keep to that position,

and so I decided to be strident. I decided that I'm not going to use notes, and I didn't use notes when I was questioning her, and I was going to at every turn have something showing or proving up what I was asking. So, for example, when I started out asking about I remember the first day asking about, what I wanted to really go into was that she claimed that mister Alexander had damaged her left pinky when when he had physically abused her, I had a photograph,

and she gave a date. I had a photograph subsequent to that that showed her pinky was straight, and that the only way that it could happened was when she attacked him. So I didn't just go chronologically and say, look, let's start with day one, then go to day two and day three. If I'd have done that again, she would have been able to follow it. It would have been very prepared. I decided to jump around from subject to subject so that she wouldn't have as much time

to prepare or think of the answers. And I remember starting the first day by asking her because there was a telephone call that she had recorded surreptitiously and in it where she and mister Alexander were heard involved in some sort of masturbatory activity, and in that phone after sort of the embers are cooling off, she says something about her dumb sister, and I remember thinking, well, I want to ask her about that, not because I just want to embarrass her or anything like that, but because

she chided mister Alexander for being critical of the family, of her family, and yet she could do it. So it was a way for me to show there was a double standard and then segue into the into the thing involving the left little finger. So started out asking her by that she didn't expect that, and if I asked her in an unexpected fashion, one of the things that she even did. She admitted, well, yeah, yeah, I think my sister's stupid and my sister's dumb. But then

she also added that she was stupid. So the approach was to sort of not be linear in my in my questioning and to be strident. And if that called for me to say yes or no, I want to know what the answer to this question is, wouldn't so be it? And I mean she was even much she was up to the challenge. She she For example, if she had a question that she didn't know the answer to, she would ask me to repeat it, or she would say that she didn't remember, or that she had memory problems.

And then if I use the word problems, she wanted to use the word issue. So and then she even resorted to say, well, you're just like mister Alexander. You're trying to scramble my brain because you're raising your voice. So, I mean, she was very adept. I don't know. I'm not going to say prepared, but I'm just going to say that she was very adept when she was on the witness stand, And my way of dealing with it was to be very assertive with her.

like a violent person. So tell us again not to dwell on it, but how important this salacious nature and the sex and the forbidden religion kind of thing played in this.

first point to be made here. There was a prohibition, or there is a prohibition, pretty strong prohibition that in the LDS faith that says that premarital sex is to be strongly discouraged. You just shouldn't do it. And so in her bring that up, pointing it out, not only was she saying, is he's sexually abusive to me, but he's somebody that should be looked down upon because look at the type of character that he has. Not only he presents himself a certain way during most of the

time when he goes to church. That sort of thing is somebody who is a very good Mormon, but then he turns around and does these things. What she forgot, of course, was that she was doing the same thing, and she's supposed to be a good Mormon girl. Additionally, just because somebody engages in sexual activity, whether they are lbs or not, does not mean that they should pay for the sins because those were sort of what they are.

They should pay for the sins by having the Grim Reaper in the form of Jody Areas strike him down by stabbing him in the heart, then you know, slicing his throat and then shooting him. That's not the way the church sees it. And maybe she tried to fortray that him as an individual that perhaps again was a center in somebody who deserved I guess a little bit of punishment and maybe try to confuse the issues. So that's how she tried to use the religion.

he was acquitted. And you know, there's a poster child involving alleged child abuse and she was not convicted either Casey Anthony, So what made this case I think different? And I think what captured the as you say, the attention and maybe the imagination of people in this country and perhaps internationally, is that in this case, there was somebody who was ending up for justice.

a way it made these people feel good. I I know that I received calls from people who said that, for example, a situation where their mother was suffering from terminal cancer and one of the things that when she was feeling the worst, and maybe the medication wasn't doing the best that it could, one of the ways that that this woman who was suffering from cancer, one of the ways that she would feel better is to watch this trial because it was able to sort of draw

her in and make her forget and and and and it drew her in because it was a struggle between this right versus wrong, and right seemed to be winning, and so I think that's part of it. And then the other part, of course, was the uh, it was the salaciousness of it. I mean, we heard in very intimate, mi new detail, everything you could possibly hear about two individuals who were involved in a sexual activities. I mean it was a sexual a clinic worthy of masters in Johnson.

I was able to show that what she was saying wasn't absolutely untrue. No one could adapt that she had actually had that third gas can never returned it to Walmart. And at that point pretty much anything that she said was there was doubt cast on just about everything that she said. So when she then claimed or everything that she had claimed about mister Alexander well then about whether or not even attacked her, that was also called end of doubt. And I think that that was the point

that probably the jury seized on. Again. I didn't speak to them, but it seemed to me that the way I saw it, that that at that point everyone knew without a shadow of a doubt, that Jody Areas could not be trusted.

can know what is going on. And the idea that it's open to the public is also I think it is also a good idea. So those things were part of the reason that I wrote the book. I do think it's educational. We talk about direct examination, cross examination, and redirect and you know how Juri's can ask questions in Arizona, that sort of thing, and what the rules

allow and don't rap allow. So there's that component, and I just thought that my thoughts were a good story and in this fight for justice, they could see what was going on, what exactly was that I used to arm myself to bring this case to a conclusion, to a conviction, And that's why I chose the title. The reason I didn't retire is that I'm not ready. There's nothing that says that I can't write about something that has happened. I don't handle the case anymore. That's with

the office of the Attorney General. I don't have anything to do with the case. So there didn't seem to me to be any reason to wait. Why wait five ten years after retire. I may never retire. I may live another twenty years and work there. So there really isn't anything magical about it. I followed the rules, I obtained permission before I wrote it. I made sure that I abided by the rules, and so it just seemed

that it was the right time to do it. And as far as retiring, well, again, as I said, I don't see that as a sort of a line or that would indicate that a book shooter shouldn't be written. I know that other prosecutors have retired and done that, but maybe I'm a little different that way. I just don't want to leave the job.

I wrote a book. But obviously I do know that that people in my office know that I wrote it, and I mean I've heard comments perhaps in the elevator or something like that, where people have said that they've enjoyed it. So beyond that, there really isn't too much discussion about it with my colleagues.

testament for those that might want to. Of course, they know where to buy the book Amazon, but also is there is a Facebook page, a fan page, So could you tell us how people might want to communicate or call meant or find out more about the community itself that's involved with this book. Could you tell us a little bit about that.

I do have a workplace. People want to call me there, I mean I will return the calls probably, but not during work hours, because again I devote my time to work when I'm there. But then the best way to get a hold of me is through HarperCollins. They're out of New York, and any calls or any messages there are always forwarded to me. Any inquiries by people are always sent to me, and I respond to them. All.

Learn more at talis dot com. Slash online security conditions apply.