Return to Transcripts main page

Jane Velez-Mitchell

Did Defense Witness Cross Line in Arias Trial?;

Aired March 18, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Another stunner in the Jodi Arias trial. Did the defense psychologist now on the stand cross the line and go far beyond just evaluating Jodi? Did Dr. Richard Samuels actually treat Jodi for depression behind bars and even give her a gift? A self-help book called "Your Erroneous Zones." Well, that`s what the prosecutor claims. The expert claims he did nothing wrong. We`ll debate it in this hour.

But first, let`s go back into the courtroom and see more of prosecutor Juan Martinez as he skewers this witness.

DR. RICHARD SAMUELS, PSYCHOLOGIST: It didn`t at the time. It`s something that I tended to routinely do so I didn`t see it as an ethical dilemma.

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: You didn`t see it as an ethical dilemma but you can see that there`s an appearance here that you`re trying to help her, right?

SAMUELS: Yes. From your perspective, yes.

MARTINEZ: Not from my perspective. From anybody`s perspective. Isn`t it true that from anybody`s perspective, you are trying to help the defendant get better with regard to whatever issues she has.

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, JODI`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection. Speculation as to what other people may think.


SAMUELS: Could you repeat your question?

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that, from whatever perspective it`s taken, you are helping the defendant?

SAMUELS: Yes, by providing her with the book, yes.

MARTINEZ: And so then that creates this issue that may affect -- indicates and it may affect the way you view your evaluation in this case, doesn`t it? The appearance.

SAMUELS: No, it does not.

MARTINEZ: There is no appearance of that here at all?

SAMUELS: Well, there may be an appearance to you.

MARTINEZ: No. I`m not asking to me, sir. I`m asking...

WILLMOTT: Objection. Let him finish the answer that he had. It may be an appearance to you but.

STEPHENS: Sustained. You may finish your response.

SAMUELS: It may appear that way to you, but based upon her low self-esteem and the fact that she was threatening to harm herself, or was contemplating harming herself, I thought that providing her with that book, it would allow my evaluation to go on.

MARTINEZ: And so it`s better for you to provide her with a self-help book, in your perspective now, as opposed to mine, than to go to the authorities and say there is this bigger issue of threatened suicide? That`s what you believed?

SAMUELS: That was communicated through her attorney.

MARTINEZ: Sure. That`s what you believed?


MARTINEZ: Sir, one of the things that you told us about was this issue that you had in New Jersey.


MARTINEZ: Do you remember talking to the defense attorney about this?


MARTINEZ: And you said, "Well, when I was here in Arizona there was some sort of an appeal or some sort of -- I don`t know, some proceedings." And you seemed to indicate that whatever happened in New Jersey really was no big deal.

SAMUELS: No. What I said was, relative to Arizona, they reviewed the entire case, and I was exonerated by a vote of 13 to nothing.

MARTINEZ: So you were exonerated by Arizona, which indicates that from your point of view, that you did nothing wrong in New Jersey, right?


MARTINEZ: In fact, didn`t you sign an agreement with the state of New Jersey, agreeing to desist and ceasing from crossing boundaries with clients and entering into relationships which may create conflict of interest with the client?

SAMUELS: And that had to do with the borrowing (ph) issue.

MARTINEZ: Yes or no? Did you enter into that agreement?


MARTINEZ: And that`s the same kind of conduct that we have here, because now you`ve crossed a boundary involving the defendant, haven`t you?

SAMUELS: No, I have not.

MARTINEZ: So during this whole time that you -- well, and with regard to this issue involving what happened in New Jersey, you indicated that you paid a fine, right?


MARTINEZ: It was $2,500, right?


MARTINEZ: In addition to paying the fine of $2,500, you said that was all that was involved. There was more that was involved to this, wasn`t there?

SAMUELS: I had to read a book.


SAMUELS: I had to read a book.

MARTINEZ: Well, isn`t it true that you had to successfully complete continuing education concerning ethics and boundary issues?


MARTINEZ: And it indicated further that these courses -- courses should be completed within six months of the entry of the consent order. Isn`t that what you had to do?

SAMUELS: Which was resolved by reading a book and taking the test.

MARTINEZ: And this continuing education could occur either in New Jersey or Arizona, correct?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: An evaluation such as the one that you conducted is actually a sort of a two-pronged approach, isn`t it?

SAMUELS: I don`t know what you mean by that.

MARTINEZ: Well, you do what is called an interview, a clinical interview, right? That`s...


MARTINEZ: ... correct? That`s one big area? Correct?


MARTINEZ: That was part of visiting her in -- wherever she was and talking to her, right?


MARTINEZ: And this is the one where you previously testified that you would sit there and you would try to take notes as quickly and as accurately as you could. Right?


MARTINEZ: You don`t tape record, right?

SAMUELS: Never. No.

MARTINEZ: You would agree, though, that tape recording is probably more accurate, correct?

SAMUELS: Probably more accurate.

MARTINEZ: And in addition to that approach, in addition to that, there`s something else that you do, and that is you administer tests, right?


MARTINEZ: And one of the tests that you administered was this PSD, right?


MARTINEZ: What does PSD stand for?

SAMUELS: Well, it refers to...

MARTINEZ: No. Without referring to any materials.

SAMUELS: It refers to post-traumatic stress inventory.

MARTINEZ: Is that the exact name of that test or is that something that you`re using. Why don`t you...

SAMUELS: Post-traumatic stress inventory. PDS.

MARTINEZ: All right. You looked at something when you gave us the name. So what is it that you`re looking at to give us that name?

SAMUELS: The manual.

MARTINEZ: All right.

SAMUELS: It has the exact name. Post-traumatic diagnostic scale. That`s what it is.

MARTINEZ: How many times have you administered that test?

SAMUELS: Probably 15 times.

MARTINEZ: And what you said to us is that you actually scored that test yourself, right?


MARTINEZ: And this test, because you -- seems to have only administered it 15 times, you`re having trouble with the name, right?

SAMUELS: Well...

MARTINEZ: Yes or no?

SAMUELS: Yes. Yes. Post-traumatic stress diagnostic scale. It`s PDS, but it leaves out the "S" in the thing, so I was thinking PSDS. But it`s post-traumatic stress diagnostic scale, PDS.

MARTINEZ: And this fact that you can`t even remember the title seems to indicate that you`re really not familiar with this particular test. Right?

SAMUELS: I use it.

MARTINEZ: Well, you`ve used it how many times?

SAMUELS: About 15 times.

MARTINEZ: Right. And you`ve had much more cases that than, haven`t you?


MARTINEZ: And this test has 49 questions, right?


MARTINEZ: And it has a validity scale in it, you say?


MARTINEZ: So that if an individual is making things up, this will pick it up, right?

SAMUELS: Doesn`t always, but it`s designed to try and do so, yes.

MARTINEZ: So in this particular case, that`s one of the things that you administered, right?


MARTINEZ: You also administered and you called it the Milan Test. Do you remember telling us that?

SAMUELS: I didn`t say that.

MARTINEZ: OK. What test was that, the other test that you.

SAMUELS: It was the Milan Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, the MCI-3.

MARTINEZ: And how many items are on this particular test?

SAMUELS: A hundred and seventy-five.

MARTINEZ: And with regards to administering this particular test, the way it works is there are questions, and the individual then makes a mark, correct?


MARTINEZ: And this is the one that you actually sent to be scored, right?


MARTINEZ: The other one, the...


MARTINEZ: Post-Traumatic Stress Diagnostic Test, that`s the one that you scored yourself. Right?


MARTINEZ: You sat down, and you looked, and the way that one works is that there are 49 questions, right?


MARTINEZ: And then there`s an answer sheet, right?


MARTINEZ: And then there`s a round circle that`s filled in for the answer, right?


MARTINEZ: And again the validity of that test depends on the person answering that test accurately, right?


MARTINEZ: And so, for example, let`s say that the person lied on that test. Let`s assume that that`s what happened, OK...


MARTINEZ: ... with regard to a PDS test. Wouldn`t you agree that that would invalidate the results of the PDS test?


MARTINEZ: And if it were used for the post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis, that would be a faulty diagnosis, right?


MARTINEZ: Because it is used, if you will, as a way to confirm, right?


MARTINEZ: Well, in this case isn`t it true, sir, that with regard to this PDS, the defendant lied on it?

SAMUELS: No, that`s not true.

MARTINEZ: Sir, when is the last time that you reviewed your raw data involving this particular test?

SAMUELS: A couple of days ago. Last week.

MARTINEZ: Sir, let me have something here marked. This is exhibit No. 533. And what a defendant fills out, the test and the results, they`re called the raw data, correct?


MARTINEZ: And the raw data is not provided to attorneys.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A heated emotional day in court. The defendant, Jodi Arias, near tears at certain points as the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, rips into her defense psychologist, alleging that he crossed a line with Jodi -- brought her a self-help book and tried to help her -- and claiming he has a history of doing this and was fined for it.

You`re not going to miss a second of this trial. We`re taking a very brief break. We`ll be back with more of this grilling and then we`ll debate it. Stay right there.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want me to believe that somebody else was there, you have to show me. You have to explain to me what happened. Otherwise, it was just you. If that`s the case, that`s OK. That`s OK, as well.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are now in the heart of the defense case. Prosecutor Juan Martinez grilling the defense psychologist trying to destroy his credibility, saying he has no objectivity, because he`s trying to help Jodi. Even gave her a self-help book. And he has a pattern of doing it and has been fined for it in the past.

Let`s listen into what`s going on in court. You`re not missing a moment.

MARTINEZ: And the raw data is not provided to attorneys, is it? It`s -- is it?

SAMUELS: It can be.

MARTINEZ: It can be, but the code generally calls for it to be provided or to be transferred between psychologists, right?


MARTINEZ: And speaking of psychology, you`re a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. Right?

SAMUELS: I`m a psychologist.

MARTINEZ: Which means that you did not go -- there`s no "M.D." after your name, correct?

SAMUELS: No, there is not.

MARTINEZ: You showed us a diagram or something about the head. It`s not like you can go in and do surgery, can you?


MARTINEZ: And you cannot prescribe, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: So take a look at Exhibit 533 and see whether or not this corresponds to the actual PDS, parts one and two, as well as the responses by the defendant. Take a look at it. If it doesn`t, tell me how it doesn`t.

SAMUELS: I`ll have to look at my notes.

MARTINEZ: Sure. In fact, take it out -- if you don`t mine, take...

SAMUELS: I`m sorry?

MARTINEZ: Take it out of your folder so that I can mark the PDS test along with the raw data.


MARTINEZ: Do you have it out now, sir?

SAMUELS: I have it out, yes.

MARTINEZ: This is the -- this is the worksheet, isn`t it?

SAMUELS: That`s the worksheet.

MARTINEZ: OK. And -- but there`s also a part of this test that includes the questions, doesn`t it?


MARTINEZ: If I could have that.

SAMUELS: Here it is.

MARTINEZ: Well, sir, where is the -- are the directions for questions 1 through 15?

SAMUELS: I don`t have the actual -- it`s all in here, actually. Sample of the test is in here with the questions and so forth.

MARTINEZ: OK. Where is the answer sheet to questions?

SAMUELS: At the time I went, I didn`t have an answer sheet. So I had her fill it out on a blank sheet, which I transcribed to an answer sheet.

MARTINEZ: Sir, do you remember providing the raw data to someone by the name of Jean Demante (ph)?


MARTINEZ: What you provided is a copy of the yellow sheet that you have there?

SAMUELS: No. I provided to her the transfer sheet.

MARTINEZ: Right. In other words, you provided her a white sheet with little round circles that were filled in, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct. Yes.

MARTINEZ: Where is that?

SAMUELS: I don`t have it with me, apparently.

MARTINEZ: Why don`t you have it with you?

SAMUELS: I must have left it on my desk. I left it on my desk.

MARTINEZ: Sir, isn`t it important to have a complete file so that you could answer whatever questions come up?

SAMUELS: Well, I have the answers over here.

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking about the answers. I`m asking about the other portion of the test. The one that`s got the little round circles that you provided to somebody.

SAMUELS: Yes. I did not bring that. What I brought was the original that she filled out that I later transferred to the question, because I didn`t have the answer sheet with me when I went to see her.

MARTINEZ: So what you`re saying is that you`re the person, then, that filled out the answers to questions 1 through 15?

SAMUELS: No. I have her answers here. What I did was transpose her answers onto the sheet for scoring.

MARTINEZ: I understand what you`re trying to tell me. But my question to you is more direct than that. In terms of the answer sheet itself, the little marks, the pencil marks that were done on there, that was done by you and not the defendant?

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And, sir, if it was done by you and you were going to score it yourself, why did you use a pencil?

SAMUELS: Why did I use a pencil?

MARTINEZ: Yes, instead of a pen.

SAMUELS: Well, we traditionally use pencils when filling out forms such as that.

MARTINEZ: No. The person -- the reason you traditionally use pencils is because it`s going to go through a computer and they`re easily read that way, correct?

SAMUELS: Yes, that`s true.

MARTINEZ: And they don`t -- and you can`t use pens or you don`t use pens, because it`s difficult for the computer to read them, right?

SAMUELS: That`s right. And also if you make an error it`s harder to change your answer.

MARTINEZ: But in this particular case, you were going to score it, right?


MARTINEZ: So why go through all of this trouble of using a pencil if you`re going to score it when a pen provides better markings?

SAMUELS: Objection. Asked and answered.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutor Juan Martinez skewering this defense psychologist, implying that he is bending the rules, not following proper procedure, and that Jodi Arias lied to him on a key test that he is using now to draw his conclusions about her state of mind.

We`re taking a very short break. You`re not missing a moment of testimony. Back with more of this grilling right on the other side.


KIRK NURMI, JODI`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tell us what happens once he gets in the shower.

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: I`m taking pictures of him. We were trying out different poses. At one point when I went to delete the photos, as I moved the camera, it slipped out of my hand. Travis flipped out again.

I was crouching, but he lifted me up as he was screaming that I was a stupid idiot, and he body-slammed me again on the tile.




ARIAS: If I`m found guilty, I don`t have a life. I`m not guilty. I didn`t hurt Travis. If I hurt Travis, if I killed Travis, I would beg for the death penalty.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now we`re in the heart of the defense self-defense argument, and the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, is skewering a defense psychologist who had previously argued, yes, Jodi did experience amnesia; she did go into a fog. Well, the prosecutor is saying maybe this witness is in a fog and attacking his credibility. Let`s listen in.

MARTINEZ: So why go through all of this trouble of using a pencil if you`re going to score it, when a pen provides better markings?

WILLMOTT: Objection. Asked and answered. He already answered that it`s typical for him to use a pencil.

STEPHENS: Overruled. You may answer.

SAMUELS: I prefer to use a pencil.

MARTINEZ: And that`s so that you can make some changes on it?

WILLMOTT: Objection. Argumentative.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

SAMUELS: So are you implying that I cheated on that test?

MARTINEZ: No, sir. I`m asking you some questions. However you want to take them is up to you. I`m just asking.

SAMUELS: Ask me the question again.

MARTINEZ: The question, sir, is you chose not to use a pen. Instead you chose to use a pencil, which is normally what a person who is taking this test uses, right?


MARTINEZ: And you then sat down and you did conduct this particular test, right?


MARTINEZ: Let me go ahead and have the yellow sheet, please. And if I may have the book, please. This is Exhibit No. 527. What does this contain, sir?

SAMUELS: That is the manual that is associated with that test. It includes instructional manuals for scoring, sample answer sheet, sample worksheet and some validation information.

MARTINEZ: I move for admission of Exhibit 527.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Time for our sidebar debate. Let`s bring in our expert panel. Is prosecutor Juan Martinez skewering, destroying the credibility of this defense psychologist? Starting with, for the prosecution, Wendy Murphy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, this is just the beginning of the skewering, but I think the answer is yes and yes and yes.

First of all, he`s shown the guy to be unethical. And what I like the most is that he`s showing this is a witness unwilling to answer the straight questions. How many times does Martinez have to say, "That`s not what I asked you"?

In a nutshell, Jane, we heard two weeks of crap from Jodi Arias. And now the defense strategy is two more weeks of utter bullshit from expert witnesses. I hope you don`t bleep me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We apologize for that language. Despite Wendy Murphy`s passion, I think that`s one of our words that we don`t say. But let`s go to the defense now, Brian Silber.

BRIAN SILBER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I completely disagree with Wendy. This defense team is brilliant. They`re laying the foundation for a manslaughter conviction.

And guess who their star witness is? It`s Juan Martinez. The more questions he asks, the more questions they are. He`s going to lose this, and his ship is going down.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Lieberman?

JON LIEBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: You must be saying that just to have something to say on TV, because that`s ludicrous.

SILBER: You know what? Don`t even go there. Say something smart. Don`t say something insulting. Come on, man. Be intelligent.

LIEBERMAN: I don`t know what trial...

SILBER: Give me a break.

LIEBERMAN: I don`t know what trial you were watching.

SILBER: That`s all you got to say is attack me. Let`s talk about this case.

LIEBERMAN: No. I said I don`t know what trial you`re watching. Here you have a psychologist who bases his findings on Jodi Arias` lies. It doesn`t hold up.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jason Lamb. Jason Lamb, let`s hear from you.

JASON LAMB, ATTORNEY: Now, first off, Jane, who would have ever thought that I would be the mild-mannered one in this bunch with a clean mouth? Go figure. But here I am.

Listen, here`s the bottom line. Dr. Samuels has had problems with boundaries in prior patients. Call it what you will. That`s being what`s asserted here. He is supposed to be an expert witness, not a treating clinician. And that`s what Juan Martinez is properly suggesting. He`s suggesting that his results, his interpretations, you know, it might not really be on the up and up.


LAMB: I don`t really care about the pen and pencil. I think that`s silly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to have more opportunity to continue this debate again. We apologize for language that we`re not supposed to use on television.

We`re going to take a very brief break. We`re going to be back with more testimony. You`re not missing a moment of this trial. Stay right there.



JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Ma`am, were you crying when you were shooting him?


MARTINEZ: Were you crying when you were stabbing him?

ARIAS: I don`t remember.

MARTINEZ: How about when you cut his throat? Were you crying then?

ARIAS: I don`t know.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: A fiery time in court right now as prosecutor Juan Martinez attempts to completely annihilate the credibility of the defense psychologist saying he wasn`t objective. He was trying to help Jodi Arias giving her a self-help book called "Your Erroneous Zone" and accusing him of bending the rules and having a pattern of lacking boundaries for which he was fined.

Let`s go back into the courtroom and hear more of this fiery exchange.


MARTINEZ: Take a look at exhibit 534. What is it?

RICHARD SAMUELS, DEFENSE PSYCHOLOGIST: 534 is a sheet of responses that Miss Arias filled in, which I then transferred to the actual score sheet.

MARTINEZ: What date was that?

SAMUELS: This date here?

MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.

SAMUELS: The date that I --

MARTINEZ: No, no -- just hold on. We have to show you what it is, ok.

SAMUELS: Ok. 1/15/10.

MARTINEZ: All right. That`s January 15 of 2010, correct?


MARTINEZ: And this is the original, right?

SAMUELS: I believe, yes.

MARTINEZ: Judge, if I may have it stapled together.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s go to Dr. Judy Ho as we have a brief break in court. The prosecutor accusing this expert psychologist of bending the rules transposing Jodi Arias` answers for a crucial PTSD test - - is he, in your opinion, bending some of the rules?

DR. JUDY HO, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well Jane, I think he is bending some of the rules. And most of it is because he`s entered into a multiple relationship with the defendant that may actually impair his judgment and so, I know that the attorney had mentioned this a couple of times. He was acting both in the role of a clinician, a treating psychologist with Jodi as well as being the evaluator.

And sometimes that does impair our objectivity as professionals because you spend time with the patient. You can start to sympathize with them. That`s really the psychologist`s job and call to maintain the ethical boundaries. And we know that Dr. Samuels has problems maintaining boundaries in the past. I think that`s -- that`s a huge problem.

In regards to the scale that he used, you know, there`s some problems there too that he was filling it out in pencil when ultimately it needs to be scored by pen. There are things that he is relying on with the answers that Jodi gave that basically assumes Jodi is telling the truth. There is no lie detector test on the scale. There is no test for inconsistency on the client`s part.

And so for all of these reasons I think there`s going to be definitely some holes that he`s going to have to explain here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Well, what you`re saying is he`s basing his conclusions based on faulty information therefore you`ve got faulty conclusions. Let`s listen back in to an extraordinary cross examination.


MARTINEZ: Sir, this test here which was administered on January 15th of 2010 was before -- this was during the time that she was telling you the story about these two men -- these two individuals, a man and a woman, coming in and doing harm to Mr. Alexander, correct?

SAMUELS: I don`t know -- I just have to check something out.

MARTINEZ: All right.

Why don`t we have it marked so that you can take a look at your notes and we can maybe make it a little quicker?


MARTINEZ: Sir, take a look at exhibit 536 and see if that refreshes your recollection as to administering the TDS (ph) and the fact that at the time that you administered the TDS she was telling you that it had been intruders who had killed Mr. Alexander.


MARTINEZ: Ok. If I may have that back. And this test, this TDS test that you administered -- the one that we have here with the answers, this test reflects the fact that her story is still the fact that it was two intruders that actually killed Mr. Alexander, doesn`t that reflect that?

SAMUELS: Yes, it was taken at that time it would.

MARTINEZ: It did, didn`t it? And in fact the portion that you don`t have in front of you would show us that that was in fact the case, right?


MARTINEZ: Let`s take a look at -- you have mine up there, correct?


MARTINEZ: And that -- take a look at it -- is that a copy that accurately reflects the answers in exhibit 534 as to questions 1 through 15?


MARTINEZ: Ok. Let me have that back. I move for the admission of exhibit number 533.

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Judge is 533 the actual something that Dr. Samuels typed up or something that the state typed up?

MARTINEZ: It`s a true and accurate copy of that particular part of the test (inaudible) according to Dr. Samuels.


WILLMOTT: Ok. I would object unless it`s an actual copy that Dr. Samuels has.

STEPHENS: Overruled. Exhibit 533 will be admitted.

MARTINEZ: Ok. So let`s look at exhibit number 533. There are some instructions that go with this, right?


MARTINEZ: And the instructions are part of this manual here exhibit 527, right?


MARTINEZ: And they`re the ones that indicate what questions there are to be asked and whatever the answers are, the answers are, right?


MARTINEZ: So with regard to the first question, the person who is taking this, and in this case the defendant, is asked to identify whether or not any of these events, serious events, have occurred in their lives.

SAMUELS: Throughout their lives, correct.

MARTINEZ: Because these kinds of events are the kind of events that trigger these responses that we`ve been talking about -- loss of memory, right?


MARTINEZ: That trigger the foggy memory, right?


MARTINEZ: And for example the first one says serious accident, fire or explosion. For example industrial, farm, car, plane or boating accident and the defendant answered yes to that one, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: With regard to number two, natural disaster for example tornado, hurricane, flood or major earthquake, the defendant also answered yes to that one, right?


MARTINEZ: Number three, she`s asked about nonsexual assault by a family member or someone you know. When it talks about someone you know, it isn`t talking about you, it`s talking about somebody the defendant knows, right?


MARTINEZ: And it says, for example, being mugged, physically --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecutor basically tried to show that Jodi Arias was lying on a crucial test on which this defense psychologist based all of his conclusions that are very favorable for the defendant. Is she lying about everything?

Well, let me tell you, I just got back from a shooting range where I tested Jodi Arias` claims that the gun just went off and I accidentally shot Travis. Yes, I fired a weapon. I`m going to bring you that story right here on Wednesday.

Check this out.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We came here to the New Jersey Firearms Academy to test out Jodi Arias` claim. She says Travis was coming at her. She pointed the gun at him to try to stop him and the gun just went off. That she didn`t mean to shoot him. So we`re asking a firearms expert, can a .25 caliber weapon just go off like that?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s this Wednesday right here on this show Wednesday. But we will not miss a minute of testimony from today. We`re going to take a very short break and be back with more of prosecutor Juan Martinez`s grilling this defense psychologist.

Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re bringing you every moment of the Jodi Arias trial tonight. But we also want to keep you up to date on another huge story. Lindsay Lohan avoiding jail again; Lilo late for court, by the way, agreed to plea deal that will keep her out of jail. But it looks like she didn`t have very much faith in her attorney.

Check this out. It`s a shocker.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me clarify that because it`s not entirely correct. Once again, I`m sorry.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh my gosh. She says I`m going to kill you. Lohan will now have to spend 90 days in a locked rehab center, lockdown, and do 30 days of community service. There she is. She just flew, I believe, in from New York. She`s also going to have to do 18 months in psychotherapy. Wow. Not a good day for la Lohan.

And is it a good day for the defense? We`re going to have more from the Jodi Arias case in just a moment. Stay right there. Back in court in a moment.



ARIAS: Should have at least done your makeup Jodi. Gosh. Goodness.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jodi has changed her tune many, many times about what happened inside that bedroom and bathroom. Right now prosecutor Juan Martinez in court trying to destroy her, the defense psychologist, saying he was biased. He was trying to help Jodi and that she brazenly on a stress test and he kind of overlooked it.

Let`s listen.


MARTINEZ: Shot, stabbed or held at gun point by someone you know, right?


MARTINEZ: And she said with regard to that yes, right?


MARTINEZ: And then she says on number four, nonsexual assault by a stranger, right?


MARTINEZ: For example being mugged, physically attacked, shot, stabbed or held at gunpoint. It`s the same question as above, number three, only this one talks about a stranger, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And she answered yes, right?


MARTINEZ: Sexual assault by a family member or someone you know for example rape or attempted rape. She said no to that didn`t she?


MARTINEZ: We heard testimony regarding issues from the defendant previously that she indicated something about a situation -- I`m asking whether you`re familiar with a situation where she claims Mr. Alexander may have taken some clothes -- her clothes off and may have penetrated her. Are you familiar with that?


MARTINEZ: And you characterized that as a rape, didn`t you?


MARTINEZ: When you had her interview.

But here number five she says no, it wasn`t that, right?


MARTINEZ: And between the two of you she was there, right?


MARTINEZ: And she would know better than you, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

WILLMOTT: Objection -- speculation.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Six, sexual assault by a stranger for example rape or attempted rape. She said no to that, right?


MARTINEZ: Seven. Military combat or a war zone. She said no, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Number eight, sexual contact when you were younger than 18 with someone who was five or more years older than you for example contact with genital, breast and she said no, right?


MARTINEZ: And then it says imprisonment for example prison inmate, prisoners at war, hostage and she said no, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Continues on with question 10 and question 10 asks about torture and she said no, right?


MARTINEZ: Number 11, life threatening illness. She said no, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: With regard to 12, she`s asked if there is other traumatic event and she says yes, right?


MARTINEZ: And then she says Number 13, if you answered yes to item 13, specify the traumatic event on the answer sheet, right?


MARTINEZ: She said repeated emotional and psychological abuse, right?


MARTINEZ: Then this test goes on to part 2, right?


MARTINEZ: And it is asking the individual who`s taking this test, in this case the defendant, a question, right?


MARTINEZ: This is one of the guiding questions that determines or substantiates or confirms or helps you confirm the presence of PTSD, right?


MARTINEZ: And in fact, the way you indicated that in your report were first scores on post-traumatic stress disorder scale confirm the presence of PTSD, right?


MARTINEZ: It says here if you mark yes for more than one traumatic event in part one, indicate which one bothers you the most. If you marked yes for only one traumatic event in part one, mark the same one on the answer sheet, right?


MARTINEZ: And she`s asked about the same 12 questions that we`ve just gone over, right?


MARTINEZ: And the one that she indicates --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. "In Session" correspondent Jean Casarez -- we`re going to take a very brief break. It almost appears to me that the prosecutor is saying Jodi Arias cast her spell and mesmerized this somewhat eccentric defense psychologist.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": That`s how the examination began, right, because he`s doing an assessment of her but yet he went out to Amazon and bought a book for $9 and had it sent to the jail. And this was a book that was designated by the prosecutor as a gift.

And what the prosecutor is trying to do is to equate this to the problems he had in New Jersey by crossing boundaries and treating someone that he was only supposed to assess.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Of all of the psychologists in the world they pick this one. Is there a reason why? Is this prosecutor destroying the credibility of this witness?

We`re going to take a very short break. We`re going to be back with more testimony inside the court room in a moment. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Things are getting even more heated during this very intense cross examination by prosecutor Juan Martinez of the defense psychologist.

Stay right there. We`re going to will go back into the courtroom in just a moment.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is Jodi Arias` life hanging in the balance right now during this cross examination? Her defense psychologist hit a bunch of homeruns for her saying yes she did have a fog, she did have amnesia. But now the prosecutor on cross destroying his credibility and basically saying this guy is really biased, very biased for Jodi and can`t be trusted.

We`ll be back in court in just a moment. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Our panel -- 10 seconds each -- is the prosecutor Juan Martinez destroying this defense psychologist? Starting with Wendy Murphy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes. And it is going to go on and on and on.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, short but sweet.

Jon Leiberman.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. He is showing that his findings were based on lies and everything Jodi has told in this trial has been a lie.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Brian Silber for the defense.

BRIAN SILBER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No way. He is asking the wrong questions. He needs to be asking about behavior and premeditation, not following the defense down the rabbit hole.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I got to say prosecutor Juan Martinez doesn`t let up. And his cross examination is continuing. You will hear more on the other side as Nancy Grace takes over. But I do believe that Jodi`s life hangs in the balance. Who wins this marathon battle?

Nancy Grace is next.