Jodi Arias Trial Update: 'Especially Cruel' Verdict Questioned By Defense

The 27 stab wounds; the gunshot to the face; the slash to the neck so deep it almost decapitated the victim—Jodi Arias admitted to it all in court before she was convicted of first-degree murder, but a question still remains according to her attorneys. Was her crime really "especially cruel?"

Earlier in May, Arias was found guilty of killing her ex-boyfriend, 30-year-old Travis Alexander. Arias confessed to killing Alexander, but claimed she acted in self-defense, alleging Alexander had a history of domestic abuse and sadistic behavior in their often chaotic relationship. Jurors agreed she premeditated the murder, but they could not come to a unanimous agreement on whether she deserved the death penalty or life in prison. While Arias' guilty verdict still stands, Judge Stephens had to dismiss trial jurors, and both the defense and prosecution are currently preparing for a July 18 trial that will determine if prosecutors continue to pursue the death penalty for Arias.

Arias' attorneys are now asking judge Sherry Stephens to vacate the jury's ruling that the murder of her ex-boyfriend in June 2008 was "especially cruel," a classification that put the death penalty on the table for her sentencing. Jodi Arias' defense team filed a motion recently arguing that "especially cruel" was too broad of a term for jurors without legal knowledge to fairly judge what specific factor would make one murder more heinous than another.

Arizona law defines "cruel manner" as when a victim suffers physical and/or mental pain. During the initial penalty phase of the trial, jurors were tasked with considering if Alexander was killed in an "especially cruel," heinous or depraved fashion against a host of mitigating factors, including the "young" age of Arias at the time of Alexander's murder, and the belief Arias was experiencing "unusual and substantial duress."

The request filed by Arias' lawyers also apparently challenges a historic 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled defendants have the right for jurors alone to determine the presence of aggravating factors that qualify them for the death penalty.

"Given the apparent difficulties that judges faced (prior to the ruling) in applying the statute in a uniform, consistent manner, juries are understandably even less equipped to do so," wrote defense lawyer Kirk Nurmi in the motion late last week.

In the defense's motion, Nurmi argues that using the word "especially" along with terms like "cruel, heinous or depraved" in a murder trial is outdated, as it invokes standards established prior to the 2002 Supreme court decision. He says the practice relates more to when judges retained the power to decide such factors for themselves, rather than having a jury decide what should make a defendant eligible for the death penalty.

"By including the word 'especially', the statute was designed to be employed by a judge, one presumed to have the depth and breadth of experience to identify those first degree murders 'above the norm,'" Nurmi wrote.

Nurmi concluded his argument by insisting that due to current laws "layperson jurors" are forced to "muddle through" the meaning of "especially cruel."

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery denounced the defense's motion as nothing more than a typical "procedural move."

"Those are defense attorneys doing their job advocating for their client," Montgomery said. "Obviously, we disagree."

The assertion that Alexander's murder was "especially cruel" might be interpretive at best, but jurors seemed to agree with the prosecution's version of the victim's last moments.

The medical examiner who conducted the autopsy on Alexander's body, Dr. Kevin Horn, previously testified that Alexander would have been debilitated almost instantaneously after Arias shot him in the head because the bullet went into his brain, leaving him unable to protect himself against someone wielding a knife, which was "obvious," he said, due to various defensive wounds discovered on Alexander's hands during his autopsy.

Arias' next trial is scheduled for July 18.