Transcript: Jodi Arias Trial Defense Closing Arguments with Kirk Nurmi (full videos)

(this is a work in progress as I am transcribing both closing arguments myself. Click here for Prosecutor Juan Martinez' closing arguments)


Jodi Arias smiles when Kirk Nurmi states to the jury, 'Nine days out of 10, I don't like Jodi Arias,' during closing arguments on May 3, 2013.



Kirk Nurmi: Fear, love. Sex, lies and dirty little secrets. These aspects of the human condition may not be universal. But they were, and each one of these aspects of the human condition, played a prominent role in the relationship that Jodi Arias shared with Travis Alexander.

The relationship that began in the fall of 2006, when Mr. Alexander met Jodi Arias at a Pre-Paid Legal convention in Las Vegas. And the relationship that ended, tragically, on June 4, 2008. 

And because these aspects of the human condition played such a prominent role in this relationship, it makes sense, that the evidence you've heard, starting on January 2, is a tale of fear, love, sex, lies and dirty little secrets.

Now ladies and gentlemen, one of the other things we told you at the beginning of this trial, was that ultimately, your job would be to determine one thing. Your job will be to determine what happened.

You were read some jury instructions yesterday that you were the finder of fact. 

What happened?

What happened in the minutes of time between -- between -- what we see here in exhibit 159, June 4, 2008, 5:29 and 20 seconds. What happened between what we see in this photograph and what we see in exhibit 162 -- Mr. Alexander's body being driven -- drug -- excuse me, across the bathroom floor at 5:32 and 16 seconds. What happened in those three minutes is ultimately what you are to decide. 

Is this three minutes in time the culmination of a plot, a plan that Jodi Arias hatched in May of 2008, in which she was going to go from her grandparents' house in Yreka, California to Travis Alexander's home so she could kill him?

Was it what the state said it was yesterday? Was it this plan. Or, was it an act of self-defense, forced upon Miss Arias by the actions of Mr. Alexander? Or was it something else? That is ultimately what your job is to determine. 

Fear, love, sex, lies and dirty little secrets will help you understand, I think, what happened in those three minutes. 

And as you begin -- and we've seen certainly aspects of fear throughout the course of this trial. Alright, and we'll talk about that more later. 

But, it occurred to me as I began thinking about talking to you this morning, that you might have some fear. You've been listening to evidence for 12 weeks now. More than 12 weeks, since January 2. And you may feel, 'Maybe I forgot something?' 'Maybe I didn't understand a crucial piece of evidence? Maybe when I get back to deliberate my fellow jurors will not feel the same way that I do about this case, they won't see things the same way?' 'Maybe you fear how your verdict will be received?'

Juan Martinez: Objection. Improper argument. 

Judge Sherry Stephens: Approach

Kirk Nurmi: You may fear how your verdict will be received by those who love Travis Alexander, by those who love Jodi Arias or by the world at large.  But ladies and gentlemen, by the jury instructions that were read to you yesterday indicate, your job in determining what happened between these three minutes in time, is to do an objective analysis of the facts and evidence presented to you. 

You are not to be guided by sympathy, or prejudice or fear. But instead, by your personal belief. And rest assured, each and every one of you are here because all the parties involved believe that you are the type of people that would have the courage of your convictions to stand by your personal belief, against whatever pressures you may feel. 

Each one of you is entitled to deliver your verdict to this courtroom. You do not have to succumb to the pressure of a fellow juror who may not agree with you. You can have the courage of your conviction to deliver your own verdict. You are to have the courage and conviction to deliver your own verdict based on the evidence you have heard and nothing more...nothing more. 

You are asked to put that fear aside and look at the evidence...at the evidence. And before we talk about the evidence and what this case is about, I think it's important to talk about what this case is not about. It's not about Snow White, it's not even about any of the seven dwarfs, it's not about bad haircuts and it's not about the sexual orientation of any of the witnesses.  

Juan Martinez: Objection (unintelligible)

Judge Sherry Stephens: Overruled

Kirk Nurmi: It's not even about whether or not you like Jodi Arias. Nine days out of 10, I don't like Jodi Arias.

Juan Martinez: Objection (unintelligible)

Judge Sherry Stephens: Sustained. The jury is directed to disregard the last statement.

Kirk Nurmi: But that doesn't matter. Your liking her or not liking her does not objectively assess the evidence. And you know what ladies and gentlemen? It's not even about her sitting before the cameras of Inside Edition and saying that no jury would convict her. It's not about that. It's about the evidence.

What happened? What happened between what we see in exhibit 159 and what we see in exhibit 162? 

Well, I guess you know there's one more thing this case isn't about. Remember we heard the charge of felony murder yesterday and the state made an argument that was incomprehensible? This idea that, 'Well, if you believe Jodi's version of events, she's guilty of felony murder, because she went to Travis' home and she decided to steal his gun. And in the course of trying to steal his gun, she shot him. She went there, they had sex, they did all these things, then she decided she wanted his gun. And decided to take it. And wanted it so bad that she was willing to kill him.'

That's the theory of felony murder they have put forward. That shows a little fear and we'll talk about some of the fear the state has demonstrated throughout this case, but that's just some of it. 

Alright? We also heard this idea that, 'Well, she was unwelcome once she put the weapon upon him, and she was there to commit a burglary or another felony. There's no other felony, ladies and gentlemen. There's nothing. It's silly. It's fearful. That charge is there out of fear. It makes no sense, under any scenario does that make any sense. 

Either she was there to kill him -- cause the state said -- okay, this is a plot that began in May. Either she was there to kill him, or she wasn't.

And that's ultimately what we're here to determine. 

Now, what is this case about?

Well, as we just spoke of, and just mentioned, yesterday, the state says to you, 'That in May of 2008, Jodi Arias came up with a plan.'

Now they pointed to a couple of different days yesterday. Pointed to May 19, the day that Miss Arias had a conversation with Miss (unintelligible) that excuse me...that Mr. Alexander was fearful of Jodi. Of course, on May 10, we heard that they had a phone sex conversation. And on May 26, we heard this conversation -- or we heard this questions about this conversation -- which Mr. Alexander had called Miss Arias a whore, a slut and a three-hole wonder.

And the state theorizes at some point in this -- at some point in time here in late May, I guess -- Jodi Arias decides that Travis Alexander -- what we heard yesterday was that he had finally had decided to end the relationship -- and she couldn't deal with it. 

Well, let's start there.

Because, what you're going to see, as it relates to this so-called plan, is it doesn't make any sense.

It makes no sense at all.

And, the first place that it doesn't make any sense is the very premise of why. Now, the state doesn't have to prove motive, but they've come up with this motive so we can discuss it. 
Why?


Because she couldn't live without Travis Alexander, right? She's crazy. She can't break up with any of her boyfriends, she can't let it go, she couldn't live without Travis Alexander. Alright, that' the theory, that's the motivation, that's why she starts this plan into action. 

Except, for the fact, that remember, in May of 2008, she had moved back to Yreka, California to get away from Travis Alexander. To get away. She didn't want to be around him anymore. She talked in her journals about how the cloud had lifted, right? These journals that were later argued to be incomplete. We'll talk about that more later. There's no rules of journaling, but the state has submitted that to you, so we'll discuss it. But, point of fact is, she moved away. This girl who's supposedly obsessed, moved away. 

They still talk on the phone, but she moved away. 

What else is she doing?

We heard evidence that she had an account on LDS Linkup: a normal dating site. She was a young, Mormon woman in her mid-twenties, much like probably a lot of people on that website, who was looking for someone who shared their philosophical beliefs. Now the state has tried to cast dispersion on that, but ultimately, a lot of people use these sites, and Jodi was using them. She wasn't so locked in on Travis that she wasn't looking for other men. 

And then we met one of those other guys. We met Ryan Burns, he sat there right before you. She began conversating [sic] with him: phone, text messages, and they planned to meet. She was interested in moving on, moving past Travis Alexander. 


So, this whole idea to begin with, of why this plan was put into place -- this plan would have been masterminded in May of 2008, right? Because for this very reason, but the reason doesn't make any sense, okay. 

What next doesn't make sense?  Well, the state tells you that in order to effectuate this plan, this plan she's conjured up to kill Travis Alexander, but once this plan is conjured up, what does she need? She needs a way to shoot him right, a way to kill him?