Jodi Arias answers written questions from the jury during her murder trial, Wednesday, March 6, 2013 in Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix. Arias is on trial for the 2008 murder of Travis Alexander. Judge Sherry Stephens and attorneys Juan Martinez, left, Jennifer Willmott and Kirk Nurmi, right, go over questions submitted by jurors at the murder trial of Jodi Arias, Wednesday, March 6, 2013, in Maricopa County Superior Court in downtown Phoenix. Jodi Arias asks a question of her attorney, Jennifer Willmott , left, while Judge Sherry Stephens, prosecutor Juan Martinez and defense attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Willmott go over questions submitted by jurors in the murder trial of Jodi Arias, Wednesday March 6, 2013, in Maricopa County Superior Court in downtown Phoenix. AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Tom Tingle, POOL PHOENIX (AP) - The wildly ranging questions came in rapid succession, read aloud by a judge in a calm, monotone voice. Why didn't Jodi Arias ever report accusations of abuse by her lover? How could she so easily grab a gun to shoot him as he attacked her in a fury? Why can she remember so much minutia of her life, yet recall so little from the day she savagely stabbed and shot the victim, then methodically went about covering her tracks? The unusual spectacle played out during Arias' murder trial in Arizona where an uncommon law allows jurors to pose their own questions to witnesses in criminal cases. The queries ranged from Mormonism to the definition of "skank," specific details from the day she killed Travis Alexander in his suburban Phoenix home and her contention that she suffers from memory lapses that leave huge gaps in her recollection of the gruesome attack. In most other states, the process is either banned altogether or it's left up to individual judges to determine whether jurors in criminal cases may ask questions of witnesses. Judge Sherry Stephens posed more than 150 questions to Arias from jurors who had listened to her testify for 15 days about her abusive childhood, cheating boyfriends, dead-end jobs and her contention that Alexander had grown physically abusive in the months leading up to this death, once even choking her into unconsciousness. None of her allegations of Alexander's violence and her claims that he had sexual desires for young boys have been corroborated by witnesses or evidence during the trial, and she has admitted to lying repeatedly but insists she is telling the truth now. Arias is set to take the stand Thursday for a 17th day as Stephens will continue to read even more juror questions. Arias is charged with first-degree murder in Alexander's June 2008 death. She says it was self-defense when he attacked her after a day of raunchy sex, but police say it was a premeditated killing. Arias spent Wednesday responding occasionally with calm, concise answers, while others meandered and were met with objections from attorneys. Many questions focused on things that just don't add up - how Arias can recall specific details of raunchy sexual encounters with Alexander, yet says her memory is "scrambled" when she tries to recall events from the day she killed him. Jurors prodded her over why she never called police after she says Alexander had repeatedly physically abused her, and why she continued to see him after she said she once awoke to find him having sex with her. Arias also testified previously how Alexander called her derogatory terms like "skank." Jurors asked how she defined the word. Arias stammered with her response and skirted the question. They asked her about past relationships with other men, why she tried to clean the bloody scene at Alexander's home after she killed him and why she didn't just come clean sooner. She says she was too scared and ashamed to tell the truth. Arias' grandparents had reported a .25 caliber handgun stolen from their Northern California home about a week before the killing - the same caliber used to shoot Alexander - but Arias says didn't take it. Arias says she shot Alexander with his own gun she found in his closet as they tussled. "It becomes too difficult, too tempting for a juror to lose their role as an impartial fact-finder," said Los Angeles-area defense attorney Mark Geragos. In effect, you've deputized the jurors as investigators. Others, however, say the practice is a useful tool aimed at getting to the truth. "Any mechanism that allows jurors to get closer to the truth without prejudicing one side or the other, I think, is a good tool," said Phoenix criminal defense attorney Julio Laboy. And it really is a window into the juror's mindset.