a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #5

[slanda]

All we know at this point is that a motion was filed concerning her. The defense has filed many motions for mistrial most ridiculous, lets all hold our judgement this judge does not want a mistrial clearly, she will do what is in the best interest of preserving the jury. Many bogus filings by the defense to try and save her from DP. It could have been something not even related to the case which she said to another juror. I.e. " did you see the prosecutors pen? I'm going to get one of those"

My point is: That juror misconduct (if true & this juror is not removed) could (would) jeopardize a conviction and strengthen an appeal. I don't think there will be a mistrial. Hopefully they can move on :furious:

So, if what the other jurors said is true, she should be removed. Not for JA's sake; but for TA and his family and loved ones.

No one should be allowed to compromise this trial. That would be a travesty. Beyond what has already happened. :gavel:

 

[Donnareit]

Hoping to help even though it was a few pages back, about the photo of Jodi's foot. I have a shot of Juan's photo up on a giant screen. It's been cleared up so well that I saved it.

I will only post the link please *be aware that Travis' body is clear*.
Also click the photo after you go to the page so you can see it larger.

http://i49.tinypic.com/ldvsg.jpg

You can save it and zoom it up yourself as well. Hope that helps. :seeya:

Where was that shoe impression again?

 

[fred_]

The only upside to all of this would be if she was removed from the jury and then could publicly say what she had thought about the evidence and trial thus far. Would be really interesting to hear what a juror's perspective is...

 

[LambChop]

The only upside to all of this would be if she was removed from the jury and then could publicly say what she had thought about the evidence and trial thus far. Would be really interesting to hear what a juror's perspective is...

Which tells us she is not for defense and do they, really, really, really want her out there giving interviews on all those shows. Better to ask her removed as a permanent juror and replaced with a alternate but she still has to stay. I doubt if she would do any permanent damage but that would depend on what she said. Maybe she referred to Nurmi as a snake. He doesn't like that term.

 

[Madeleine74]

The only upside to all of this would be if she was removed from the jury and then could publicly say what she had thought about the evidence and trial thus far. Would be really interesting to hear what a juror's perspective is...

I'm sure the judge would keep her quiet through a gag order or something similar. It would be highly improper for a dismissed juror to start blabbing while a trial is still going on.

 

[MeeBee]

I hope out Tri Color isn't dismissed.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

The only upside to all of this would be if she was removed from the jury and then could publicly say what she had thought about the evidence and trial thus far. Would be really interesting to hear what a juror's perspective is...

I doubt that the juror would be free to speak. A juror was dismissed during the OJ trial, and did speak, but that jury was sequestered.

 

[fred_]

I doubt that the juror would be free to speak. A juror was dismissed during the OJ trial, and did speak, but that jury was sequestered.

How is it any different then any other person talking about the case publicly? If she is dismissed as a juror she no long has any obligation to adhere to the admonitions, and theoretically would not be able to talk about the jury's opinions since they are supposed to have not yet discussed it, she would be like any other member of the public weighing in with her opinion. She is not privy to anything by being a juror that there would be a risk of her revealing, in fact she knows less than what the general public knows about the trial & JA.

 

[geevee]

I wonder why this guy wasn't called by the prosecution? I also wonder what the "protection ritual" involved.




"Thomas Brown, a former roommate of Travis Alexander in the home of his murder, was interviewed up to three times by Detective Flores whereby he told them that Jodi had open access to the home when he was around and the Arias he knew was completely shy and somewhat awkwardly withdrawn. He was having a hard time picturing her doing this without help and he told cops that.

He also told them something about Travis being shocked to get the call that Jodi Arias was standing outside the home the early morning hours of June 4, 2008 and that he had been up all night performing some sort of protection rite. Brown’s information was not included in any information given to the defense and he was not even aware his name came up in the investigation by Jodi Arias herself"

I saw a screen shot of those two FB posts a month or so ago, I didn't know enough then about who was who then but later I wondered how this guy could know anything, neither current roommate told Det. Flores anything about seeing or hearing JA all of 6-4 and TA apparently didn't call anyone and say she was there or we would have heard testimony about it.

So I've been pretty curious as to how this guy knows anything, thanks for bringing it up.

 

[LambChop]

I doubt that the juror would be free to speak. A juror was dismissed during the OJ trial, and did speak, but that jury was sequestered.

Plus what could she say? She only knows what has been revealed in court. Private information about the juror's would be forbidden, I'm assuming.

 

[katydid23]

I think a juror was let go of the Scott Peterson trial, and went out on all of the TV shows and talked and talked and talked.

ETA: I just googled and could not find evidence of the juror talking on TV during the trial. Maybe I remembered wrong.

But there were actually TWO jurors replaced during the trial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/national/10cnd-pete.html?fta=y

 

[LambChop]

I saw a screen shot of those two FB posts a month or so ago, I didn't know enough then about who was who then but later I wondered how this guy could know anything, neither current roommate told Det. Flores anything about seeing or hearing JA all of 6-4 and TA apparently didn't call anyone and say she was there or we would have heard testimony about it.

So I've been pretty curious as to how this guy knows anything, thanks for bringing it up.

It would all be hearsay.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

Because she was a potential juror on a trial that is still in process. The First Amendment is not absolute. If the Judge determines that she should be under a gag order until the trial is over, then that is what will happen. A juror in such a position could attempt to appeal such a gag order, but the rights of one person to speak vs. the right to a fair trial AND the cost of a potential mistrial make that a pretty easy case to decide, IMHO.

 

[Softail]

I doubt that the juror would be free to speak. A juror was dismissed during the OJ trial, and did speak, but that jury was sequestered.

Why do you think that? :waitasec: To me, dismissed means dismissed. Meaning you no longer have anything to do with the case.

ETA: :nevermind: I see your post above mine!

 

[fred_]

Because she was a potential juror on a trial that is still in process. The First Amendment is not absolute. If the Judge determines that she should be under a gag order until the trial is over, then that is what will happen. A juror in such a position could attempt to appeal such a gag order, but the rights of one person to speak vs. the right to a fair trial AND the cost of a potential mistrial make that a pretty easy case to decide, IMHO.

I understand what you are saying, but where do you see her talking publicly causing any effect on the current jurors assuming the current jurors continue to follow the admonitions. I practice out of state, so Im not familiar with AZ procedure but to me it seems like once she is dismissed as an active juror she is no longer in a position to effect the ongoing juror process. Clearly she could not start discussing anything about fellow juror or what anyone else said or reacted to...

 

[KMouse]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that this juror would even know about the motion if she were to remain on the jury. The jury only knows what takes place in the courtroom in their presence or special circumstances like last week with the motion for prosecutional misconduct where they were asked questions, but do not know the reasons behind it.

Juror #5 is going to wonder why all eyes are on her tomorrow.

 

[jayarohh]

I suddenly had this vision of - post trial - the jury members firing up their computers and seeing what was being said on the internet. Eventually and inevitably they come to this forum to see that they had been characterized as 'Old potsmoking CPA', 'Nancy', 'The Wrestler' and 'Poquito'! I truly hope they get a reaction shot of their face(s) and include it in the photo section of their tell-all book!

 

[outofstatelawyer]

[I understand what you are saying, but where do you see her talking publicly causing any effect on the current jurors assuming the current jurors continue to follow the admonitions. I practice out of state, so Im not familiar with AZ procedure but to me it seems like once she is dismissed as an active juror she is no longer in a position to effect the ongoing juror process. Clearly she could not start discussing anything about fellow juror or what anyone else said or reacted to.../CODE]

I am not an Arizona lawyer either.  But, viz your last sentence, you clearly understand that there would be restrictions on what a dismissed juror could or could not say.  Why risk the chance of a mistrial by allowing her to speak during the pendancy of the trial at all?  I suspect a gag order, if she is dismissed. But, I could be wrong.  :great:

 

[Love Never Fails]

They may question her though, and then she would know something was up.

Saw this in the other thread though, that Karas is saying she may have been ratted out by other jurors. Is it possible that she was ratted out by a juror that is sympathetic to Jodi? Maybe the tattle tell (Donovan) thinks she heard her muttering something to the other jurors and told?

Yeah well, I don't think the defense team is going to find one sympathetic juror. What on earth could they be sympathetic about? Not only did she slaughter a man but she can't even cry well! She can't act. She shows only sarcasm and contempt for everyone. She is not likeable.

 

[artsy1]

Which tells us she is not for defense and do they, really, really, really want her out there giving interviews on all those shows. Better to ask her removed as a permanent juror and replaced with a alternate but she still has to stay. I doubt if she would do any permanent damage but that would depend on what she said. Maybe she referred to Nurmi as a snake. He doesn't like that term.

BBM

They won't draw the alternates until deliberation, so we don't even know if she would be a "permanent juror" until then.