Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #1

[SweetT]

Stealth juror wasn't even stealth!

She talked about her history with DV during voir dire! It wasn't a secret to either state or defense. RED FLAG right there! Putting someone on a jury who shares the same primary mitigating factor attempted by a defendant is just asking for immediate bias. The state already knew the mitigating factors the defense would argue and they knew DV was one of the big ones. The defense knew to play their case up to this juror and they did. Can't blame them for that, it was a smart move.

I dont see how a woman (Hold out juror) Could associate with Jodi. Jodi was not married to Travis,(THey werent even engaged) He was a free man, she didnt know him anywhere close to 11 yrs and had no LIFE with him in fact she was hundreds of miles away from him when this happened. It to me would be a far stretch for her to associate with Jodi about Travis. Now if Jodi and Travis had actually been Married and living together at the time...maybe..just maybe

 

[Shelby1]

I kept thinking that the phrase "juror #17" sounded so familiar so I googled. Tara Kelley was #17 during the last trial.

 

[ZsaZsa]

She hated white men. She won't care about Travis Alexander.

They will probably congratulate her on beating the system....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just cleared my twitter feed of all things arias.

Listening to these jurors, I would have voted death with them. I have been weighing it for days and was not sure but as I listened to them and their argument today and their handling of the evidence I would have voted with them.

This juror was never going to vote for death. She came in to the trial with research and preconceived ideas.

As for why she was on the jury, It is possible that they felt that someone who had experienced real DV would see through Jodi's fake DV.
But I don't think it would have mattered. I think this jury had a plan and an agenda as the other jurors stated.

 

[LinasK]

I have, too, reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Judge Stephens was and is, indeed, callous. I feel for the 11 and Travis' family and loved ones. Stephens just did not care, up there from her ivory tower. It was all about her reputation. And she continues to drag this torture out. She is completely indifferent to suffering.

:hand:Wait to hear what she has to say at sentencing. I believe she will ream Jodi. She did not control the verdict- the stealth juror did.

 

[TartLemon]

Not if she didn't deliberate, she didn't.

So, if she didn't deliberate, what did she do in that room all day?

 

[Hez]

But it didn't matter to them. Please leave the Hughes' alone. They were duped by her as well in the beginning.

I agree, this has nothing to do with the Hughes' because it sounds like nobody on the jury really believed anything presented by the defense team. It all came down to a stealth juror, that stupid Lifetime movie and the modsnippety Law of Attraction!

 

[Madeleine74]

I dont see how a woman (Hold out juror) Could associate with Jodi. Jodi was not married to Travis,(THey werent even engaged) He was a free man, she didnt know him anywhere close to 11 yrs and had no LIFE with him in fact she was hundreds of miles away from him when this happened. It to me would be a far stretch for her to associate with Jodi about Travis. Now if Jodi and Travis had actually been Married and living together at the time...maybe..just maybe

She thought Jodi was a monster from watching the Lifetime movie and then during the penalty phase she didn't see a monster -- she saw someone who was mentally ill and had suffered some abuse. She also said to other members of the jury that the DP is "seeking revenge." So in essence, she wasn't really death qualified at all AND she had a personal background that made her more malleable to seeing abuse where there really was none. Who knows what else she thought...she didn't really participate in deliberations.

 

[momtective]

GRRRRR!!!! Stealth juror wanted to focus on Jodi's re-written journals. Garbage in, garbage out. Casey Anthony did the same thing. Bet Casey's laughing now.

All the demons of hell are laughing!

 

[Nali87]

:hand:Wait to hear what she has to say at sentencing. I believe she will ream Jodi. She did not control the verdict- the stealth juror did.

I like you a lot LinaSK, but I don't understand you determination not to find fault with JSS at all. Like not even one fault. She's not Jesus Christ. The woman has faults and she has failed in this trial. You won't even admit to even one failure. You're very much our own stealth juror.

 

[Dogface]

I dont see how a woman (Hold out juror) Could associate with Jodi. Jodi was not married to Travis,(THey werent even engaged) He was a free man, she didnt know him anywhere close to 11 yrs and had no LIFE with him in fact she was hundreds of miles away from him when this happened. It to me would be a far stretch for her to associate with Jodi about Travis. Now if Jodi and Travis had actually been Married and living together at the time...maybe..just maybe

Completely agree. And as someone who has experienced DV firsthand I do not think, in this case, even if it was happening, it could be used as an excuse for what she did. She went to him. Wasn't like he was the one showing up at her place beating her door down to do harm to her. This was calculated and cold blooded murder.

 

[Wynegyrl]

:hand:Wait to hear what she has to say at sentencing. I believe she will ream Jodi. She did not control the verdict- the stealth juror did.

I hope you are correct!

 

[Nali87]

So, if she didn't deliberate, what did she do in that room all day?

It is possible to sit in a room and be closed off to everyone else speaking. If the jurors, who were actually there, say she didn't deliberate. Then I'm going to go with that.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I have to read up on this Angela Simpson. Never heard of her.

It's only a matter of time before she kills someone in prison, totally arrogant and vicious, she publicly gloats about her victim.

 

[AZlawyer]

I just speed-read this thread so I'm sure I missed some things. My thoughts:

1. Regarding juror #17 "not deliberating": I know jurors are saying #17 "wouldn't deliberate," but then they describe what she said during deliberations--that she wanted to focus on the journals, that she thought the DP would be revenge, etc. If JSS was told this juror was "not deliberating" and then questioned #17 and/or the other jurors and got this information, she COULD NOT legally have removed her from the jury. Steadfastly refusing to change your mind from day 1 is not the same as refusing to deliberate and is specifically permitted by the jury instructions.

2. Regarding juror #17 having prior knowledge of the case: Prior knowledge of the case is fine as long as you answer truthfully about it in voir dire. I don't know if this juror did answer truthfully, although I'm 100% sure I saw a tweet about a juror who had seen the Lifetime movie. It would have been improper, of course, for juror #17 to have brought up extraneous information in deliberations. Do we know whether the jurors actually mentioned this to the judge? I didn't see anything about them telling JSS about the Lifetime movie, etc. If they had told JSS, the appropriate way for JSS to handle this (assuming the juror had not lied in voir dire) would have been for her to instruct the jury not to consider any information other than that presented in the trial. She COULD NOT legally have removed the juror for mentioning these things in deliberation unless the juror insisted, after instruction, on considering the previously heard information.

3. Regarding juror #17's feelings on the death penalty: Again, I don't know what she said in voir dire. But it sounds like what she said in deliberations was that she "absolutely" believed in the death penalty but couldn't say under what circumstances it should be applied. This information WOULD NOT disqualify her from a death case and it would have been improper for JSS to disqualify her for not being able to specify under what circumstances she would vote for death. As to her statement that the DP was just "revenge"--in light of the other statement that she "absolutely" believed in the DP, I wonder if she said that IN THIS CASE she believes the DP would be revenge. If so, JSS COULD NOT legally have removed her as being disqualified to impose death.

 

[SweetT]

So what I'm getting from this jury debacle today is that...IF this scenario were to ever play out again its best for one of the DP Jurors to get into a fist fight with the Hold out so they both can be kicked off and the alternates allowed in.. This would have been best IMO ..its kinda like taking one for the rest right...

 

[Madeleine74]

She wasn't a stealth juror! Both sides knew from the beginning she had experienced DV and abuse. She said she could put that aside, but c'mon. Would ANY of you have believed that? I would not. Why risk it? She should not have been on that jury in the first place, IMO.

 

[TartLemon]

Respectfully disagree. If she had actually deliberated, and could have articulated why she felt the murderess didn't deserve the DP, aside from her "it's revenge" comment, then I would have respect for her decision. I might not agreed with it, but I would at least respect it.

IMO, the juror responded to their question to the best of her ability.

 

[Luvrosco]

:hand:Wait to hear what she has to say at sentencing. I believe she will ream Jodi. She did not control the verdict- the stealth juror did.

I'm praying your right. Unfortunately, I've lost faith in her.

 

[Charterhouse]

If the one juror was not ashamed of her decision, why did she not show up for the interview?
If you believe you are correct, stand up for yourself.