Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[Nosey Parker]

as (1) she now has a different last name and (2) I doubt the prosecutor remembers what the wife of a particular defendant looks like, if he ever even knew. That's why the Juror has to answer the questions. It's the juror's bias that matters. The burden is solely on the juror to disclose all the relevant info requested and not on the lawyers do investigate the jurors on their own. AZ law does contain a provision to investigate answers:

Morally, I won't ask what she's guilty of, but legally, given the confirmation that Juan prosecuted her first husband in 2000, is that perjury?

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Sooooo...anyone want to believe that this Juror #17 didn't: 1) recognize Juan's name or 2) recognize him in person, when she had her ex prosecuted by him in 2000?

IMO...and one which is NOW very strong...she KNEW this info and SAT ON IT...she was NOT honest in her sitting on this jury.

NOW I am more sick than I was yesterday with the 11-1 vote.

This was not an honest jury...there was indeed a stealth juror.

Shame, shame on her.

 

[ZsaZsa]

For those that want to "move on", I totally understand. So, please understand that for many, "moving on" isn't a choice we choose. JA hasn't been sentenced yet. Personally, speaking only for myself, I'm fully capable of enjoying my life, spending time with my family, going outdoors or not, keeping up with local and national news, etc., etc. I choose to pay attention to what is happening in this case. When and if I "move on" is entirely up to me.

Amen! What's the rush to 'closure' or 'moving on' or 'getting over' for the Alexander family or anyone else? Everyone will eventually adapt their lives to the new reality, but some things you never get over, and no one should be made to feel that is abnormal or obsessive.

 

[RadarLuv]

Yes, it actually is official information that he was MeeBee. See above.

She reveals the ex was prosecuted but did she reveal he was prosecuted by Juan? It doesn't appear so.

 

[ShadyLady]

I'm also waiting for Troy Hayden to confirm or otherwise, that Juror #17 posted on the 'Jodi is Innocent forum' on 11th March 2013, on a thread titled 'Has the Government proved Murder One........

I wonder if facebook chat was used to communicate with anyone close to the case [MDLR]?? Or relation?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Well then I don't know why posts regarding this kept getting deleted by mods if it was made official early this morning..

I think because the information was only posted on personal websites, not on MSM until Troy Hayden made it "official'....

 

[Mindmatters]

Her husband was said to have put her information out there on Facebook himself yesterday, along with a solicitation for paid interviews.

BBM--Seriously?!?, well IF this is found to be true, she will further incite the public's ire and find herself the subject of even more intense scrutiny. You know, there were 11 jurors yesterday that revealed some very suspect things about her as a juror, and media is finding even more questionable things about her as well, so if she were smart she would take stock of what could be shaping up to be a rather serious situation and stop engaging through social media.

 

[RadarLuv]

lying by omission.

Morally, I won't ask what she's guilty of, but legally, given the confirmation that Juan prosecuted her first husband in 2000, is that perjury?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

[/COLOR]


Keep diggin' Troy. I'll furnish new shovels and a lot of cold beer if it will help.

He may be getting a lot more information than we are even getting.

I do think they are going to dig deep into #17 background.

When I was a potential juror we were always asked if we knew anyone on the witness list/defendant or the attorneys on the case, and if so, we had to give the details.

Surely all of these jurors were asked that same question, right? It would be interesting to know what #17 put down or verbally said when asked.

If Juan prosecuted her ex-husband that is a major conflict of interest that could very well cause biases against the Prosecutor. She should have honorably recused herself from sitting on the case.

I know the verdict or non-verdict will stand but I have a feeling the media is going to expose the truth about this stealth juror.

Was all of this a chance to get back at Juan? The more that comes out about her ...........I don't doubt it in the least.

IMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

conviction. Juan as prosecutor was never mentioned. I have to believe BK would have noted it if it was disclosed, as, to a lawyer especially, the fact that a prospective juror had a family member incarcerated by the prosecutor in the present case, would be pretty darn noteworthy.

BK saying juror was asked during voir dire if her ex-husband’s case would affect her in any way–does she harbor resentment against law enforcement . She said no

But it's not clear if BK saying the fact that Juan prosecuted him was disclosed

 

[Myvice]

lying by omission.

She and Geffner should see eye to eye.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

BBM--Seriously?!?, well IF this is found to be true, she will further incite the public's ire and find herself the subject of even more intense scrutiny. You know, there were 11 jurors yesterday that revealed some very suspect things about her as a juror, and media is finding even more questionable things about her as well, so if she were smart she would take stock of what could be shaping up to be a rather serious situation and stop engaging through social media.

I agree with what you are saying, but I am not going to hold my breath that it will occur with this particular individual. Just a gut feeling.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Think of those 11 jurors yesterday, and the emotions they felt in their audio interview afterwards..............

They felt she had an "agenda"

Can you imagine how they are feeling today, now learning about this about Juror #17?

After all they went through for 5 months, as they said...family, job, etc sacrifices, etc.............it was doomed to fail the whole time, if she was one of the sitting 12 jurors.

Wow.

 

[elementary]

Here is what I am sure of related to the jurors desire for privacy--during the Juror Presser yesterday they (all but Juror 17) indicated emphatically that they DID NOT want their identities released period and would participate in the Presser under the condition that only audio could be used.

I do not think for one minute that the website that released their very private information had any other intention than to punish these jurors for their overwhelming vote to sentence JA to death. Hence, I think it absolutely imperative that MCSO investigate and charge the person/persons who provided this information because if it is true that only the Court, JM, DT, MDLR and JA had this information, this is a very serious problem that warrants IMMEDIATE investigation and AGGRESSIVE prosecution.

As for J#17, I don't know what her request was regarding privacy, only thing we can be sure of is that she did not want to be asked questions about her service deliberating as a juror, as she did not participate in the Presser, however, her information should not have been released either but the snag with her is that her husband gave an interview about his wife, and posted, if stories are accurate, on social media.

Yep. And yet here we are focussed on our special cornflake, the drama queen, her protection and her rights. No one remembers the 11 and the vicious violation of their privacy.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Sooooo...anyone want to believe that this Juror #17 didn't: 1) recognize Juan's name or 2) recognize him in person, when she had her ex prosecuted by him in 2000?

IMO...and one which is NOW very strong...she KNEW this info and SAT ON IT...she was NOT honest in her sitting on this jury.

NOW I am more sick than I was yesterday with the 11-1 vote.

This was not an honest jury...there was indeed a stealth juror.

Shame, shame on her.

:seeya:

JMO but I believe that Juror 17 recognized Juan when she first went into the courtroom for jury selection as the prosecutor who prosecuted her husband.

And per the 11 Jurors, she stated in deliberations that the DP was "revenge."

JMO but I think Juror 17 was out for "revenge" against JM considering what we just found out: that she married her husband the day before he was sentenced.

Hayden's link:

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 · 29m29 minutes ago

ALERT: J. Martinez prosecuted ex-husband of holdout juror 17. They married day before his 2000 sentencing. #jodiarias

 

[Madeleine74]

Morally, I won't ask what she's guilty of, but legally, given the confirmation that Juan prosecuted her first husband in 2000, is that perjury?

Only if the state asked that question and she denied it. But, I'm not sure she was under oath during voir dire or not.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Think of those 11 jurors yesterday, and the emotions they felt in their audio interview afterwards..............

They felt she had an "agenda"

Can you imagine how they are feeling today, now learning about this about Juror #17?

After all they went through for 5 months, as they said...family, job, etc sacrifices, etc.............it was doomed to fail the whole time, if she was one of the sitting 12 jurors.

Wow.

They also now know she has an attraction to felons.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From Jen:
Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ · 37s38 seconds ago

Juror 17 may b n some hot water if she wasn't truthful during jury select.
Let the Pro's investigate. Don't threaten her people #jodiarias

 

[LambChop]

Only if the state asked that question and she denied it. But, I'm not sure she was under oath during voir dire or not.

They do ask that question during voir dire. They ask if you know anyone from the prosecutor's office.

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/de...riminal).pdf

 

[Mindmatters]

Sooooo...anyone want to believe that this Juror #17 didn't: 1) recognize Juan's name or 2) recognize him in person, when she had her ex prosecuted by him in 2000?

IMO...and one which is NOW very strong...she KNEW this info and SAT ON IT...she was NOT honest in her sitting on this jury.

Respectfully snipped for focus

Here is the thing, everyone is going to be wondering and seeking answers on this issue--I know I am starting to believe that she willfully and knowingly engaged in some type of juror misconduct at this point.

Seriously, the Court/Judge really needs to release information relevant to what happened either way-transcripts of Voir Dire or juror questionnaires (if legally permitted), to get a handle on this issue before it gets out of control, where investigating becomes intense and/or threats get real IMO.

Does anyone know if it is STANDARD in AZ to seal Voir Dire transcripts and Juror Questionnaires? TIA