Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[sammie]

There's no recourse for it now, though.

It could be argued (perhaps disingenuously) that it was up to the state to properly vett and question the potential jurors. Questions like, "have you or anyone you know or known been arrested, prosecuted or convicted in Maricopa County? Or the State of Arizona?" That might put a red flag on those potential jurors who had prior dealings with the DA's office.

There just have to be methods to pre-tag potential problem jurors in some way at the point of voir dire and vetting.

I read an article about voir dire and vetting jurors, and it talked about how the methods are very antiquated and obsolete. With today's technology, they could easily perform thorough background checks, instead of solely relying on the honor system, and what a potential juror is willing to divulge, or feels is relevant.

 

[josie1986]

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

dontcha know everything in sherrys courtroom is super secret :floorlaugh:

 

[Amster]

:seeya: Just a thought after reading your post here:

BBM: I sure hope that Juan has screenshots, etc., of ALL of Maria's Social Media accounts when she started all her "hoopla" on social media !

Her activities on social media seriously warrants an immediate investigation and subpoenas should be issued.

Her Tweets and FB Posts were the equivalent of what "high school girls" post on SM -- NOT that of a so-called professional.

JMO !

I bet he does! Remember when he brought up her tweeting activities? Can't remember details but didn't Sherry basically tell him to shut up and sit down?

 

[sammie]

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?

Who can prove she knew, or remembered Juan from 15 years ago? Believing it to be true, and having proof, are two completing different things.

 

[Mindmatters]

Monica Lindstrom also did not have anything in her notes about it. Only that she had a family member who'd been incarcerated.

FYI---I don't know if it means anything significant or not but BK did note in her description of the Jurors that number 17 stated that she didn't bear any "ill feelings" toward police associated with her ex-husbands case

 

[Love Never Fails]

View attachment 70671

God bless you Steven. Stay strong.

 

[MeeBee]

MSCO IS investigating. So are some news media folks.

It won't do any good. It won't change outcome, no one will get in trouble, nothing will happen to MDLR or the juror or the people who released the juror's names. Nothing ever happens.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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

And you can bet the farm that they will be revising these questions to be more specific :

- Has anyone in your family, i.e.: spouse, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father, etc. EVER been prosecuted by any prosecutor in the Maricopa County ?

- If so, when were they prosecuted, what were they prosecuted for, who prosecuted them ... etc ...

Y'all get the drift ...

JMO !

 

[MeeBee]

FYI---I don't know if it means anything significant or not but BK did note in her description of the Jurors that number 17 stated that she didn't bear any "ill feelings" toward police associated with her ex-husbands case

Yes we already knew she knew someone who was prosecuted and incarcerated and she said she could set that aside and be fair and all that.

But she never revealed her ties to Juan Martinez.

 

[Tillicum]

MSCO IS investigating. So are some news media folks.

Even MK?

 

[Love Never Fails]

If everything we're hearing is true (and sounds like it is) then, imo, it's all of the above... She lied when she kept silent about having knowledge of any of the key players. Which means she had a motive for wanting to get passed through... And whether she did it on her own, or something much more nefarious happened (no evidence of that), she was planted on that jury and made it all the way to deliberations. And she took a stand. Problem is, she could not articulate what her stand was when her fellow jurors asked her to explain it against the weight of the evidence. I've seen this before, and if a juror refuses to make sense of the evidence, or use it to reach their verdict, then, imo, there must be something else going on to motivate them, and that's not justice. For either side. Getting on a jury for personal reasons, and lying to get there, is a stealth juror, no matter what the circumstances are, to me. And it involves tampering, as well. It may not be the perfect legal definition of it, BUT, these things can change the ENTIRE outcome of a case, for cryin' out loud... And maybe the defense didn't initially have any involvement in her role in this, but, I bet that once she planted herself on that panel they learned of it and directed their defense right at her... And I have a right to be frustrated with this juror, and question the system, because it's the system I have to live by. It's the only one I've got, and it has cracks. In this day and age we are going to see more and more stealth jurors, and we need to be aware of them and not take it lightly when it's suspected. Like the 11 jurors tried to do when it became apparent to them that this juror was unable to even articulate her reasoning weighed against the evidence.

And The Laws of Attraction "coincidence" made my hair stand up...:banghead:

All jmo.

You can all throw rocks and me and I don't care. I do believe there was jury tampering. And it all goes back to MDLR. If they start with her, the truth will come out.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Even MK?

Good thought. MK likely helped MDLR tamper with the jury with juror 17.

 

[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.

Also.....the Alexander family members.....OMG

I can't help but pray for continued strength for them.....as Steven said in some earlier post that someone posted her, Travis "deserved more."

JMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Anyone want to believe the DEFENSE Team didn't know this, at least some point during the trial????

They knew a few minutes after they knew her name. IMO

We all know how KN is when it comes to running down things on social media.

Heck the mitigation expert could have whispered she knew her and to make sure she gets on.


IMO

 

[RadarLuv]

No one would forget the man who incarcerated their husband. Especially JM. Come on people. That's like saying you don't remember where you were when 9/11 happened.

 

[SStarr33]

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.

But her name was out before his interview.

 

[Amster]

She could have properly and truthfully answered "no" as she may not have known or ever met Martinez. Perhaps she didn't even know or remember his name from the ex-husband's case 15 years ago. That wouldn't be a lie (if she doesn't know anyone from the DA's office), but it also doesn't elicit all the info they need to determine prior impact from that office on a potential juror.

No doubt in my mind that she followed the guilt phase of the trial....none. She knew and does know who JM is.

 

[RadarLuv]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq 1m1 minute ago

Whomp there it is. Official investigation into #JodiArias Juror 17 has begun according to @troyhaydenfox10. Will social media tell it all?

 

[Nosey Parker]

No one would forget the man who incarcerated their husband. Especially JM. Come on people. That's like saying you don't remember where you were when 9/11 happened.

I agree, especially as she married him one day before sentencing. You can bet your boots she was in that courtroom during trial, and for sentencing. Juan is not a prosecutor you would forget.

 

[kimi_SFC]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq 1m1 minute ago

Whomp there it is. Official investigation into #JodiArias Juror 17 has begun according to @troyhaydenfox10. Will social media tell it all?

This is music to my ears....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk