Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[sammie]

Are we allowed to mention something that was on the jurors Twitter account last week before she took it down?

I posted a twitter rumor earlier, and took my cue from a mod earlier who said that once the MSM had reported this juror was under investigation, the topic would be fair discussion.

 

[Sweet Fox]

I'm still having a really hard time understanding how this juror having a connection to Juan, allegedly being involved to some extent with players in the case, seeing the movie/potential news coverage and seemingly not interested in deliberating - how can all that not affect the outcome of the trial?? In other words, all those things make the verdict bogus. So how is it possible that the verdict will stand if reached with a liar in the jury box? Only if it hurt the DEFENSE??? Wth is up with that??
Where oh where is AZLawyer???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm having a hard time with this too. It's so very unfair, there should be some type of legal recourse. I know they can't redo the penalty phase or reverse the mistrial but if JA files an appeal and it’s successful, there would be a re-trial of the Criminal phase followed by a new Penalty phase. Of course that isn't going to happen and I would hate for the family to go through all this again.

If it's proven #17 was a stealth juror, and I believe she is, could she be prosecuted? Could the family then file a civil suit against her?

 

[floridagld]

Yes proving she lied will be hard to prove if she says what you said. IMO I find it very hard to believe she didn't know that Juan Martinez prosecuted her ex husband. That's something you remember.

I agree..especially (if I am reading correctly) he was sentenced to two years of prison the day AFTER they were married..iow he went to prison during their honeymoon! I suspected she'd be pretty po'd and would remember! Still catching up. I am way behind you all.

 

[Sweet Fox]

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.

No rocks from me - just kudos.

 

[I'mjazzed]

:seeya: Considering these recent developments, I hope an "exception" can be allowed so that we can find out more info about what was going on

lease:

She should have NEVER been tweeting while sitting on a jury !

:gaah:

I would like to know as well.

 

[daisydomino]

Thats my understanding too after listening to Juror #4 on an interview.

I think JSS errored right at that point.
She should have called each juror individually to speak with each one of them at that point. She owed it to this case to further investigate what they were saying.

Didnt something happen in the 1st trial where she talked with the jurors OR am I imaging that?

Anyway, another nice WS poster said when they were on a case where something like this happened, the judge called each one in to get their story. And then the judge replaced the juror with an alternate and they had to start over with deliberations.

Its really too bad that JSS did not think those notes were important enough to investigate further. Notes are a sign that something is amiss. She owed it to this case to get more information. See what they were all talking about.

It sounds to me that JSS may have misunderstood how serious the situation was.
It sounds like a real judgement error to me. This case was way too important and costly to assume anything when you start getting notes from jurors.

I would like to hear more juror interviews and find out more about what happened, but I bet nobody is going to risk talking to the public until the angry, threatening people either cool off or get arrested.

Ideally, as long as I'm making wishes, I would have liked for the judge to have read these letters in open court and given the jurors advice in front of the media. *sigh* Maybe even cameras, live streaming.

 

[ShadyLady]

Joey Jackson Esq. ‏@JoeyJacksonEsq 2m2 minutes ago

“@Sojka78: @JoeyJacksonEsq can't #Juror17 get in trouble because her ex husband was prosecuted by #JuanMartinez #HLN @HLNTV”YES, if true!

 

[Mindmatters]

Does BK mention what abuse the juror is referring to? We heard the video of the jurors and I don't remember any one of them describing them being abusive. They tried to ask her to explain and she refused. It sounds as if most of them were frustrated with her because she refused to deliberate. But I don't recall any of the 11 claiming another juror was abusive to J17. The judge told them to go back and deliberate and come to a unanimous decision. That clearly was an instruction from the judge to J17.

Lambchop, in BK's "description of the jurors" she cites that juror#17 said she was exposed to DV when younger between her drunken Uncle and his significant other, she also reported being a direct victim of abuse for 11 years at the hands of her ex-husband (with him beginning at age 16) in that she was pych/verbally abused (telling her she was worthless without him, trying to isolate her) and recounted one episode where her ex threw her into a room when she confronted him for not taking proper care of the children and being "high".

In BK's most recent post citing her belief that J17's DV history contributed to her vote is simply her supposition--she does not cite anything specific as to her reasoning.

And I am with you, it seems that the fact that 11 other jurors have stated, and had formally requested that the Judge assist/help them find a remedy, that the problem with J17 was possible misconduct and deception seems to have fallen on deaf ears

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I posted a twitter rumor earlier, and took my cue from a mod earlier who said that once the MSM had reported this juror was under investigation, the topic would be fair discussion.

OK .. well it's probably safe to say it then .. the Juror's profile pic from her now deleted Twitter account (she took it down yesterday) was a little quote that said 'Monday you *advertiser censored*' ..

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Lamby ?

Any decision yet as to Mrs G Norris posting this important info about #17 ?

Thanks !

 

[MissHaley]

In Connecticut they stand in front of the group and go over the questions so there is no mistake about whether or not you have had contact with their office and staff. And if you are not sure you are suppose to write it down so they can review it. That was my experience.

Well, they may have asked that in the juror questionnaire or face to face, BUT, what did she answer?
Did she say that that she knew Juan because he prosecuted her ex? If no, she was not truthful.
If she revealed it, then they usually ask, "would that affect your serving on this jury without bias?" If she said it wouldn't effect her, then, I guess they just trusted her answer!
She revealed that she had DV in her past, so they knew & questioned that. But, what did she answer?
Again, if she said it wouldn't affect her as a juror, and it seems now, that it did-well, she was not truthful.
I too, am shocked the state would let it go at that without further checks! We know for a fact the DT researched & followed social media, even trial watchers & bloggers!

 

[ShadyLady]

OK .. well it's probably safe to say it then .. the Juror's profile pic from her now deleted Twitter account (she took it down yesterday) was a little quote that said 'Monday you *advertiser censored*' ..

Whoa!!!

I thought I already knew what you were talking about, but not this.

All I can say is: Back at you B#17.

So, I think #17 needs to spend some jail time.

 

[josie1986]

Joey Jackson Esq. ‏@JoeyJacksonEsq 2m2 minutes ago

“@Sojka78: @JoeyJacksonEsq can't #Juror17 get in trouble because her ex husband was prosecuted by #JuanMartinez #HLN @HLNTV”YES, if true!

good.

i searched the court records this morning so its 100% true.

 

[cricket49]

Thanks Mrs. G Norris

If they are investigating, they will be pulling all the records. You can delete and you can run but you can't hide!!

:skip:

 

[jojo87]

I don't understand. If it took the internet 10 minutes to find this stuff out about juror 17 how did the prosecution team miss it for 5 months? Not knocking them I mean I fully support them but it didn't take much digging to find out, change of name or 15 years ago dont they look into this. And if not why not? Surely they knew this already. If they didn't they should have and again not bashing the prosecution just wondering how this was missed.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Whoa!!!

I thought I already knew what you were talking about, but not this.

All I can say is: Back at you B#17.

So, I think #17 needs to spend some jail time.

Oh dear - I'm missing the point of that quote. Enlighten me?

 

[LambChop]

Inviting outside contact or alluding to "private" additional information:

“Inviting” is termed as a post where you invite other members to contact you to find out more information, rather than post it in the forum. This is not allowed and any posts with emails or invitations to contact for more information will either be edited or deleted entirely. This includes use of the Private Message system via comments such as “Check your PMs” or “PM me” posted in discussion threads. Think about it - it's like whispering into someone's ear while you are at a table full of other people. If you want to have a private conversation just have it, don't announce it. Additionally, please don't drop hints or post on the board that you know something or are privy to inside information but you won't or can't post it.
If you can't post it, don't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

 

[RadarLuv]

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/03/jodi-arias-just-when-you-thought-it-was.html?spref=tw

 

[Ruby]

deleted my post - took to long to post.
Info irrelevant :blushing:

:seeya:

 

[okiedokietoo]

quick note:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/23/judge-postpones-death-penalty-trial-convicted-killer-gary-lee-sampson/7zXtgKo1aMpFcIwHBDD8xJ/story.html

Judge postpones death penalty trial of convicted killer
Decision angers families of Sampson victims
By Milton J. Valencia GLOBE STAFF DECEMBER 23, 2014

Sampson, now 55, pleaded guilty in 2003 to the carjacking killings of Rizzo, from Kingston; Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton; and Robert Whitney, 58, of Concord, N.H. Sampson was a transient, and his victims had picked him up while he was hitchhiking. A jury sentenced Sampson to death.
But Wolf vacated the decision in 2011 after finding that one of the jurors lied during the screening process; a federal appeals court upheld the decision.
Federal prosecutors moved for a quick retrial.....

Don't want TA's family to go through anymore pain but I want to know if it applies to above, is there a rule, statute that is same that applies to Retrials for Sentencing?