Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greater Than said:
Did nobody vet her? Ex husband is currently in prison - prosecuted by Juan.

Current husband has been in and out of prison regularly and has a lengthy record of violent crimes.

Would the PT really select the ex wife of a criminal he prosecuted himself? And would they pick a woman who clearly believes in second chances by the looks of current husband's rap sheet?

I want to walk away from this trial for good, but juror #17 keeps dragging me back in.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the PT nor the DA to know all about each and every juror. What I would like to know DID Juror #17 disclose this info on her questionnaire???
 
Annoyed with the verdict I wanted to hear why the hold out did and then make up my mind whether she deserves my evil eyes and grr or not. Not happy with her at all evils eyes and all grr. I took a break and finally able to sit down and replay what the jurors said after my heartbreak for the Alexanders settled a bit and I'm still boiling over here. Wish there was a way for DP jurors to need to be professional jurors who will use the real evidence and not jurors who would use a movie on lifetime to draw their conclusions.
 
sammie said:
And AZL answered that very question today and said its VERY difficult to do, and easily can get overturned on appeal. Refusing to change your mind is not "not deliberating" it says so in the instructions. Saying she saw the movie (if JSS was told), all JSS would have to do at the point is tell the other jurors to disregard whatever she said in deliberations, and instruct the juror not to consider it. If I could link her post, I would...but she explained why it wasn't as easy as we think to "replace" the juror. The fact that this juror would look at journals, etc can be indications she was deliberating, explaining her position.

Also, from what I read, we aren't certain the jurors told JSS about the movie issue, just that she wasn't deliberating.
Click to expand...

My issue with this would be while the other jurors blow it off this one juror would still be using it to base her decision on.
 
kimi_SFC said:
I know AZLawyer chimed in earlier, before this latest turn of events.

I am seriously upset to hear this. I would be floored to hear J#17 revealed this relationship during Voir Dire. JM wouldn't have allowed her to remain on this jury. :no:

*IF* this is true, this goes beyond "six degree of separation" into something so sinister, I can't even fully verbalize it. :silenced:

We all witnessed the end result today. Juror #4's heartbreaking interview on NG (still working on the full transcript :blushing: ) as well as the post-verdict presser with the jurors and alternates - minus j#17 - left little doubt as to the dynamics playing out during trial and deliberations.

I still need to hear from AZLawyer and our other amazing WS Legal Eagles that something can be done! I truly believe a full investigation - possibly by an outside agency (or three!) may need to be done to uncover what really happened here.

The truth of the matter needs to be revealed, no matter how long it takes. If the process was tainted, it must be addressed. I realize IANAL, but this feels like a travesty of justice.

And it's not because I didn't like the verdict. It's because the foundation upon which the entire process is supposed to work was inherently broken. It's not supposed to happen this way.

I hope I am making sense.

May the light of day bring renewed hope that truth and justice will not be defeated. This can't be over yet, it just can't. :please:

:moo:
:twocents:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree with everything you expressed. And "hi" from an hour south in Santa Cruz! :seeya:
 
Does anyone know where I can find the link for the Juror Presser today, I would like to listen to it again. TIA
 
Scott had 2 jurors replaced during deliberations, and one of them was the foreman.

IIRC, juror #7 was booted for making searches on the internet.

Juror #5, the original foreman, asked to be removed from jury duty after he was replaced as foreman by #6.
 
RadarLuv said:
Sorry Ransom, I don't see it posted anywhere. I've googled too. Anyone? Can you provide a link?
Click to expand...

Are you looking for the transcript or video? If video, I don't think it's been released yet.
 
OtterPops said:
This reads like an old John Grisham paperback. Hard to believe it's real... if it weren't so sadly real.
Click to expand...

He wrote the Stealth Juror. Think I saw the movie of that one.
 
Dum-Dum Sucker said:
Scott had 2 jurors replaced during deliberations, and one of them was the foreman.

IIRC, juror #7 was booted for making searches on the internet.

Juror #5, the original foreman, asked to be removed from jury duty after he was replaced as foreman by #6.
Click to expand...

I didn't remember that there were 2....wasn't one replaced by Strawberry Shortcake? ( have no idea why I remember that lol )
 
GigiG said:
Fear is a poor motivator; it implies operating from an inferior position.
Click to expand...

I'm not EXCUSING what she did, I think she mismanaged this trial, ESPECIALLY this PENALTY PHASE.... I was simply saying I see no reason her decision will carry over to the sentence for CMJA. I am convinced she will choose LWOP, despite some of her questionable decisions during the trial.
 
daisydomino said:
The jury was supposed to consider her sentence. That's exactly what they were supposed to consider. Not illegal. The juror instructions say that they shouldn't consider the financial cost of penalty, but otherwise this was the sentencing phase.

The movie is definitely a problem, though.
"The evidence you shall consider consists of the testimony and exhibits the court admitted in evidence during all of the three phases of this trial."
Click to expand...
Just catching up and this may have been discussed, from my take listening to the jury interview. She did not bring evidence regarding the movie, only her impression from the movie was that Jodi was a monster and then seeing her in court and listening to the evidence she changed her mind and decided that Jodi was mentally ill and was not able to deal with her relationship with Travis. In no way am I defending this Juror.

My heart goes out to Travis's family and friends. I pray that they will be able to move on.
 
I've been out all day and I'm just getting online again now, I just went onto Twitter and notice the juror #17's identity is all over it .. horrified. Whatever people think of her they really ought to think about the consequences for her, there are a lot of crazy people in this world who need no excuse to lash out. I hope she is safe and remains that way. Sad :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 484 (members: 143, guests: 341)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
341
Total visitors
484
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,185
Messages
18,250,504
Members
234,552
Latest member
IXGVNZ
Back
Top