Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[concernedmother]

wait..what? could this happen due to juror bias/tampering?

I think Jodi's trial is a done deal. Guess they could prosecute the juror though.jmo

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Aside from the two words, "hung jury," I haven't posted a thing. I think I was in shock since then. I'd woken up yesterday at 2 AM with a bad feeling. By the time the non-verdict was announced, I was exhausted. I took to my couch and watched HLN until I fell asleep during most of the coverage.

I only wanted one thing, a RIGHTEOUS verdict, a verdict that represented 12 people working through the testimony and their notes. This was not what I wanted. Juror #17 made that happen. I would have respected her tenacity in holding out for what she believed and could show, and possibly convince others. Unfortunately, this person was not really a part of the jury. She couldn't support her position. Whether she was a stealth juror, a juror with an ax to grind with the legal system, or just plain incapable of rational thought, she took away the dignity.

Hope wrote the best post about how LWOP will work for Jodi. She may think she's prearranged her welcome to Perryville, but the fact is, she doesn't know everyone there. She may have her little gang of friends, but there will be others who aren't. She will try the same tricks, and some new ones, to manipulate the system there. She's been planning it for well over a year. However, Perryville has also been planning for her as well. She will be under terrific scrutiny from Day 1. The staff has been warned to steer clear of her manipulations. If she breaks the tiniest of rules, there will be serious repercussions.

You can be sure that the pre-sentencing report will not help her either. Sheriff Joe and his people are preparing their part. They will list her every infraction, great or small. Especially at the beginning, she will be under the microscope. I think that will make her feel good, she's that special.

 

[Nana46]

wait..what? could this happen due to juror bias/tampering?

I dunno but in this case nothing at all would surprise me.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

OK I just had a flashback to something someone said to me when I was young .. this guy was from a family that had been involved in organised crime for generations. He said if he ever got on a jury he'd give the prisoner a wink to let him know this was his lucky day as it'd be 'not guilty' today etc. So what I'm thinking is this .. if someone has grown up around people outside the law they become culturally indoctrinated to it, so would almost on principal go against the state no matter what and would not need to have a personal connection to the case.

I really think when it comes to Juror 17 the court itself is to blame, she shouldn't have been there.

 

[sammie]

I really hope at this point that this verdict stands....the mere thought of another sentencing hearing and risking another person on a jury who has feelings for the felon just scares me.....let her go on her way and be gone with her murdering self. She is done stick that fork in her.

Not sure how there is any way this verdict won't stand. I'm no lawyer, and maybe AZL can chime in and enlighten us, but yesterday Joey Jackson was asked if this juror was guilty of misconduct, is there anything that can be done about it now. He said no, at this point, juror misconduct is a ONE WAY street. It could only be brought up on appeal if HURT the defense. It helped her in this case...end of story. The state can't appeal. Now the juror facing prosecution for lying under oath to get on the jury is another matter, but we know that would be tough to prove, and wouldn't affect the outcome of this trial.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Attention seeking. Bet she writes a book.

:seeya: Yep ... JMO but I think she will do an interview when she gets the $$$$$ for one.

:gaah:

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

Thank you Rose for this I'm so sick of all these media people always talking about "Jodi" I hate hearing her name. She's nothing but a murderer and that's what she should be called. When will someone talk about Travis. This guy says where the murderer is going is better than where she is at. Well hell where she is is better than where Travis is. When will someone give attention to Travis, how he suffered, how his family is still suffering.

I wish they would also do something that shows what a wonderful person Travis was. Maybe a network like HLN could have a one-hour special about his life. The only time I would want them to mention Jodi's name is when they say that she is the person who is sweating out the rest of her life in prison for butchering a wonderful man who was trying to improve his life and help others improve theirs.

 

[Mindmatters]

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.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Here is the Maricopa County website information on jury names. BBM:

'Your home or mailing address is known only to the court. Only the judge can order the release of jurors' addresses, usually to the lawyers in the case, and only for a good, legal reason. This very rarely happens. At the conclusion of the trial, should you be contacted by the lawyers in a case in which you sat as a juror, remember that you are not obligated to divulge any information concerning the deliberations, the verdict, or your opinions about anything concerning the case unless ordered to do so by the court.'

Gosh, if true that all jury names and info has been released, the guilty party needs to be pursued.

Is this a stretch to think the following could happen:

Mit Specialist is given the names, and probably also sees the questionnaires, because info gleaned could be useful in targeting certain "mitigator" categories?
Then, a certain mitigator also gets involved in delving into social media and other public info of chosen jurors...can a "mitigator" sometimes delve into playing the role of a jury consultant, at times?
And/or maybe a certain defendant, in the timeframe of defending oneself, is also privy to that info...and passes it on to others who are willing to do some digging (oh, and has a PI, right?)

Now, one would hope, if those circumstances are possible, that the info is always handled ethically and respectfully, of course?

 

[strawberry]

Some recent Tweets:

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 · 56m56 minutes ago

Developing: MCSO looking into websites releasing personal information of #JodiArias jurors.


Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 · 55m55 minutes ago

MCSO providing security for #JodiArias #Juror17. Though at this point "she has received no credible threats."


William Pitts retweeted
12 News ‏@12News · 36m36 minutes ago

.@william_pitts: I've been sitting in that courtroom for almost five months.
http://azc.cc/1G49IVb #JodiArias

I was just about to post the same. There's also this:

Troy Hayden @troyhaydenfox10 · 58m 58 minutes ago
Developing: MCSO looking into websites releasing personal information of #JodiArias jurors.

and

@xxxxxx
@troyhaydenfox10 Are u looking into Maria's daughter being friends with #Juror17 husband on FB? #jodiarias

@troyhaydenfox10
@tammyharper02 looking into many things

 

[cricket49]

I am looking forward to the Hughes book when it is published. So much information was blocked from the trial
and the public.

Maybe because I came from a family who could be brutally honest at times (even hurtful) I think the Hughes were good
friends to Travis. I would much rather a friend or family tell me the truth than to lie and talk behind my back. If only
their stern words had gotten through to Travis in time.........

 

[sammie]

Some recent Tweets:

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 · 56m56 minutes ago

Developing: MCSO looking into websites releasing personal information of #JodiArias jurors.


Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 · 55m55 minutes ago

MCSO providing security for #JodiArias #Juror17. Though at this point "she has received no credible threats."


William Pitts retweeted
12 News ‏@12News · 36m36 minutes ago

.@william_pitts: I've been sitting in that courtroom for almost five months.
http://azc.cc/1G49IVb #JodiArias

Good, I hope MSCO looks into the JAII site which published all but one of the jurors' names.

 

[concernedmother]

It is looking like someone from the DT or JA family got to this juror. I really hope this thing is investigated thoroughly.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

You know what .. if it was MDLR who gave the JAII site the names of the jurors, or if she is as friendly there as people say, her days as a mitigation person could be over.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I don't know how much can be investigated regarding this site since I read years ago the administrator was in another country.
Just like most spammers and hackers when you reside in another country it is hard to investigate or prosecute.

But nobody should be posting private personal information on ANY of the 12 jurors. I don't care which side you are on!

They may not be able to touch him as an individual, but the site can be closed down.

 

[steelman]

:seeya: Yep ... JMO but I think she will do an interview when she gets the $$$$$ for one.

:gaah:

If my suspicions are accurate, she can add the book proceeds to the already large sum of $$$$ she received due to this trial.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Good, I hope MSCO looks into the JAII site which published all but one of the jurors' names.

100% sure they are, and equally sure they have the screenshot

 

[bettybaby00]

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

Morning all :seeya:

I see lots of controversy is coming out!!!!

My 2 cents
*no system is perfect. If one problematic issue is addressed, it often creates a new issue
*majority rules for sentencing...should rely on an 8/4 or better split IMO
*im not overly familiar with jury selection process, but certain things should be automatic disqualification, #17 had issues that should have automatically disqualified her instead of relying on one side or the other "striking" the juror
*#17 should have immediately been disqualified when issue was brought up to JSS. That she wanted to "review" JAs journals should not have been considered a form of "deliberation. That falls woefully short of full participation. Plus she watched "bits" of the movie FGS. And although that's not a problem in and of itself, the fact that she certainly had a bias coming in based b/c of it is a problem.
*people with her previous history with "the courts" should be immediate disqualification.

Jurors are kicked off for the most insignificant of reasons. Remember last time,the one juror was dismissed b/c he got a DUI????? JSS should have kicked her off, as she had at least 3 reasons that were more than likely appeal proof. I strongly believe if JSS made the decision to boot her it would have held up. It wasn't just one issue, it was several.

Part of me believes the DP should be abolished. I'm not against it, I just feel that there's so much wrong with the process (endless appeals, it doesn't seem to deter crime, etc., etc.) that it doesn't seem worth all the effort and conflict. Perhaps revamping sentencing is a better way to go. For example, only in the rarest of cirmcumstances should a killer get less than life in prison.

Whew....more than 2 cents worth!!!!

 

[sammie]

Is this a stretch to think the following could happen:

Mit Specialist is given the names, and probably also sees the questionnaires, because info gleaned could be useful in targeting certain "mitigator" categories?
Then, a certain mitigator also gets involved in delving into social media and other public info of chosen jurors...can a "mitigator" sometimes delve into playing the role of a jury consultant, at times?
And/or maybe a certain defendant, in the timeframe of defending oneself, is also privy to that info...and passes it on to others who are willing to do some digging (oh, and has a PI, right?)

Now, one would hope, if those circumstances are possible, that the info is always handled ethically and respectfully, of course?

Im trying to understand the law, as it relates to personal information on jurors That quote says addresses, nothing about names. Once the jury has been excused, is it illegal to print the jurors' names on websites?

 

[Nosey Parker]

:seeya: Yep ... JMO but I think she will do an interview when she gets the $$$$$ for one.

:gaah:

and then ask to go into the Witness Protection Programme?