Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[elementary]

Sheriff Joe is trying to shut down Jodi's twitter account but he is hitting road blocks. I say just print them off and include
them in the report to Judge Sherry before sentencing. The tweets from the past few days show how evil she is.

So much for remorse.

 

[josie1986]

I don't think that she was planted, but I wonder if she was groomed. JMO

well they were apparantly consulting with jury foreman from the last trial...

 

[ZsaZsa]

I'm wondering what JA and J17 believe justice to be??? What do they think justice should be for premeditated brutal murder?

JA' s website says "I was abused, and I fought back"...... she is a sociopath - justice is for suckers, not her!

 

[Mindmatters]

Have we read this yet? From 2006 regarding jury selection and background checks etc. Very interesting.
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/rogue_jurors

Enough said!!!!

Thanks VERY much for that article, Jojo, it was a great read.

 

[elementary]

TA: “ Can’t you remember when you choose to take away my human rights, can’t all the things I’ve done to help you stop you (taking) away what belongs to me. How can you be such an ingrate. How many times can someone pay some one for service by stabbing them in the back. How do you live. How does a heart beat in such a corrupted carcass.

another chilling exert from their exchange

Too 'prejudicial' in court?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

People seem to be missing the big point. This juror DELIBERATELY withheld information about Juan prosecuting her ex-husband. She needed to get on that jury, that was her mission. By divulging the truth and telling the details, she would have eliminated her chance to sit on the jury. She probably answered a few questions truthfully that she didn't think would hurt her, and withheld everything that might.

We all know that Nancy Grace and HLN covered the first Jodi trial ad nauseum. Those were two of the "likes" she had on her Facebook page. There is no way this juror was unfamiliar and uninformed about the Jodi Arias trial, thus she blatantly lied in order to get on the jury. She probably followed it as closely as anybody in here, and I'll bet she surfed the internet nightly and watched TV reports on a regular basis. This would have gone against the judges admonition every single day. EVERY DAY. Her mission was to get on that jury, and she did.

Yes I agree with you .. This is why there has to be a better system in place other than taking a jurors 'word for it' during selection that they're there with a pure heart .. I don't think people expect perfection, but her connection to Juan with obvious possible bias against him, as well as other obvious red flags were easily discoverable by randoms on Twitter once her name was known, and to think the court or prosecution office couldn't have managed that just really boggles the mind.

 

[FelicityLemon]

IMO, a jurors job is to consider all the evidence and render a decision. Listening to the other jurors is a requirement for deliberation, but not speaking. Juror #17 listened, saw the evidence and decided.

I think we all agree that you're correct about considering all the evidence to reach a decision! She seemingly based her opinion on false evidence - specifically one thing that got another potential juror rejected: she admitted to watching the fictional movie on Lifetime about Arias and compared Arias to the characterization. She was also basing her decision on Arias' journals which were proved in court to be extraordinarily self-serving lies and fantasy.

 

[cady]

I'm wondering what JA and J17 believe justice to be??? What do they think justice should be for premeditated brutal murder?

The concept of "justice" means many things to many people. There is not one answer. Legal opinions serve as guides, but there are lots of opinions. So, it is hopefully a rational judgment that an individual makes. JMO

 

[MissHaley]

this mitigation specialist clearly over stepped her role and maybe it is allowed but highly unprofessional...so much about this trial was unprofessional

Do you remember how most people were shocked to see how MLDR came dressed for the courtroom? That was one of the 1st things people commented on when we started watching. Then we noticed how she was on her phone constantly thru the proceedings. Unprofessional from day one. And now we know so much more about her & how close she was with the support site.

 

[~Lyric~]

Now Kiefer is now taking a few for the team:

First :
Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 16m16 minutes ago
Re holdout juror: AZ Rules of Criminal Procedure 24.1(d) say you cannot question how a juror arrived at an assenting or dissenting verdict.

After a few replies re: misconduct :
Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 12m12 minutes ago
@CourtPencil If they can prove it, yes. The woman disclosed his record in voir dire. The lawyers, with due diligence, could vet that info.

After replies about her obligation to inform, etc. :
Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 15m15 minutes ago
Re holdout juror: Judges I spoke to said there's no turning back and the only way to get a new trial would be to overturn the conviction.

BBM: we certainly don't want that to happen.

 

[elementary]

Here are some MSM links with info regarding Juror #17:


From AZ Central:

We do know, according longtime court reporter Beth Karas, the juror is a Hispanic woman in her 20s. She saw domestic violence growing up, she was in an abusive relationship with her ex-husband. She told the court she sought counseling for her two daughters.

12 News has discovered court records revealing her current husband is a convicted felon.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ews-jodi-arias-juror-jury-death-row/24482501/


Jurors said the holdout kept using the word "revenge" in relation to the death penalty. They asked if there was a circumstance in which she felt like she could agree to sentence someone to death; she was unable to provide such a scenario, they said.

Jurors said the holdout had told them she had watched at least parts of a made-for-TV-movie about the case; they said they believe she had formulated an opinion before deliberations began.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/03/05/jodi-arias-jury-holdout-failed/24445427/


The jurors said they sensed a potential bias coming from the holdout juror and at one point they asked for an alternative juror:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...2-news-arias-jurors-holdout-verdict/24459779/


From KPHO

CBS 5 News spoke with the husband of the 12th juror, the one holdout against the death penalty for Jodi Arias.

The husband of the juror who wanted life in prison for Arias asked that his identity not be released since he says his family is already receiving threats.

Argos: Did she tell you what the feeling was like inside of that jury room?
Husband: Yeah, she said she felt like she was being assaulted by all the other jurors ... trying to get her to go the other way. She held strong to her beliefs and I'm proud of her for that.

http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/jurors-husband-she-felt-like-she-was-being-assaulted

So hubby goes on air expecting anonymity??? His family was receiving putative death threats. Yet he wanted to be anonymous in public in front of millions. Confusion ricochets off the walls of my brain.

 

[Scarlet2]

While Willmott is correct, I'm so sad that ethics and integrity mean nothing to so many. Sure could have saved a lot of valuable time raising my daughter.

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 46s47 seconds ago
#jodiarias atty Jennifer Willmott, "We all knew (#Juror17's) 1st husband had a past. If Juan didn't check it out, that's his fault."

 

[MaLou]

The concept of "justice" means many things to many people. There is not one answer. Legal opinions serve as guides, but there are lots of opinions. So, it is hopefully a rational judgment that an individual makes. JMO

I asked because they both stated that the DP would be revenge, not justice.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Oops. I did it again. Wrong thread.

 

[cady]

While Willmott is correct, I'm so sad that ethics and integrity mean nothing to so many. Sure could have saved a lot of valuable time raising my daughter.

Scarlet! They matter! You did not waste your time! JMO

 

[Shadowboy]

Just jumping off your post.

I like the fact that the jury hung. This snatches away the limelight from Jodi. It is not a win for KN and WM. Despite what he said, they lost. The majority of the jury did not buy anything they were selling. Eleven thought her crime demanded a death sentence, yet she does not get to be the poor victim for the next three decades. Travis was vindicated. The Alexander's will soon be free from the milestone around their neck that is JA. Jaun was vindicated. Demarte was vindicated.

What I cannot sit by and ignore is the fishy information coming out about 17. It causes me to be highly suspicious that she did not do her duty. That she did not come in unbiased and listen to evidence, consider it, and then come to a conclusion. If she had done that it would have been admirable, even if it was hard to understand given the instructions. To do otherwise cast a shadow on our justice system. That should not be ignored. If proven, it should not go unanswered.

There are too many coincidences to gloss over without looking closer. And I don't mean looked at by people on twitter. Do we not want trials to be fair to all parties, both victims and defendants? If one side stacks the deck, that isn't fair. It isn't justice. It isn't honorable.

My question is, why wouldn't anyone living under this same system want any and all appearances of unfairness or misconduct laid to rest by examining them? Exactly how many "coincidences" need to come to light before we are supposed to take notice and give a care? Or are we not supposed care no matter the amount so long as it was this juror? This case? So long as it benefited the defendant, then we shouldn't care if a juror possibly made a mockery of a costly murder trial? Just let it slide? No. Obviously, if Jodi had been given the death penalty and then we all found out that one of the jurors had had all the same social media anomalies, and a connection to KN, for arguments sake perhaps we can imagine that he defended a pedophile who was accused of molesting one of their kids and successfully got him/her off, no one would be comfortable with that. NO ONE . And yes, I am assuming those accounts were theirs' because I do not believe that a husband and a wife of the same name, in the same area, just decided to delete their accounts yesterday. That takes too big of a leap in logic for my liking.

Nothing is going to change for JA. She'll be sentenced by JSS, That does not mean we should all just look the other way.

BBM. And yes, we should care about our judicial process. Whether J-17 did her duty or whether she walked in with a preconceived verdict really doesn't matter now. What does matter (IMO) is: Did she lie to get on the jury?

I know no amount of investigation will prove she lied. But IMO, it's entirely fair that to look at what she stated, under oath, and scrutinize it. IMO, doing so will not have a chilling effect on future jurors; but it might have a "chilling effect" on any prospective jurors who are not completely truthful and transparent during jury selection. All my opinion, of course!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I would love to see nick and the browns on jerry springer. I would pay top dollar for that. Jmo

[emoji16] wrong thread? Thanks for the random thought bubble though .. I'd love to see that too!!

 

[Ruby]

As much as I want our justice system to stay as honest as it can be - humans make the rules and break the rules.

I really don't think that this Juror 17 will be held in contempt or what legal term is used for her non deliberation.
She gave the reason of mental illness, and that was not used by the defense until this portion of the trial.

Now for the other issues, her ex-husband, well, it's her ex. She is no longer (that I know of) with him, so she is currently not connected to him.

Her current husband and internet use, it's her husband, not her.

Her own internet use, well, that needs to be looked at - jury was asked (iirc everyday) if they had read/knowledge of the news etc., so that would disqualify her.

If found out she lied, it would be a mistrial - which it already has been declared a mistrial. The outcome would not change, it goes to the judge for sentencing.
Unless it would because of the how it was a mistrial. :dunno: I don't know, need lawyer input.

:tomatolease no tomatoes - or snowballs :snowball:- just pointing out some things I noticed.

 

[LinTX]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 47m47 minutes ago
@blefuscu74 agree. we are working on it. county atty is working on it, mcso working on leaked jury info. big mess.

I wasn't sure exactly who was involved, but this is seriously being looked into it seems

 

[Wysteria]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 46s47 seconds ago
#jodiarias atty Jennifer Willmott, "We all knew (#Juror17's) 1st husband had a past. If Juan didn't check it out, that's his fault."

Keep on talking Willmott.
Did you not learn one thing from the interview with the 11? They did not like it when you and your client stared at them and smiled. They did not like when you literally beat a dead horse.
Please share more Willmott all the better for this investigation.