Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[concernedmother]

I think the most important think about all of this is that this juror didn't get called for jury duty for the trial. Jodi would have walked free. jmo

 

[Jmoose]

IMO, that is exactly what #17 was. She was a rogue juror and knew she held the power to make or break the verdict. She knew that JA deserved death and she knew the other jurors knew it too. She may have tried to pretend she didn't see the evidence for death but she did and all she did was ignore it.

Does that even make logical sense? 1 held all the power and the majority of 11 people were helpless and had no power at all even though there were 11 of them. Reprehensible.

Its alarming to read that it happens more often than we think it does.

And didn't have to do anything in the deliberation room; she didn't have to persuade anyone to her way of thinking, since all you need is one holdout, wheareas the other 11 had to try and persuade her. And she wants to make some money off the experience now, too. This is why an investigation into this situation, in my opinion, has to take place-otherwise, I can see this happening over and over again.

 

[Boytwnmom]

asked the court and they were the ones who said that only JSS, her two clerks/assistants, the court reporter and the attorneys had the list of jurors. Also noted was the list on the JA site has their full names, first, last middle, and that is exactly how they were on the court maintained list so it definitely seems to have come directly from that. It was all on a prior post I am way too lazy to go find. But that was the gist of it. So, you look at who had the motive to divulge - JSS? court reporter? or someone else???? Lacks the element of mystery IMO.




-

Laughing so hard at boynington.

 

[La-Cooks]

Are you crucifying them?

Yes, she is!!!

 

[RickshawFan]

I like to keep up with what's being written in various articles, and from reading the comments many people are aware of the questionable #17's possible bias.

Authorities provide security for holdout juror in Arias case
http://news.yahoo.com/taxpayers-shell-nearly-3-million-jodi-arias-trials-073621622.html

"No threats had been reported against any of the 12 jurors, authorities said. However, the lone holdout on the death penalty had requested the security after her name was posted on social media."

"Prosecutors also said they're examining whether the holdout disclosed that her husband had been prosecuted by the same county attorney who headed the case against Arias."

BBM

I thought it was Juror #17's husband who identified her on social media? Her name was left off the list of jurors on the JA site?

 

[wendiesan]

N
I don't think she is being crucified,but criticized. It appears she may not have been honest, had an agenda and refused to deliberate which was her job as a juror. JMO

From the notes JSS ignored, Juror #17's refusal to deliberate is fact. If she could not tell any of the other jurors one example of someone who would qualify for the death penalty, she should have told JSS that she had a change of heart, and was no longer able to serve on a death qualified jury. Since she may not have understood everything asked of her in the beginning (as opposed to simply lying so she had a strong chance of serving on the jury), I'm putting more blame on JSS for not responding to the needs of all the other jurors.

 

[iforget]

I have a lot of catching up to do here today. However, I know from serving jury duty, the first question asked of me and all the potential jurors was "Do you know anyone involved in this case including the Defense or Prosecutors office".
Just wonder when the drama will end..

 

[Hatfield]

:seeya: Thank You, I am so behind and trying to catch up !

I tell ya, I would be pizzzzzzzzzed if I were a juror and my name was released on that JAII site by those :crazy: :nuts:

:scared::scared::scared:

Me too. It was apparantly legal for the defense to obtain the information but I am almost certain it was illegal for them to share it with anyone other than themselves.

 

[swedie]

Juror 17's husband is friends with R DLR, M DLR who happens to be the mitigating specialist in the Jodi Arias defense team and R DLR are sisters. I just heard this, anyone else hear this? Sickening and disgusting.
MOO.

 

[Hatfield]

I thought it was Juror #17's husband who identified her on social media? Her name was left off the list of jurors on the JA site?

What the bolded is saying is the prosecuters office is examining whether the juror disclosed during jury selection about knowing that her ex was prosecuted by the same attorney prosecuting this case. Which could have easily disqualified her as a juror up front.

 

[sammie]

asked the court and they were the ones who said that only JSS, her two clerks/assistants, the court reporter and the attorneys had the list of jurors. Also noted was the list on the JA site has their full names, first, last middle, and that is exactly how they were on the court maintained list so it definitely seems to have come directly from that. It was all on a prior post I am way too lazy to go find. But that was the gist of it. So, you look at who had the motive to divulge - JSS? court reporter? or someone else???? Lacks the element of mystery IMO.




-

As I stated earlier this evening, it doesn't take an Einstein level IQ to connect these dots!

 

[RickshawFan]

Juror 17's husband is friends with R DLR, M DLR who happens to be the mitigating specialist in the Jodi Arias defense team and R DLR are sisters. I just heard this, anyone else hear this? Sickening and disgusting.
MOO.

I'm sure it will be found that the old adage applies: "Follow the money." MDLR was, in fact, "running" JA's money, per a document I saw today.

 

[Val1]

I'd sure like to know her reasons too, though there is no rule that any juror ever has to talk about their vote or even how they voted. They are allowed to stay totally quiet if they choose.

Didn't the judge order them back to deliberate?

https://www.google.ca/search?q=deliberate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=qXv6VOzGJYfUoATP04D4DA
Deliberate - Merriam-Webster.com
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deliberate
verb de·lib·er·ate \di-ˈli-bə-ˌrāt\. : to think about or discuss something very carefully in order to make a decision.

 

[sammie]

Juror 17's husband is friends with R DLR, M DLR who happens to be the mitigating specialist in the Jodi Arias defense team and R DLR are sisters. I just heard this, anyone else hear this? Sickening and disgusting.
MOO.

I have seen this rumor, but nothing to back it up. With the criminal history, there were documents and public records to corroborate.

I'm skeptical of those rumors because they same thing was said about a member of the Arias family was a FB friend, and it turns out its just a common surname and no relation. MOO

 

[wendiesan]

FWIW. If the description of the other jury members is correct, then Juror #17 has gone against the specific instructions of the Arizona Court system regarding behaviour on a jury.

http://www.azcourts.gov/juryduty/JuryServiceWhattoExpect.aspx#conduct

Integrity of Jurors
In performing their sworn duty, jurors must conduct themselves in such a way that no one can question their integrity. Any judicial officer, whether judge, lawyer, or juror, who acts in such a way as to destroy public confidence in the judicial system becomes unfit to perform his/her duty. Jurors should be watchful of their conduct and commit no act which may arouse the distrust of any individual. They should accept no gifts or favors, no matter how insignificant or trivial, either directly or indirectly from parties in the case or their lawyers. A juror should avoid all familiarity with everyone interested in a decision of the jury.

Both parties in a case have spent considerable time preparing for the trial. They will present evidence and arguments to prove their side of the case. Jurors must be careful not to form hasty conclusions or opinions until they have heard all of the evidence and arguments and have received the instructions of the judge.

Justice will be done if jurors will base their verdicts solely upon the evidence and upon the judge's instructions as to the law, rather than upon their own notions of what the law is or ought to be.

If you have any questions regarding juror conduct or the trial, ask the bailiff to consult the judge. The judge is always in charge during the course of a trial. The judge is always ready and available to determine all questions of law pertaining to the case being tried.

 

[Hatfield]

asked the court and they were the ones who said that only JSS, her two clerks/assistants, the court reporter and the attorneys had the list of jurors. Also noted was the list on the JA site has their full names, first, last middle, and that is exactly how they were on the court maintained list so it definitely seems to have come directly from that. It was all on a prior post I am way too lazy to go find. But that was the gist of it. So, you look at who had the motive to divulge - JSS? court reporter? or someone else???? Lacks the element of mystery IMO.

-

Thanks Boytwnmom. Sorry I botched your name. I was actually closer than I thought.

 

[Shadowboy]

No, she did not have a right to vote as she felt. She had a responsibility to deliberate the evidence presented in this trial with 11 other jurors and those jurors have reported that she refused to do that. She had an obligation to weigh the mitigating factors against the aggravating factors and decide which prevailed and then had further obligation to vote accordingly.

Furthermore, the judge was notified by other jurors (reportedly) of this juror's issues from the start and she did nothing...so there goes your argument that the judge would have removed her if she were a bad juror.

Truth be told, once that juror was selected for duty in this case there was not much that could be done to save the day. If she had been removed as requested and this ended with a sentence of death, the verdict could have been successfully appealed. Higher courts do not overturn verdicts often but they do not mess around when death penalty is involved, and they tend to get all worked up when issues involving jurors come to the surface after the fact. Which is, in a nutshell, why I consider it a blessing in disguise that this jury hung.

Yes!!!!

 

[RickshawFan]

What the bolded is saying is the prosecuters office is examining whether the juror disclosed during jury selection about knowing that her ex was prosecuted by the same attorney prosecuting this case. Which could have easily disqualified her as a juror up front.

I was responding to this part of the quote—However, the lone holdout on the death penalty had requested the security after her name was posted on social media."—since my understanding is that Juror #17's husband revealed her name on social media. Her husband posts her name and now wants police protection because her name was revealed on social media? Note: her name was not published on JA's site with the names of all the other jurors.

 

[sammie]

Plus, while being separated from Husband #1, Juror #17 might have been with Husband #2 who was also committing a felony(ies) at about the same time?

The timeline I saw says they divorced in 2009, she didn't get with current husband for 2-3 years?

 

[Paintr]

I posted the post (shown below) earlier on the Vanderbilt rape case thread.


Seems to be a problem with jurors in high profile cases lately. Hmmmmm.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/attorne...ilt-rape-case/

Attorney to ask for mistrial in Vanderbilt rape case

Fletcher Long says the juror was asked during jury selection about past experience with the criminal justice system, as either a victim or defendant. Long says the juror failed to disclose the rape.

Long said the person “lied to get on the jury” and “got on with an agenda.”