Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[ShadyLady]

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.

Houston, we have a problem...................if true.

Criminals must hate Juan. Sleezy lawyers, too.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Question to all. Why couldn't the judge just sentence her to life with no parole right then and there. The judge knew the jury was hung and knew her options just in case. Why all the preambles. This is really ridiculous on the judge's part. She could have ended this that day for the sake of the family. Now she is enjoying her moment without thinking that his family has to travel back there. She should have put this to rest for the family's sake during the anouncement of the hung jury. Jmo

 

[RickshawFan]

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

Boyfriend/girlfriend during the separation with Husband #1? This is a very common occurrence. This whole thing is fishy.

 

[audreyparker]

I also find it interesting that mdlr and m kiefer are fb friends. And he's been very quiet about this whole verdict which I find odd.

 

[Hatfield]

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.

Oh...ok. I understand now. Thanks.

 

[wendiesan]

FWIW. All jurors are assured of their privacy by the Arizona court system. IRRC, the JA supporters were posting private information about the eleven jurors who believed that the butcher deserved a death sentence. Therefore, IMO, the highest levels of the AZ court's security systems have been breached and the investigation should have begun as soon as the names and private information about the jurors hit the internet. The court's relationship with all the potential jurors has, by the actions of whoever shared that information, been compromised. JMO, if whoever did the leaking thought she/he was celebrating a victory by stomping on her/his opponents, she/he should be discovering very soon what it means to plead with a jury for his/her freedom.

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

Privacy/Confidentiality of Jurors
Both prospective and impaneled jurors have the right to privacy and confidentiality.

If your Social Security Number is requested, it will only be used for the purpose of paying the juror fee and mileage to which you are entitled. It is disclosed only to the Finance Department in the county in which you served to issue a check or warrant to you.
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.
Occasionally television reporters will ask the judge for permission to film courtroom activities. If the judge approves, the reporters are instructed to be unobtrusive and to not film jurors. You will not appear on television.
Reporters may interview the lawyers or parties in a case, and once the trial is over may request to interview the jurors. It is your decision whether or not to consent to an interview. You are not obligated to divulge any information concerning the deliberations, the verdict, or your opinions about anything concerning the case.

 

[Shadowboy]

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.

Links?

 

[luvmygarden]

Husband # 1 was convicted in January 2000. IIRC they already had children. How old is she really?

If he was convicted in 2000 the question is in the past 10 yrs. They need to make the range
To read like Ever. JA is such a slime ball she always gets things to go her way.
The next question that can hang juror 17 could be having knowledge of the prosecutor.
But she will say she doesn't remember. JA Nurmi and Wilmott and Mdlr will wipe their brow
and call JA their lucky charm. This case has been unbelievable right from the start. And People wonder why we are so obsessed? ??? I would like to be a fly on their internet connection and see what the defense is reading past couple days....lol

 

[GigiG]

According to Court Chatter, #17 and her first husband got married shortly before his sentencing, but he received probation, little prison time (for that case):

Social media sleuths have uncovered a shocking revelation regarding Juror 17, the lone hold out. Juan Martinez prosecuted her now ex-husband in 2000.

That case eventually led to a deal for probation, however he had spent some time behind bars before that plea deal was reached. See docket here. She married him shortly before sentencing, but a couple of weeks later the result was probation.

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

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Are you crucifying them?

Sounds like character assassination of the juror.

 

[MeeBee]

Links?

All I've seen is a screen cap of an FB friends list posted to FB and sent to Troy Hayden. The girl's last name is De La Rosa.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Now I understand more just why KN wanted/almost demanded access to the Jurors social media sites. Sneaky!!!

 

[Hatfield]

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."

How is it that the whole DT knew? By research...Pffffttt. I'm willing to bet they were "told" and "informed" about it well before the jury deliberations even started.

Those videos of the trial will become interesting once we know where the juror was seated and we carefully inspect eye contact from the DT and see if any signals were being sent in the direction of that particular juror seat.

 

[RickshawFan]

MDLR at 9:32 am before the verdict came down: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_cHtZLUwAA0nfw.jpg:large

 

[krkrjx]

Question to all. Why couldn't the judge just sentence her to life with no parole right then and there. The judge knew the jury was hung and knew her options just in case. Why all the preambles. This is really ridiculous on the judge's part. She could have ended this that day for the sake of the family. Now she is enjoying her moment without thinking that his family has to travel back there. She should have put this to rest for the family's sake during the anouncement of the hung jury. Jmo

I am not sure why sentencing doesn't happen immediately but it is like this in most courtrooms. It may have something to do with giving the parties a chance to work on arguments for or against a specific sentence in cases where there is multiple choice of sentence that could be imposed. IDK for sure though...just guessing.

 

[Steve44]

Juror is not being crucified. She's being criticized, but not because of her opinion that the case did not meet criteria for death.

She's being criticized for having an agenda that flies in the face of current laws in Arizona. She doesn't like DP; fine, many people don't like DP. But if you are not totally honest during voir dire and thus get yourself on a jury, you need to follow the laws and the jury instructions, regardless of your personal beliefs. THAT's why she's being criticized, and rightfully so, IMO.

With that said, I am not unhappy with the outcome.

I am saddened that it took so long and so much effort to get to this point because given the brutality of the crime and complete lack of remorse from the killer, this whole thing really was a no-brainer. I regret that our laws allow citizens to be maligned and basically crucified, if you will, after death in a court of law of all places! I find it unfortunate that people with an agenda think it is acceptable to willfully circumvent justice in order to make their point rather than put forth some effort to get laws changed.

Jodi Arias is going to prison. She is not getting out. Had she receive the Death Penalty I think her case would be given extra attention with the possibility of her eventually getting a do-over of sorts. That is so much more unlikely to happen now, and there is a lot to be said for that, IMO.

Still, none of that excuses a juror for refusing to participate in a task that they indicated they could and would participate in. I consider that juror a coward. It is unfortunate there cannot be legal ramifications for citizens who lie during voir dire or who refuse to follow instructions given by the court.

Rant over.

I agree. Many posters here feel this has been a miscarriage of justice, and it may in fact meet the criteria, but when the alternative actual justice is based upon a DP with no death, and considerable and unique benefits out of all proportion to the punishment meted out, this miscarriage may in the end be more just than the real article. It is truly backwards and farcical, but that is an accurate reflection of the backwards and farcical nature of the DP in today's political, and politically correct climate.

There is a poster on this board who's name carries a message of support for a dear friend of hers who was kidnapped and murdered many years ago. She names both the victim and the murderer. Googling the murderers name reveals that his DP conviction was overturned 27 years after it was imposed, and there is mention of the possibility of his getting parole.

There is no doubt that had this juror been unbiased and fair, JA would have received the DP. Most people, including the family, would have had the satisfaction of a just result for a depraved and evil act. Except it would have been an illusion, a lie, fool's gold, a house built on a foundation of mud, and nothing short of a golden opportunity for evil to triumph in the end. Not an inevitability, but an opportunity, as borne out by Katiecoolady's story, the poster's on this board that I mentioned, and undoubtedly many, many others.

As it stands we know that 13 people out of 14 on that jury (including the alternates) saw, understood, and supported the truth, as well as saw, understood and rejected the lies. That this is justice in a sense perhaps greater than the law can provide is a suggestion worth considering.

That the written law was subverted by a less than honest human nature may be a fact in this case, but is also a story as old as human nature itself, but interestingly the written law in this case is booby-trapped, it carries within it the opposite of its intention, has concealed within it the ability to turn justice into injustice and to injure those it claims to help, and to help those it claims to injure.

Is there very much to mourn in the fact that un-admired human folly was used so apparently skillfully, in such a measured amount, as to yield the best possible result out of flawed human law, and the best possible sentiment out of 13 sincere hearts?

 

[sammie]

Boyfriend/girlfriend during the separation with Husband #1? This is a very common occurrence. This whole thing is fishy.

In voir dire she claims they met online and were only together for six months before they married, whic was 2-3 years after the divorce. Who knows though, she might lie about that also. :thinking:

 

[Val1]

I've read she had an 11 yr relationship with first husband which started when she was 16. How long has she been with the most current convict? :jail:

According to this, it looks like they got married the very end of April or beginning of May 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYRq70zJ0E4 @00:30

 

[RR0004]

out of curiosity I went to Jen wood's twitter page and she has the questions and answers for juror 17...she was pretty upfront with them about her past including some serious abuse of relatives and she herself in previous marriage...I mean as she describes it sounds just like JA describing Travis...she also told them about the criminal pasts of both husbands...so that is the self reporting on the questionaire....now they had to have delved further into some of this during the interview...if i had been Juan with her description of the abuse and relationship she would have been gone...I'm not understanding this. She did say she could consider DP but admitted really never thinking about it. I do believe some people say I "could" do it but until faced with it then find out they can't.

Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong? Don't jurors have to actually fill out a questionnaire prior to being questioned? I'm sure some folks don't even make it to voir dire (with the attorneys) because of their answers on the form. I want to see her filled out (paper) questionnaire. I'm sure they keep those, don't you think?

 

[arkansas mom]

There is also a blog reportedly written by #17 under her maiden name about anti dp with a connecting link from classmates listing both maiden and ex husbands names.