Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[ICit]

Troy on fox10 Phoenix right now talking about 17, he spoke to jw about it, also talks about the juror list posted on jaii site saying the courthouse said only 6 copies of the names were printed and given out being investigated because on the site the names included middle names and appears to be legal copy, you might have to scroll back a few


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WHO got the six copies?

 

[LinTX]

A total guess on my part, but if Troy was interviewing her, he may have asked her 2 separate questions. The first one, she acted all smug in answering, of course we knew, if Juan didn't, too bad. But then he lowered the boom and asked the next part of the question....but Jen, did you ALSO know that Juan Martinez was one who prosecuted and convicted her ex-husband in 2000. The flabbergasted, more humble Jen then replies, well no, I didn't know Juan prosecuted her ex-husband. heheh

Sorry, once I read "humble Jen" , my brain went into this fog....

 

[Val1]

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.

Would that not include looking at the autopsy evidence?

From yesterday's tweets:
Tammy Rose ‏@News20Chopper 50s51 seconds ago
Hold out did not want to look at autopsy photos. #JodiArias

 

[LambChop]

Isn't he given the op to exclude certain jurors, isn't that the point of jury selection .. wouldn't that info have been useful? I bet they do it from now on.

I do not think the prosecutor's office investigates the backgrounds of jurors. Maybe AZL can advise us on that. They expect them to be honest. In the case of DP it might be a good idea in the future to do background checks, just to keep this from happening again. Jodi was the one with the PI working on her behalf. With juror's names he would have been able to check the jurors out. jmo

 

[MeeBee]

Isn't he given the op to exclude certain jurors, isn't that the point of jury selection .. wouldn't that info have been useful? I bet they do it from now on.

Yes he is. And if he'd known of his connection to her he no doubt would. I don't think these kinds of extensive background checks are a part of the selection process. Willmott knows this. He's not the DT, asking for their SM accounts so he can monitor the jury and make sure they are honest. It's not their job. It's up to the jury to be honest as the court can only go on what they say in striking/selecting them.

 

[cady]

or did JSS err in not asking the apparently standard question about 'knowing' any of the attorneys?

All I can think is that if she was specifically asked she either lied or she did not know that it was Juan who prosecuted the case. I'm sure everyone has heard of Juan or seen photos of him, but she may not have known that he prosecuted. JMO

 

[fillymj]

No. It is not part of Juan's job to go through and find tiny little details about each potential juror because there is an expectation that they have been honest. It never crossed his mind or anyone else's that he should check that he didn't prosecute her ex husband. And how could have successfully done that when he doesn't have his name and she doesn't share his last name either? She was open about his past which probably signaled to him that she wasn't hiding anything and being open. It's not his fault. It is hers and hers alone.

Am I correct that she had divorced then remarried with a different last name? With a new name it would not ring a bell to Juan & possibly not show up on a general check.

 

[Smarty Jones]

Thanks so much for putting in all that time for us...very much appreciated!

Won't open for me.

 

[cady]

I do not think the prosecutor's office investigates the backgrounds of jurors. Maybe AZL can advise us on that. They expect them to be honest. In the case of DP it might be a good idea in the future to do background checks, just to keep this from happening again. Jodi was the one with the PI working on her behalf. With juror's names he would have been able to check the jurors out. jmo

AGREE. Especially in a DP case where the defendant is FEMALE!! JMO oops convicted but you know what I mean

 

[MeeBee]

or did JSS err in not asking the apparently standard question about 'knowing' any of the attorneys?

No. This was asked. I remember one juror even did know Willmott.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Because she is the only one who didn't perform her duty as a juror, like the judge said to? Some of us don't have a problem with the fact that there wasn't a unanimous verdict by these people, but it appears that she had no intention to do what she was required to do as a juror. And now she is the only one who wants to be paid to talk about it. Do you not see a problem with
that?

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.

 

[ICit]

So.........since there may have been jury tampering, and Juan didn't discover it and uncover it.....then it is his fault ?? This of course would clear the defense team of any wrongdoing ?

Maybe Juan wasn't aware of the depths that the DT would go to in order to win.

This ain't over yet.....by a LONG shot.

Willmott says "we" all knew. Who is "we"? As officers of the court are they not bound by law to report this to the judge? Perhaps this was one of the secret meetings?

 

[fillymj]

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

Wow thanks for the read. Very good article.

 

[MeeBee]

Sounds like Troy is trying to cover for her until what comes out in the investigation. Because first she says she knew about ex's past, & too bad, so sad for Juan. But, she should have reported it to the court. Now, they're backing, maybe?

No she means she and everyone else knew about the juror's ex-husband's legal problems but she did not know he was prosecuted by Juan. Her statement is passive aggressive though. The defense likes to blame everything on Juan. It takes the onus off the juror to be honest and gives Willmott one last chance to take swipes at Juan.

 

[Jmoose]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 13m13 minutes ago#jodiarias def atty Jennifer Willmott told me she did not know #juror17's husband was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. #Fox10PhoenixTroy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 27m27 minutes 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."---------------I'm confused.

JW is full of carp, I think-if she knew he had a past, I'd bet money that she knew all the details. Not sure if that's legal problem for her, but it might be for juror #17 if she was asked about it and lied

 

[sammie]

I could only speculate, because after all, we don't have all the facts, just bits n pieces. However, I said this before and I will say it again, the DT investigated all these jurors. Did they approach her, that would be to dang obvious....I do think tho, that Nurmi was speaking to her "Vote your beliefs, don't let anyone persuade you. Vote what you think is right..Don't let anyone talk you out of it."

When there was a confusion about juror #17, we found out it was #17 from previous jury that was going to be on Dr. Drew. This #17 from penalty phase was brought into chambers, and then she survived. Seems they got her # (who she was, type of person she was) from this meeting.

When it came to something that "might" pertain to a juror, we were all on pins and needles. #17 survived another day.

May have even inadvertently discovered the information when doing a little more digging on her when this Dr Drew issue came up. They certainly wouldn't have wanted to boot her if she was a plant and they were aware of it from the beginning.

 

[Luvrosco]

,

Those jurors were organized and had a message they wanted to get out...even the alternates...I don't ever recall all of the jurors being willing to talk after a verdict or being hung....never all of them...that says alot about them really thinking this was a big problem with juror 17. They said they liked JSS but I guess I would have been pretty frustrated that she could not or would not deal with the situation...it seems that if she tried to "dynamite" them again some were going to leave...must have been awful...I am a bit surprised that no media noticed this juror who I assume must have left alone most often as it sounds like this started right on first day of deliberations.

Just throwing out my 2 cents, but they might have like her as a person. But I wonder if they respected her competence as a judge.

 

[HarvestMoon]

Just an observation: but, from what I have read it seems that in the role of a mitigation specialist , MDLR became overly involved with Arias outside of court. I guess this is allowed?

 

[sammie]

Sorry, once I read "humble Jen" , my brain went into this fog....

Would deer in the headlights, tongue-tied Jen work for you? I can keep selecting adjectives until I hit something that strikes a chord. Maybe Jen is a chameleon like her client! :laughing:

 

[steelman]

No. It is not part of Juan's job to go through and find tiny little details about each potential juror because there is an expectation that they have been honest. It never crossed his mind or anyone else's that he should check that he didn't prosecute her ex husband. And how could have successfully done that when he doesn't have his name and she doesn't share his last name either? She was open about his past which probably signaled to him that she wasn't hiding anything and being open. It's not his fault. It is hers and hers alone.

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.