Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[cady]

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

 

[Nosey Parker]

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?

Apparently so. The county renewed her contract.

 

[turaj]

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?

she said they knew her husband had a criminal past...having listened to a few jury selections between having most say they have a hardship....some just sounding like they could not comprehend what was happening because of language or other issues etc etc etc. and many having had run ins of some sort with the law...they start having to consider some that are not perfect or they will not have a jury at all.

 

[~Lyric~]

So in my mind that has a hundred different things and then I chuckled.

Grounds for an Appeal: DT: we had a juror who, we just knew would not give death, and she changed her mind.!! ( not for real)

Sheesh. Could you imagine that, if CMJA did get DP.

Juror had a spouse that was convicted by Prosecutor who emotionally abused her, and her revenge was to send our client to death.

I am just playing around here, thinking if this had went the other way.

Just the rumblings going on in my brain.

 

[TexMex]

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

Or she and Nurmi made sure they did not know the details
#plausibledeniability

 

[I'mjazzed]

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.

Love your post and I agree!!

 

[turaj]

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?

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

 

[cady]

Apparently so. The county renewed her contract.

Really? I did read that her contract was up feb 28 so it must have JUST been renewed. WOW

 

[ShadyLady]

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.

And now we have it on the record that #17 did not disclose, or Wilmot would have said so. Now that is not to say Wilmot did not really know, especially after Jodi's PI [that died] investigated all the jurors.

Plot thickens. Maybe Wilmot should quit talking to the press while ahead?

 

[krkrjx]

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: I believe if that had occurred it would be an issue on appeal, with a good chance of success in overturning the death sentence.

And I will say honestly that if something like that ever occurred I would expect a court to overturn the death sentence. I believe in death penalty where it is warranted but I never want to see it imposed for the wrong reasons.

 

[TexMex]

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:

I enjoyed reading the sidebar transcript from last trial where Juan told her she needed to go back to law school :judge:

 

[ShadyLady]

Or she and Nurmi made sure they did not know the details
#plausibledeniability

So where is the report from the PI? How much was he paid, and how many hours did he put in?

 

[MaLou]

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

 

[elementary]

Have the backgrounds of ALL the jurors been audited and every skeleton exposed or just juror #17? This juror is NOT the one who violently murdered Travis Alexander. She did not deem that it met the criteria to warrant a DP for Jodi Arias.

Why is juror #17 being crucified for this?

:boohoo::guitar::violin:

IMHO. Drama does not serve logic.

 

[ICit]

Was it the PI? I remember something like that. That could have been an avenue of contact. Did something happen to PI, I can't remember.

There were two PI's. The defense team PI died shortly before the trial ended. The other PI was hired by Jodi when she was representing herself. Dorian Bond was his name and he showed up on a few talk shows spouting off about gathering at information for appeals and then poofed. I guess the money ran out.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

What we really need in here is a verified attorney to explain what might happen if this juror lied her way onto the jury, was planted there by unknown means, or a combination of the two. What would the legal avenues be ?

I'm not an attorney, but I'll be happy to play one if you guys want to throw questions at me that you want answered. Before you accept my advice and opinions though, I suggest that you consult with a real-life attorney in order to keep yourself out of hot water.

I have gotten an online non certified degree (not a BIG lie, just a little white one) just from all the knowledge from our 3 distinguished attys. here. :facepalm:

 

[RR0004]

After reading this I think TA and JA had a very dysfunctional relationship that was emotionally abusive. Most people would have walked away from
the damage and havoc Jodi created in Travis's life but as many have stated he was addicted to her. He was addicted and she was obsessed. When a man does not want a woman as a girlfriend anymore they usually leave but she stayed and became a piece of ***. However, she could not handle that type of
relationship but would do anything to be close to him. It was a sad road they took and we know the ending. If only one of them had walked away.

I know we've had discussions about this in the past...but unless you've been caught in a sociopath's web, there's no way you could possibly know just how difficult it is to disengage.

 

[steelman]

Really? I did read that her contract was up feb 28 so it must have JUST been renewed. WOW

Makes total sense. What are they going to do, cancel her contract 7 days before the verdict was read ?

What choice did they have ?

 

[LinTX]

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.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Have the backgrounds of ALL the jurors been audited and every skeleton exposed or just juror #17? This juror is NOT the one who violently murdered Travis Alexander. She did not deem that it met the criteria to warrant a DP for Jodi Arias.

Why is juror #17 being crucified for this?

She's not being crucified for anything. She is being vilified (rightly so IMO) for her allegedly disingenuous behavior, not for her decision.