Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[RickshawFan]

I wonder if Juror #17 could have been "bought"? As in, after jury selection. She has some sketchy associates, in addition to absolving herself of any knowledge of what they were doing when they committed their felonies.

Anything is possible... if it's true her current hb had MDLR's daughter listed as a friend on his social media, anything is possible.

Jodi has access to the seamy underworld via ex-Estrella BFF's heading over to Perryville, not the least of whom is DeVault, another psychopath. JA has already said that she has minions posted to her advantage at the big-P. I would imagine that Juror #17's husbands are in the big-P network, felons helping felons. Wouldn't be surprising at all if there was a pathway all the way back to the killer and the person who "ran" her money.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Just had a thought while catching up here:

- Lots of info on the case was SEALED by JSS during this re-trial.

- BUT WHY didn't JSS SEAL the names/addresses of the JURORS -- at least for a particular length of time -- AFTER the Verdict was read ?

In other words, IF the jurors wanted to speak out regarding their decision and give their name -- that is fine because it is that juror's decision. But IF NOT, then the jurors should have been given that right to privacy.

So ... what is the Arizona Law regarding the release of jurors' names?

There is NO doubt in my mind, that JA and Company released the names of the jurors.


IIRC, Judge Perry sealed the names of the jurors PRIOR to the Verdict being read -- and their info was sealed for a certain amount of time.

Yes, different state, different rules.

JMO ! Back to reading ...

 

[Hatfield]

I need to catch up on this thread but wanted to share 2 theories on a couple things:
All JMO of course.

1-A good possible reason of why a man maybe talked someone into marrying them before that man went to prison. Conjugal Visits that only a spouse would be allowed.

2-For the "Monday" item where we saw both the juror and Jodi's sister mention about "Monday".

Here is 1 scenerio of how they could both think that Monday would be the day of the jury decision....

If we think back to the Thursday before that Monday, the jurors had that entire Thursday to deliberate and the jurors likely knew they were not going to get anywhere. Especially if 1 of them began to refuse to participate right from the get-go.

And if "someone" on the jury leaked that information out to the Arias supporters, then her sister would also know that it is likely Monday would be the day the jury would return a verdict. And especially if they were not very familiar with jury trials and how the judge may give the jury a "dynamite charge" to keep trying.

 

[concernedmother]

It wont change JA outcome at all. If the woman genuinely held out because she didn't find the evidence warranted DP in her thinking I applaud her for taking a stand and not going against her convictions. But if there is something nefarious going on, it needs to be exposed and dealt with.If anyone deserves DP its JA. I dont care that she will get life. To me that would be a bigger death sentence never having my freedom again. jmo.

 

[RickshawFan]

I wonder if Juror #17 could have been "bought"? As in, after jury selection. She has some sketchy associates, in addition to absolving herself of any knowledge of what they were doing when they committed their felonies.

so they were together during the Juan involved crimes. He later had new charges in 2008 after they were separated. Those were the only charges she disclosed per BK's notes. Nothing about the 2000 case.

And her current husband also had felony charges during that time, IIRC. During the "separation" she could have moved in with Husband #2 and was around him when he committed his crime.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

This juror problem is going to tie back to MDLR.......almost guaranteed.

:seeya: I totally agree! The "Cougarlicious" paw-prints are all over this hink with Juror 17 !

 

[JudyBolton]

so they were together during the Juan involved crimes. He later had new charges in 2008 after they were separated. Those were the only charges she disclosed per BK's notes. Nothing about the 2000 case.

BBM - This is obviously a big deal. In one case - they were separated (she wasn't as emotionally linked to the outcome) and in the other they were about to be married (where she would be extremely affected by what was happening in his life of any criminal nature). Obviously the whole point in asking this question is to determine if the potential juror would be so affected by a close family member's experience that they could not be an impartial juror.

ALSO - did anyone think to wonder WHY she chose to disclose the one least likely to keep her off the jury and not the other? Makes me go hmmmmm.....

 

[HMSHood]

This juror problem is going to tie back to MDLR.......almost guaranteed.

Looks like it the more I hear about it.

 

[Tiki]

It's not, from the article she is one of those whose name of the 11 that was leaked, is what I got from it:

Meanwhile, a pro-Arias website published names of 11 people it said were the jurors who voted to sentence Arias to death for the 2008 killing.

Arizona law prohibits the public release of juror names. It's unknown how the identities were leaked, but information appeared online after jurors who favored the death penalty expressed frustrations over the holdout.

Juror Emily Cova said she was relieved to hear that authorities were looking into the leak.

"I was a little nervous last night. But I'm feeling better now," said Cova, who agreed to be named.

Aaron Nash, a spokesman for the clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court, said no member of the clerk's staff reported being approached by anyone seeking the names of jurors.

Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Husban...uted-by-Martinez-295429721.html#ixzz3TfFMDBjH

Not sure if it's the same website the article is talking about, but I have a screen shot of the JAII page listing the names of the jurors from the most recent trial, not the 2008 guilt phase trial. Perhaps they also listed the jurors from the 2008 trial at some time.

 

[Jmoose]

It doesn't take an Einstein Level IQ to connect the dots with this one. :happydance:

It makes me laugh each time I see that "Einstein level IQ" in reference to CMJA

 

[concernedmother]

The leak had to come from Jodi or the defense team. jmo.

 

[TexMex]

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

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:

 

[Hatfield]

Just had a thought while catching up here:

- Lots of info on the case was SEALED by JSS during this re-trial.

- BUT WHY didn't JSS SEAL the names/addresses of the JURORS -- at least for a particular length of time -- AFTER the Verdict was read ?

In other words, IF the jurors wanted to speak out regarding their decision and give their name -- that is fine because it is that juror's decision. But IF NOT, then the jurors should have been given that right to privacy.

So ... what is the Arizona Law regarding the release of jurors' names?

There is NO doubt in my mind, that JA and Company released the names of the jurors.


IIRC, Judge Perry sealed the names of the jurors PRIOR to the Verdict being read -- and their info was sealed for a certain amount of time.

Yes, different state, different rules.

JMO ! Back to reading ...

It was already shown yesterday that from what we read, the Defendent and her lawyers have legal access to request all the jurors contact information, which they most likely did.

Our our other friend WS laywer (i think Boynington or something like that) confirmed, and also someone posted right from the court's or states website the information about it.

 

[MeeBee]

It was already shown yesterday that from what we read, the Defendent and her lawyers have legal access to request all the jurors contact information, which they most likely did.

Our our other friend WS laywer (i think Boynington or something like that) confirmed, and also someone posted right from the court's website the information about it.

Laughing so hard at boynington.

 

[RickshawFan]

I wonder if Juror #17 could have been "bought"? As in, after jury selection. She has some sketchy associates, in addition to absolving herself of any knowledge of what they were doing when they committed their felonies.

Has Beth commented on this? Is that Micheal person still criticizing Juan? I might have to go sign up if she helps solve this mystery, but I really don't feel like hearing any nastiness against the prosecution. imo, I think JSS tied his hands once too many times.

Did you maybe misunderstand me? I was wondering if Juror #17 could have been "bought" by the defense team. No Juan mentioned in this post at all.

 

[DebinGA]

With all due respect, they never said 50% were for LIFE. They said the initial poll said it was somewhere around 50% for death (with a few undecideds). Big difference imo.

As staunchly DP as I am in this case, I'd have probably voted "undecided" in the initial vote just to make sure the deliberations would be thorough and include at least several days going through the evidence in a systematic way.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Wow - her husband posted - did he name her? What would I google to find this?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Yes. It was wrong for someone to leak all 11 names of the death voters to the Jodi supporter website. The holdout was only found out because her husband was posting on SM and outed his wife as the holdout.

It's one thing to hold an opinion. I think most of us could respect her decision if she seemed legit.

But it's another to lie so you can hijack the process.

Meant to quote this post

 

[DebinGA]

I think there may have been the chance that Juan DID try to get this juror excluded, but due to all the secrecy in the JSS courtroom, who would really know ?

I haven't seen an explanation of the tweet/report that JM wanted to make a statement in court following the verdict and JSS refused, saying court was adjourned. Hmm....

 

[Hatfield]

Laughing so hard at boynington.

I know I got that name all wrong. LOL Sorry in advance to "B".