Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[ohreally]

Quote Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
I don't buy into the belief it is better to have a mistrial than a DP sentence overturned on appeal. It is not fair to the victims. With everything that has come out after the verdict, I do not believe that replacing this juror would win a successful appeal. Keeping the juror on knowing the concerns of the 11 jurors ended the right for the Alexander's to seek justice. It is just wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem that she got life instead of DP. I don't think she will survive in general population. I just believe that it was wrong to keep this juror on knowing she was not going to deliberate, tried to bring in outside information that was not allowed, admitted she watched news coverage during the trial. The judge knew all this, and prevented the justice the Alexander's rightfully deserve. Add t this everything that has come out since.
Let's be serious. Who believes that with the one fact that we know for sure (Juan was the prosecutor on her ex husbands felony case, and they wed a day before sentencing) that an appeal on this issue would be successful?


As far as deliberating goes, juror #17 wanted to look at the journals, which they did. Legally that is deliberating.
At the time none of the agenda stuff was known and still hasn't been proven. If it is proven then #17 should be punished. I don't believe that is going to happen though. jmoo. We don't like it but the defendants legal rights come before the victims family. This whole trial has been a big heartache. jmoo

Your Message

I am not just talking about if she was willing to deliberate. Only wanting to talk about the journals and no other evidence is not deliberating to me, but legally I don't know if it qualifies or not. I am also concerned because according to the other jurors she admitted to watching news coverage during the trial. She wanted to bring the movie into deliberations. The jury made JSS aware of this and yet she still allowed her to be part of the jury. At the very least each juror should of been individually questioned by her in front of the defense and prosecution to decide if there was just cause to remove her. JSS did nothing to make sure there was a fair verdict. IMO concerns of an appeal in the future out weighed the fairness to the victims to have a just verdict. It has been proven as fact that Juan was the prosecutor of ex's felony case, and the married one day before his sentencing. I don't think that there would be a successful appeal on that alone.
The Alexander's fought seven years for justice for Travis' murder. It is not right that JSS allowed this juror to stay on, because of any concerns for a future appeal. An appeal with that with what we know today would have no chance of being successful IMO.

 

[deedee21]

Wow. I had no idea that convicted murderers in Arizona had a legal right to social media.

Jodi will have no access to social media in Perryville. By the way, the cell waiting for her is six by eight feet. The window faces the West. Hot. Only three showers a week is allowed. Her smirking days are over.

 

[Puzzler]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 4m4 minutes agoSources: Only 6 copies of list of jurors full names existed. Judge, two court aides, court reporter, and pros & def got 1 each. #jodiarias

Given this def team, I know who I suspect.

 

[krkrjx]

That's true in GA too. I used grand juror "investigative powers" to find out why our dirt road hadn't been paved when others with a lot fewer houses had. I used county records to show political donors/relatives got precedence, threatened to send the facts to the local paper, and our road immediately moved to the top of the "paving" line.

Very interesting!

Maybe a demand for investigation/recourse has to come from the citizens of Arizona rather than the prosecutor's office. I would love to see the 11 jurors take up the cause to get this ball rolling. It would be interesting to see if their efforts would be quashed or taken seriously. I vote for taken seriously--if they are sincere in their quest.

But then, it's more likely this will go the way a lot of public issues do--with everyone wanting something done but expecting someone else to do it.

 

[Sulamith]

Not quite. Convicts have a legal right to talk to people and those people have a legal right to post things on the Interwebs of their own volition. First amendment. That's why Sheriff Joe mentions legal roadblocks. Arias herself is not sitting at a computer typing away. And it's not just Twitter. He'd have to take on all media outlets, not just social media. Anyone who quotes a convict's words (that would include people like Troy Hayden, as well as newspapers or TV news) would have to be stopped. And he couldn't only stop Arias, he'd have to find a way to stop all convicts. Good luck with that.

Tex Watson (a member of the Manson family) became a born again christian and has a ministry.

http://www.aboundinglove.org/main/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex_Watson

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I have missed everyone too!!! I have tried to keep up somewhat, but my eyes just don't allow me to view a computer much these days but know my heart is always with you guys here!!!

In reply to Mrs. G and RR0004's kind posts!

 

[Endora27]

Anyone remember how many times the defense accused Juan of prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial?

Here's my theory as to what happened with this trial.

Thanks first to Willmott for admitting that the defense clearly knew that Juror 17's ex husband had a criminal history. Now if only she would admit that they also knew that Juan had prosecuted him as well.

So the defense knows that Juror 17 has an ex that was prosecuted by Juan. They also know that she will be more than likely to want her own "revenge" against the man that sent her beloved to prison so they want to keep her on the jury no matter what. They know that Juan will make sure to vet each of the jurors to ensure that there is no possible juror misconduct. In order to prevent this the defense cooks up the prosecutorial misconduct concerning not only the "*advertiser censored*" on Travis computer but also the "deleting information" from Travis computer. This misconduct also involves Flores. So now Juan is having to fight the defense on two fronts, the trial against JA and the accusations against himself and LE. The defense pushed extremely hard for any and all possible prosecutorial misconduct to keep Juan busy. Juan had to defend himself, Flores, DeMarte, etc in a fashion that was a waste of time because the defense knew that it was a load of BS from the start. BUT it accomplished what the defense wanted. Their favorite pet juror was allowed to remain on the jury and hung the jury for them.

I hope that this juror is investigated completely. I hope that if it comes out that the defense did in fact know all about her lies that they are dealt with accordingly, along with juror 17. This level of deceit from the defense (ALL of the defense players including MDLR) is something that needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

MOO

The statement from JW which came so quickly and in conjunction with #17 has got my curiosity. Quite unprofessional on her part (shocker), but more than anything it raises questions of Obstruction of Justice, Bribes and Collusion. To what extent is a DT allowed to go without penalties under our Justice system to engage in such behavior to win a case? What can be done to raise this issue to the higher levels in Arizona and what can be done to remedy the situation? At this point, something MUST be done to insure ONLY LWOP is given!!! We need at this point a good journalist that could quickly investigate and get the facts. And if this is proven it could result in: LWOP, disbarment of the JSS and the DT and charges against #17 as well as MDLR. And my message to Ms. Wilmott: Your behavior is nauseating and a discouragement to any decent Lawyer who wants to earn a decent living and help others in our country. Hoping that you will have great REMORSE for the rest of your life!

And, one more thing... I am having a hard time catching up... my computer is wicked slow today. What is the Allen Charge? Why couldn't JSS just dismiss #17 for not properly performing her civic duty? Is there no such thing as dismissing a juror during deliberations? I thought that's what alternates are for.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No he said that as far as it changing the outcome of the hung jury. Yes the juror can be charged and that's why the County Attorneys office says they are investigating. Links were put up yesterday with AZ statutes, she could be charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, or even jury tampering depending on what they find.

It won't change anything on this case. I don't think anything will happen to her. I think that most likely they are going to say that it was up to the prosecution to discover. I think this is a done deal.

 

[cady]

I served on a Grand Jury in Baltimore for four months several years ago. I remember that they told us that we had investigative powers and could open investigations - does this happen in Arizona as well?

That is what Grand Juries can do. They are investigative. Petit Juries cannot do that. JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 4m4 minutes agoSources: Only 6 copies of list of jurors full names existed. Judge, two court aides, court reporter, and pros & def got 1 each. #jodiarias

My guess is that this goes deeper than that. To me it looks like they were followed and watched. And if that other carp site participated in that, I hope that they get hammered for it.

 

[Irisha]

Ironic: Members of the JAII site posting comments that they are sick over the fact that juror 17s name is "out there" when the jurorS names should be confidential when the FULL LIST (minus number 17 of course) of juror names is at the top of the page they are posting on!

They are an UNUSUAL GROUP, aren't they?:crazy:

 

[LinTX]

PPP
I'm glad you asked this. I want to know why she has the right to delay her sentencing.

Quite awhile ago AZLawyer talked about a panel that goes over cases where the choice of life or natural life needs to be made. They then make a recommendation to the judge, but it's not something the judge has to abide by. Don't know if this is mandatory or not, but AZLawyer said it takes, IIRC, several weeks.

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

Why is the civil case that JA is involved in also being kept from Internet public records?

CV2014-008356

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Surprised that no reporters or bloggers have gotten the records on that one as well.

MOO

I would love to know what this is about. You're right. Nothing, but nothing spoken about it. I was surprised to hear this. I can't even imagine that she is testifying in a civil suit for what, who? Will she be on the stand for 18 days? LOL

I think the case is sealed, probably because going by the name I found connected to it, there could be any kind of accusations in it. This person apparently files a lot of suits, but it could be JA is suing her for those interviews Collins did? From Docket Search:

 

[Sweet Fox]

It's a name she used yes, but zero proof it's the same person who posted the Anti Death Penalty speech. I know the info about her ex being prosecuted by Juan has been confirmed. Two separate issues, hope I clarified the part I'm questioning.

BBM ... Good point :0).

 

[LinasK]

The statement from JW which came so quickly and in conjunction with #17 has got my curiosity. Quite unprofessional on her part (shocker), but more than anything it raises questions of Obstruction of Justice, Bribes and Collusion. To what extent is a DT allowed to go without penalties under our Justice system to engage in such behavior to win a case? What can be done to raise this issue to the higher levels in Arizona and what can be done to remedy the situation? At this point, something MUST be done to insure ONLY LWOP is given!!! We need at this point a good journalist that could quickly investigate and get the facts. And if this is proven it could result in: LWOP, disbarment of the JSS and the DT and charges against #17 as well as MDLR. And my message to Ms. Wilmott: Your behavior is nauseating and a discouragement to any decent Lawyer who wants to earn a decent living and help others in our country. Hoping that you will have great REMORSE for the rest of your life!

And, one more thing... I am having a hard time catching up... my computer is wicked slow today. What is the Allen Charge? Why couldn't JSS just dismiss #17 for not properly performing her civic duty? Is there no such thing as dismissing a juror during deliberations? I thought that's what alternates are for.

BBM. Why exactly would it result in disbarment of JSS??:thinking:

 

[krkrjx]

Who is Casandra Collins? As pertains to Arias, that is.

 

[BritsKate]

Too little too late. Some on that site are really mentally disturbed IMO. Anyone who would wish death on an 82 year old sheriff for doing his job *Sheriff Joe* has some serious issues. M.R.= :busted:

And those who aren't are still ignorant.

One poster claims autopsy photos are always excluded in every other state because they're too prejudicial. Um, fairly certain the jury was only allowed to see photos as relevant to the crime (like his neck wound) which is fairly standard. There's no way all the photos were admitted into evidence. Another claims everywhere else a mistrial would have been declared by the family walking out during testimony. What? That just makes no kind of sense.

Another - my favorite - is a looooooooooong post about how Jodi's conviction is the fault of her defense team and expert witnesses. To be fair, they have a point but, and maybe this is just me, how about giving just a wee bit of culpability to the self-confessed killer who lied her pop rocks off for 18 days and showed not one iota of remorse?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The statement from JW which came so quickly and in conjunction with #17 has got my curiosity. Quite unprofessional on her part (shocker), but more than anything it raises questions of Obstruction of Justice, Bribes and Collusion. To what extent is a DT allowed to go without penalties under our Justice system to engage in such behavior to win a case? What can be done to raise this issue to the higher levels in Arizona and what can be done to remedy the situation? At this point, something MUST be done to insure ONLY LWOP is given!!! We need at this point a good journalist that could quickly investigate and get the facts. And if this is proven it could result in: LWOP, disbarment of the JSS and the DT and charges against #17 as well as MDLR. And my message to Ms. Wilmott: Your behavior is nauseating and a discouragement to any decent Lawyer who wants to earn a decent living and help others in our country. Hoping that you will have great REMORSE for the rest of your life!

And, one more thing... I am having a hard time catching up... my computer is wicked slow today. What is the Allen Charge? Why couldn't JSS just dismiss #17 for not properly performing her civic duty? Is there no such thing as dismissing a juror during deliberations? I thought that's what alternates are for.

Just because you don't like the way someone defended their client does not mean they did anything illegal. In fact they didn't. JSS did nothing to be disbarred over. It is not a whim but would have to be over something serious.

While people may not like this defense team, JA is entitled to a rigorous defense. They were trying to save her life and I know it is disgusting what happened but they followed the rules and worked out the disgusting plan and it was legal.

I have no problem with people not liking people for their tactics, but in the end everyone here had a job to do and did it.
JSS whether you like it or not made it so JA will not have any good appeals. She bent over backwards to make sure JA's rights were not compromised.

 

[cady]

Thanks Scarlet great post! JMO

 

[Wizzy]

I am not just talking about if she was willing to deliberate. Only wanting to talk about the journals and no other evidence is not deliberating to me, but legally I don't know if it qualifies or not. I am also concerned because according to the other jurors she admitted to watching news coverage during the trial. She wanted to bring the movie into deliberations. The jury made JSS aware of this and yet she still allowed her to be part of the jury. At the very least each juror should of been individually questioned by her in front of the defense and prosecution to decide if there was just cause to remove her. JSS did nothing to make sure there was a fair verdict. IMO concerns of an appeal in the future out weighed the fairness to the victims to have a just verdict. It has been proven as fact that Juan was the prosecutor of ex's felony case, and the married one day before his sentencing. I don't think that there would be a successful appeal on that alone.
The Alexander's fought seven years for justice for Travis' murder. It is not right that JSS allowed this juror to stay on, because of any concerns for a future appeal. An appeal with that with what we know today would have no chance of being successful IMO.

I believe at this time there is... A Whole Lotta speculation going on. If the news watching is proven and JSS knew it, also her bias or she had an agenda, then if JSS knew all of this, I'll agree. Just because her 1st husband was prosecuted by Juan, isn't enough. We would have to know and prove for a fact she attended the proceedings and knew who Juan was. Probable yes, proven not yet.
Again though, the lady juror said she had to apologize in the deliberation room. My thought is this lady juror would have had to have been excused too. A juror can't disrespect another juror. That kind of behavior isn't tolerated, even trying to get a unanimous verdict. You could probably yell but not direct it at a particular juror. Juror #17 most likely included in her note to JSS the conditions in deliberations. So I believe JSS would have had to excuse 2 jurors, the lady who yelled at her and #17. I believe that would have been a big problem. jmoo. I believe JSS knew there was a problem and handled it the best she knew how. The lawyers also knew and neither KN or JM requested to dismiss a juror. From the interview of the three they stated they pretty much knew they wanted death in beginning of deliberations or soon there after. My point is everyone has the right to maintain their position. jmoo. Hopefully soon this will be resolved and all the facts will come out.

 

[Brandy809]

Casandra Collins was a former cellmate of Arias. She was interviewed by Dr Drew last year.