Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #5

[RickshawFan]

From Steelman's post (198): "During the hearing, Defense Counsel Willmott stated she had learned that
other jurors had Facebook pages and had accessed their pages during the trial."

How would she have known that at that time? If she knew, wasn't she obligated to report it? Sounds fishy to me.

They were permitted to have Facebook pages, surely? Using Facebook would only have been a problem if they were accessing news media, which J17 seems to have done.

 

[TexMex]

The Gold Patrol is hosted by Jeff Gold. This week on JodiArias Juror fallout and the Friends of Travis speak out
March 11 @ 7pm CDT

 

[Madeleine74]

I edited my last post to reflect it but I want to make sure nobody misses this:

Looking at The Daily Shares FB the earliest post I see is September 23, 2014. What was the first date of this trail? If anybody knows TIA

Jury selection started on Sept 29, 2014 and proceeded for several weeks.

The trial phase itself started on October 20, 2014 with opening statements by the state.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

about her ex ONLY getting in trouble AFTER they split. Totally untrue. It was while they were together that Juan was involved in a case that included 1st degree murder. That case went on for over two years until he was sentenced at the time of their wedding. She clearly wanted the court to believe she was never with any husband while they were involved in a criminal proceeding. False, her ex who she had been with for many years, had extremely serious charges being dealt with for over two years while they were togther.

To me, both elements are equally going to result in her being removed for cause during voir dire. Whether it's the fact Juan prosecuted her ex while they were together or her ex had the same charge 1st degree murder as in the JA case or just the fact that her ex had serious charges while they were together-not AFTER. Any/all of those were cause for removal.

:tyou: Boytwnmom, for this great post !

1st BBM: Exactly !

I read the notes that were posted on #17's voir dire and she only referenced the 2008 crimes for burglary.

#17 conveniently OMITTED the 1st degree murder case, which Juan was the prosecutor.

But IMO, the State should have asked #17 for more info on her ex's 2008 crimes.

And IF this line of questioning regarding her ex's criminal record would have been pursued further by the State, it would have led to the info about Juan as the prosecutor in the 2000 case ... and for certain, #17 would have been dismissed as a juror.

2nd RBBM: Exactly !

And in #17's voir dire, she stated that she had been a victim of "domestic violence" herself -- and -- that a family member had been a victim of DV.

JMO but her stating she was a victim of DV, coupled with an ex -- who was actually her "current husband" when he was convicted of felony crimes -- was grounds for a Dismissal for CAUSE ! I am still shaking my head as to WHY the State did not challenge her for Cause on the DV, because DV has been a "theme" in JA's defense, even though her abuse has NEVER been proven.

But here's what I want to know:

We know there is no video of voir dire -- but IS there an audio ?

Because IF there is an audio, it would be interesting to hear the entire line of questioning of voir dire for #17.

Thank You !

JMO and MOO !

 

[Madeleine74]

They were permitted to have Facebook pages, surely? Using Facebook would only have been a problem if they were accessing news media, which J17 seems to have done.

Not sure about the permissions they had or not wrt social media. J17 'liked' one or more news sites, but whether she actually accessed them is not known. It is possible, btw, to 'like' a site without reading the content. I'm not saying that's what she did, I'm only saying it's technically possible to do.

It's also not known, or at least it wasn't in those notes, what day(s) she liked them. Those were questions that could have been determined but it would have required a subpoena from the State to Facebook, and then would have taken up to a couple weeks to get the information (per the Court notes released from 3/3/15 - 3/5/15).

 

[Gin]

And that list was written before today's news of her multiple violations, infractions, breakings of law....

Number 2 came from Troy Hayden, about that walk down the hall right after the Terdict (tainted verdict).

He said she was happy at the chance to hurt the Alexanders with her little dig, but flipped out when he told her the cameras were waiting for her around the corner. That's when she shielded her face with papers or whatever.

She was furious to be filmed doing a perp walk in stripes. Troy said she went off on him before and after the cameras, and was still raging after she disappeared from his view.

He joked that her keepers were pizzed at him because they had to deal with her tantrum for the rest of the afternoon.

I really, really love that your referrals to ja's "keepers". Every time I read that word in one of your posts I laugh. It's the perfect term!

 

[mydirtysecret]

Juror selection

The trial started sometime in October (mid to late October).

Juror selection began on September 29th

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Where was that shown? The only thing I read (in that court PDF) was that Wilmott made a comment to the judge that she (Wilmott) was aware or became aware of other jurors using Facebook during this phase of the trial. However, whether that was true or not--whether any other juror besides J17 used their Facebook account during this phase of the trial, wasn't clarified.

From the PDF - Detective Flores stated he had accessed the Facebook page for Juror 17. Because it was a private page, he could only see limited information. Detective Flores stated Juror 17 had accessed her Facebook page the previous day.

During the hearing, Defense Counsel Willmott stated she had learned that other jurors had Facebook pages and had accessed their pages during the trial. BBM

ETA The Court found that without more specific information the Court could not conclude the Juror 17 improperly viewed information about the case. The Court acknowledged the juror had the opportunity to read about the case on her Facebook page, but all jurors have that opportunity every day to read or see or hear something about this case if they wish to do so.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

From the PDF - Detective Flores stated he had accessed the Facebook page for Juror 17. Because it was a private page, he could only see limited information. Detective Flores stated Juror 17 had accessed her Facebook page the previous day.

During the hearing, Defense Counsel Willmott stated she had learned that other jurors had Facebook pages and had accessed their pages during the trial. BBM

LOL Then it must be completely true and proven because we all know Wilmott is the epitome of proof and truth.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

The trial started sometime in October (mid to late October).

http://ktar.com/305/1774833/Legally...verheard-during-the-Jodi-Arias-jury-selection

This article is dated 10/15 so j17 could have liked in that time window.

 

[jojo87]

I really like how Sherriff Joe thinks, and how tough he is on crime and inmates. This is obviously what has gotten him re-elected, and unfortunately I think he has to keep relevant in the media since he is an elected official. I totally could be wrong, but he doesn't come across to me like someone who would be into seeking media attention otherwise... Unlike CMJA...

Oh he is a big attention seeker. His jails are according to him the toughest. He has also faced many lawsuits for inmates deaths in his jails. And here he is allowing Jodi Arias 27 calls in one day. Tut tut sheriff Joe.
He should have put a stop to her nonsense years ago does anyone believe she only started breaking the rules this week. I give this man no respect for putting a stop to something now just because it makes him look bad.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Well, that's one way to spin it, but it doesn't work for me. I'll wait for the results of the investigation regarding unusual Juror 17. MOO

There's a whole lot of spinning going on. In my opinion that was the investigation.

 

[Sweet Fox]

Just trying to catch up on the thread and had to make a comment. Per the document “On March 4, 2015, the State filed, under seal, a Motion for Reconsideration of State’s Request to Strike Juror Number 17 with attachments. Please note the word “Reconsideration” - this implies that Juan previously try to get #17 removed.

Like most of you, I’m very concerned that she viewed the Lifetime movie. But the bigger issue is not that she merely saw the movie but rather that she based her decision, at least in part, on that movie. IMO) that is egregious.

There is NO doubt in my mind this is a stealth juror. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it’s a duck. I’m tired, totally angry and disgusted so I’ll refrain from posting until I’m in a better mood.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I think JSS has gone over to the dark side and will give JA LWP and credit for time served. Sherif Joe wanted Cha Cha charged for smuggling contraband in/out of Estrella (JA's "art") and JSS dismissed it. This was an obvious violation and would have had nothing to do with her fear of appeals in the JA case if she had ruled to charge her. Go figure!

BBM: I agree and have always felt that JSS would sentence her to LWP with credit for time served.

BUT -- with everything that has surfaced since the hung jury announcement, today's news about JA's "criminal JAIL record", etc., JSS has ALL EYES ON HER !

JSS will have no choice now but to sentence JA to LWOP.

BUT we shall see as I still do not trust JSS to sentence JA properly.

MOO MOO and :moo:

 

[Madeleine74]

I found the actual dates.

Jury selection started on Sept 29, 2014

Trial Penalty Phase Opening Statements started on Oct 20, 2014

 

[Madeleine74]

From the PDF - Detective Flores stated he had accessed the Facebook page for Juror 17. Because it was a private page, he could only see limited information. Detective Flores stated Juror 17 had accessed her Facebook page the previous day.

During the hearing, Defense Counsel Willmott stated she had learned that other jurors had Facebook pages and had accessed their pages during the trial. BBM

ETA The Court found that without more specific information the Court could not conclude the Juror 17 improperly viewed information about the case. The Court acknowledged the juror had the opportunity to read about the case on her Facebook page, but all jurors have that opportunity every day to read or see or hear something about this case if they wish to do so.

Right. Juror 17 said she had left someone a "Happy Bday" post, when asked about her use of Facebook. (no idea if that's true or not).

Wilmott did make that statement, but that doesn't mean the information was true or accurate. That's not proven.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Please excuse me quoting my own message, but if their is anyone who would like to read this book, but is unable to afford it, I will be happy to purchase a copy for you. Guess I 'd have to limit this to the first 5 people who respond...if it is okay with the
mods that is.

That is such a nice gesture. I have read the book, and did so after Tex Mex gave it great reviews. Good reading.

 

[RickshawFan]

Exactly...JA wants an appeal fund for a get out of jail card....a civil suit from the Alexanders doesn't give her that card.

I hope the Alexanders get the suit going and have their lawyer drag it out forever. This way, Jodi's gonna rack up attorney fees and zero her accounts before she even gets to a guilt-phase appeal. She doesn't have an "indigent" attorney for a civil suit, right? She'd have to pay someone out of pocket?

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Please excuse me quoting my own message, but if their is anyone who would like to read this book, but is unable to afford it, I will be happy to purchase a copy for you. Guess I 'd have to limit this to the first 5 people who respond...if it is okay with the
mods that is.

lol with a recommendation like that, I HAVE to go ahead and turn the Kindle on to download the copy I've already purchased.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Please excuse me quoting my own message, but if their is anyone who would like to read this book, but is unable to afford it, I will be happy to purchase a copy for you. Guess I 'd have to limit this to the first 5 people who respond...if it is okay with the
mods that is.

Quoting my now favorite book Slumber Party from Hell by Sue Ellen Allen:
"Perryville sits in a huge dirt field where dust witches are constantly on attack. Almost daily the wind swirls around us, covering everything in a fine layer of grime. One window is stationary and not designed to open, but the other is supposed to open about three inches for ventilation. It used to open and close but now it's frozen - won't open, won't close. the result is a one-inch crack that everyone tries to seal through various creative efforts. Ours is sealed with Kotex soaked in glue and toothpaste...but eventually it starts to shrink and crack and it's back to the drawing board....the room is all gray steel and cream concrete. There is no softness."

:seeya: I have an idea - how about someone read it out loud and download it to youtube! Maybe the felon(s) would like it too! LMAO :jail: