Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[MeeBee]

So what was the *exact* question? How is it known exactly what happened during voir dire by anyone on WS, when none of us were in that room?

It may be silly to you and many others, but I'm telling you that law students, interns, and noobie lawyers get pounded on things like exact wording. We do not all have "logical working minds." I guarantee some % of the public are fairly dense and this includes potential jurors. Does J17 seem intelligent to you? Logical? And then there was the jury interview with the 11 +2 who said J17 refused to deliberate at all but then in the actual court notes, the foreperson and another juror told the judge that J17 was deliberating but not "effectively" and then later she was "doing better and was deliberating." Not quite the exact same thing, right?

Come on.

People who are selected for jury duty have seen and know enough to know which answers to which questions will get them excused and which will get them through. One knows answering that particular questions truthfully would have gotten them excused. She also knew disclosing his murder prosecution would have opened up a can of worms. It either would have gotten her kicked off for cause due to her husband being prosecuted for a similar violent crime to Jodi or it would have revealed through a series of questions that Juan was his prosecutor.

Slightly OT, but it was my understanding that she wasn't seen to be deliberating but after the note was sent, which she got to read, she started doing better. They were aksed to talk to the judge after the note and after she got better. I don't see how that's conflicting info she actually did do better after the note was sent. The interview they gave isn't conflicting either. Her not deliberating is why the note was sent in the first place. They did reveal in the interview she got better but then shut down again.

 

[RadarLuv]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq

#FOLLOWTHEMONEY "@juanstie: So that's how MDLR does it ... SS sent to the IRS... #JodiArias in trouble. MDLR too. "

 

[katiecoolady]

Well...........the more of this that comes to light through investigative reporting, the morel likelihood the D.A. and the powers-that-be will be forced to take action.

I highly doubt that Bill Montgomery is going to tip-toe lightly and skirt issues regarding MDLR, the same way he did with juror 17.
I suspect that what she's doing for Arias is legal........but just barely.

Once again, this is the defense team that bends every rule possible just shy of breaking it. MDLR probably found some obscure loophole in the law somewhere which would enable her to launder money for Jodi. I'd imagine she ran the idea through a couple of her attorney friends as well prior to setting it all up.

The D.A. in Phoenix right now is feeling a huge amount of heat and backlash after the mistrial last week. If allegations and accusations regarding misdeeds by MDLR come to light, and they are found to be illegal, then I have no doubt the DA would charge her in the blink of an eye.

What she is doing may not be illegal, but it would sure fall into the category of unethical, without a doubt. As we all know, nobody on the entire defense team cares about unethical behavior..........unless it is them blaming someone else of it.

I'd like them to take it back to the first trial where Kiefer PUBLISHED the identity (number) of the foreperson DURING deliberations.

How would he know this? How would anyone know this? Valerie, the bailiff in charge of the jurors didn't leak it even if she knew it.

That whole foreperson business was very very suspicious to me. It still is...esp. since Kiefer once I was flitting around the hallway, the very hallway he was IN all dressed up and parading like a peacock calling the jury hung a day before they were (he published that too), REDACTED that tidbit out of his article (it was on azcentral). Why that consciousness of guilt? Why/how is it ok for ANYONE to know and identify the foreperson or anything going on during deliberations while they are still deliberating????

 

[RadarLuv]

o/t. Iiiiit's baaaaaaack

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/ebola-infected-american-health-worker-land-u-s-treatment-n322781

 

[katiecoolady]

Come on.

People who are selected for jury duty have seen and know enough to know which answers to which questions will get them excused and which will get them through. One knows answering that particular questions truthfully would have gotten them excused. She also knew disclosing his murder prosecution would have opened up a can of worms. It either would have gotten her kicked off for cause due to her husband being prosecuted for a similar violent crime to Jodi or it would have revealed through a series of questions that Juan was his prosecutor.

Slightly OT, but it was my understanding that she wasn't seen to be deliberating but after the note was sent, which she got to read, she started doing better. They were aksed to talk to the judge after the note and after she got better. I don't see how that's conflicting info she actually did do better after the note was sent. The interview they gave isn't conflicting either. Her not deliberating is why the note was sent in the first place. They did reveal in the interview she got better but then shut down again.

Plus, what does "better" mean? From being mute and refusing to speak to at least talk about something/anything that supports her position? I believe them when they said she refused to explain her position and her DUTY was to decide if the mitigating FACTORS outweighed aggravating FACTORS. To not look at or speak or explain your opinion on the FACTORS is, to me, not fulfilling your duty as a juror. And clearly they thought that too.

 

[MeeBee]

I actually do think it's typical of the kind of research they do on jurors these days. The minute he heard the word felon he should have pulled the records, especially considering it was in the same county ie where he had been at the time. It's his job, they're at the courthouse FGS. It's a PT fail and there is no getting around that .. also all jurors social media accounts should have been checked, hers was wide open and people on the internet could have a look as well as pull her ex husband's court documents. This is a lesson for them. Once deliberations had started it was out of JSS's hands so his attempts to remove her were way too late. An expectation of honestly is so naive, they should have taken a closer look at her, I mean, how long did it take Twitter, a couple of hours if that? Beyond that, we don't even know that she was stealth .. she had a past but perhaps she was in there with good intentions of doing the right thing and has a reserved nature, felt intimidated, couldn't make good arguments for life, we only have the other jurors opinions to gauge her on .. in this case especially whoever didn't vote for death was going to be pilloried because that's the nature of the case, it's the way it's been this whole trial.

It isn't a PT fail. That is not the typical research done that I have seen in the cases I've followed. Maybe it will be now, but not typically. That would just be tons of work to do.

The facebooks appear to have been monitored while the trial was on going to make sure they were honoring their admonitions. It's unrealistic to think Juan was going to sift through, what, 90 facebooks during selections to make sure no one liked the Law of Attraction or Nancy Grace.

And as I said, the only crime she disclosed to him were cases he would not have worked and she did not reveal his prior crimes that Juan had a chance of, and was, the prosecutor on. The crime she did reveal was minor. I just don't think prosecutors look into it every time a potential juror reveals they knew someone who was prosecuted. That doesn't seem typical.

 

[Nosey Parker]

RUMOR ALERT, RUMOR ALERT: rumor has it that MDLR is being investigated (no specifics), as is Aunt Sue (linked to release of jurors' names).

I have to admit - I LOVE RUMOURS!!!!

 

[FelicityLemon]

Petite can also mean slim in size (weight) and not necessarily in height.

I'm pretty sure that Petite ALWAYS refers to height. You cannot be 6 ft tall, weight 100 lbs and be considered Petite. Emaciated yes, petite no.

Traditionally, historically, petite is 5' 3" and under. Sometimes 5' 4".

Jennifer Willmot is petite. Jodi Arias is slightly above average height at 5' 6" or 5' 7" depending on where you find the info.

 

[ElleElle]

We don't know what kind of knife she had , do we? If it was a machete it doesn't take much to wield it across someones neck....

Again, it's not me. I know what JA is capable of. I said "some people" may not believe JA could do all that damage.

 

[TorisMom003]

It isn't a PT fail. That is not the typical research done that I have seen in the cases I've followed. Maybe it will be now, but not typically. That would just be tons of work to do.

The facebooks appear to have been monitored while the trial was on going to make sure they were honoring their admonitions. It's unrealistic to think Juan was going to sift through, what, 90 facebooks during selections to make sure no one liked the Law of Attraction or Nancy Grace.

And as I said, the only crime she disclosed to him were cases he would not have worked and she did not reveal his prior crimes that Juan had a chance of, and was, the prosecutor on. The crime she did reveal was minor. I just don't think prosecutors look into it every time a potential juror reveals they knew someone who was prosecuted. That doesn't seem typical.

But we know that some defense teams do. Who's to say that if juror 17 had voted death that Nurmi and Willmot would not have used that facebook information as a means to file an appeal. There has to be a reason why they kept that information to themselves.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

Yep, in every picture and video when standing, ja looks to be a few inches taller than her lawyer. In every picture and video.

Also, I'm guessing that JW wears heels to court since most women do that I've seen. I'm projecting, of course because I haven't seen hundreds of trials but I've seen dozens, and most petite women will wear heels in order to feel and appear taller, which equals perceived intelligence and power and respect.

That irks me about ja's chair being several inches lower than JW's to try and manipulate. I guess what irks me is not that they manipulate, but that there are people who bought into it.

Look at every single picture of them standing together.

Wilmott is actually the same height as Juan with heels on which means she is VERY tiny. Maybe 5'0 or 5'1.

 

[Moonchime]

:seeya: Yep ... she's been "very busy" performing tasks other than "mitigation" ...

NOT 1 person testified on behalf of JA ... NOT her mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, family, friends, ex's ...

Nobody ... No one !

Oh, and those "Affidavits" :gaah: Seriously, not worth the paper they were written on, IMO!

MLDR was too busy managing the :jail: so-called "artwork," her $$$$$, her Social Media Accounts, her "Wardrobe and Make-Up" ...

:gaah:

Oh, and don't forget the day MDLR tweeted about her new car!!

 

[MeeBee]

But we know that some defense teams do. Who's to say that if juror 17 had voted death that Nurmi and Willmot would not have used that facebook information as a means to file an appeal. There has to be a reason why they kept that information to themselves.

MOO

They definitely would have. It was a win win for them.

 

[Madeleine74]

Me either, just going on my own personal experience from sitting in that very jurisdiction and the experience of, an experienced atty who works in that courthouse. I'd say NOT asking that question would be a deviation. So I feel comfortable discussing based on those kind of "givens".

(and ya know I luvs ya Madeleine)

I'd be surprised too, and you know I love Mr. Juan and have been a fan since day 1. But I still have somewhat of a Missouri mindset (the 'show me' state) even though I've never been there. Every time I've assumed something I've learned a lesson and that was not to assume. LOL.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It isn't a PT fail. That is not the typical research done that I have seen in the cases I've followed. Maybe it will be now, but not typically. That would just be tons of work to do.

The facebooks appear to have been monitored while the trial was on going to make sure they were honoring their admonitions. It's unrealistic to think Juan was going to sift through, what, 90 facebooks during selections to make sure no one liked the Law of Attraction or Nancy Grace.

And as I said, the only crime she disclosed to him were cases he would not have worked and she did not reveal his prior crimes that Juan had a chance of, and was, the prosecutor on. The crime she did reveal was minor. I just don't think prosecutors look into it every time a potential juror reveals they knew someone who was prosecuted. That doesn't seem typical.

It's not tons of work to do, Baez did it during jury selection in the Casey Anthony trial and didn't hide it. Bare minimum he should have pulled her ex-husbands records, and once jury had been all but selected we're only talking about the 12 plus alternates.

 

[ElleElle]

What is really bothersome, to me, is if something even lesser than this was uncovered over one of the jurors and JA got Death, this would be grounds for an appeal and likely a new trial. The skewing is just so nauseating sometimes.
It is NOT easy to get a murderer convicted and sentenced even when they've admitted it like JA. We're just all lucky she actually was convicted on 1st degree.

BBM ~ Exactly. And that pissed JA off more than anything. She was not expecting that at all. JMO

 

[ShadyLady]

Plus, what does "better" mean? From being mute and refusing to speak to at least talk about something/anything that supports her position? I believe them when they said she refused to explain her position and her DUTY was to decide if the mitigating FACTORS outweighed aggravating FACTORS. To not look at or speak or explain your opinion on the FACTORS is, to me, not fulfilling your duty as a juror. And clearly they thought that too.

IIRC forman said #17 took a lot of notes especially of the diaries. Why if not to talk about. Did she keep her notes?

Also, curious as to why trial observers never noticed she never spent time with the other jurors.

 

[ElleElle]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute. Willing to dodge the rotten apples or oranges


Let's give 17 the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say she wasn't a stealth juror, and by that I mean she didn't try to get on the jury just to hang it. She thought she'd walk in and see a "monster," but instead who she saw and heard was a woman she could relate to about being abused. She was predisposed to believing DV, and when it was presented to her, she believed it.

She wanted to focus on the mitigators because that's what she thought she was supposed to do. Early on, she was not alone in her vote against the DP. One by one the other dissenters swung to the DP and then she was very alone. Eleven to 1. Five jurors walked back to deliberations and immediately voted death. That's strong conviction, and it doesn't sound like they were the quiet types. The others who swung to death were persuaded by deliberations, were not coerced, had to overcome personal religious beliefs (at least some of them), and were not going to be persuaded back or allies of the 1.

17 wanted to focus on the journals because she believed the journals best reflected who JA really was and what she thought. JA speaks about suicide a lot in those journals, and I'm willing to bet those entries about depression and suicide rang some bell in 17. 17 felt sympathy for her, believed what she read about JA's pain, connected it to DV, and thought it was important for the other jurors to understand just that. They didn't.

17 attached her beliefs to mitigators. She was offended the other jurors didn't believe JA, and felt personally attacked when the jurors stated their disbelief, especially as their disbeleif became loud and felt hostile.

When asked....or, rather, when the 11 DEMANDED she tell them of a scenario in which she imagine giving the DP, she didn't answer because she thought that whatever she said would be used against her somehow. She didn't see the question as straightforward... she felt the 11 weren't interested in her opinions- they'd been rejected, but just another way to beat her down until she agreed with them. So she didn't answer.


That is one scenario, anyway.

That's right. The more I think about it, the more I tend to give J17 the benefit of the doubt. Until we know more ... which we may not. Thanks for your post, H4M.

 

[Bravo]

I know if I was ever being considered as a Juror I would sing like a bird. To any affiliation LOL. Even the fact that I post opines here. I cant imagine being a Juror and being outted in the middle of Trial for something benign I failed to mention. How do you face the Family, Your fellow Jurors? Yourself? Just speaking to potential Jurors giving/not giving full disclosure.

 

[ElleElle]

I'm showing my age here, but back in the days when I was younger, being petite meant 5'1" or under. At least that is what dress makers always touted.

I'm 5'3 and 140 lbs. People still call me petite because I have small features. My 2 cents.