Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[turaj]

Haha. Yes and some posters here remind me of Bill Clinton when he said it depends on what your version of "is" is.
Guess Clinton taught you all very well.

actually a million threads ago i mentioned the "Clintonesque" situation here...it actually does depend on your definition of deliberate...that is up to the court and it seems that jss felt she did deliberate and that was verified by other jurors...at some point she did shut down after it became clear she was outnumbered. I am listening to the jury selection and juror 17 (a/k/a 138 in selection) had every opportunity to tell the court if they knew any member of the court...JM stood right up...no one raised their hand...I would love to see the in depth interviews that they had...that is where the domestic violence came in and I'm sure she was pressed and said she could put that aside...but did JM move to dismiss her at that point and judge or Nurmi objected? That is the big question for me. I doubt we will ever see that but maybe.

 

[ShadyLady]

Haha. Yes and some posters here remind me of Bill Clinton when he said it depends on what your version of "is" is.
Guess Clinton taught you all very well.

And huge problem as I see it, is that Arizona legal system thought this case was important enough to let JA have the lawyers she wanted, let her have delays and allow her to spend millions on her case.....and what is the outcome?

One juror was able to make a mockery of the judicial system. I am sure this is being noticed across the land....can't hide this case under a rock. jmo.

 

[Greater Than]

Has anyone verified that juror 17 was in that bunch (was 138 or whatever)? If so, that's concrete evidence of step 1- she WAS asked, directly, if she knew JM. Who was looking into court docs about the trials(did he go to trial or do a plea bargain?) of 17's ex?

In Oct 1998 he was arrested for murder 1, drive by shooting, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was placed in custody. The crime occurred in Aug 1998, when he was a minor - 17 years old.

A few months later he was also charged with attempted burglary, in a separate but related case to the one above.

As trial was drawing dear, Juan filed several motions for continuance for various reasons. On May 2, 2000, the judge denied the motion and set trial for the next morning. Juan obviously wasn't prepared to begin trial. That's when and why there was a plea agreement. On May 3rd, Juan presented the plea agreement to the court and reviewed it with the ex-husband. The ex entered a plea of guilty to the attempted burglary charge. It was ordered that he be released from custody and would reside with #17. Sentencing was ordered to take place May 30, 2000.

On May 29, 2000 he married #17.

On May 30, 2000 he was sentenced to 4 months incarceration, followed by 3 years probation.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I think, what the jurors that spoke meant by saying #17 did not deliberate was that they "felt" something was wrong. That she came in with an agenda. I think they are the best meter of how #17 acted. It was not an honest deliberation and they felt it. They did not know about #17 connections to Juan....but knew something was "off". I TRUST THEIR JUDGEMENT. And they didn't even have all the facts.

JSS asked potential jurors..."to be fair and impartial jury"...... " do NOT withhold information to be seated on this jury"..... "be honest and candid when answering questions".

Ya, right....

ITA. During the jury interview, they ALL (and by all I mean all of the jurors who actually spoke during the interview) said the same exact things about Juror 17. You cannot make me believe they were all wrong about her and like you said, they didn't even have any of the facts or background that we have on her now. They picked up on something odd about her and my opinion is the foreman would have said more to the Judge had he not been afraid of causing a mistrial. I think he was very nervous as to what he could or could not say to her about this juror. I absolutely do not wish this woman to be threatened or harassed in any way shape or form, however people are going to continue to talk about her and she gave them a good reason to. It's clear to a lot of people believe this woman was dishonest. I said hours after the verdict that I believe her and her husband cooked up a plan to make $$ from this and I still believe that.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Come on. When you are being questioned on whether you know the prosecutor (or defense attorneys or the judge), you know darn good and well what they are asking of you and you know darn good and well that if the prosecutor is the same man who prosecuted your husband that means you know him! You, through your husband, have had direct dealings with him. I really don't see how anyone can excuse her for this by saying she didn't understand what they actually meant by the word "know". Some have questioned her intelligence but like I said, come on!

Of course. I know who our local Prosecutor is, I see him on local TV frequently. But I have never had any dealings with him myself. I also know what they are
asking when they say "do you KNOW any of us here?"

 

[ZsaZsa]

Come on. When you are being questioned on whether you know the prosecutor (or defense attorneys or the judge), you know darn good and well what they are asking of you and you know darn good and well that if the prosecutor is the same man who prosecuted your husband that means you know him! You, through your husband, have had direct dealings with him. I really don't see how anyone can excuse her for this by saying she didn't understand what they actually meant by the word "know". Some have questioned her intelligence but like I said, come on!

Of course. I know who our local Prosecutor is, I see him on local TV frequently. But I have never had any dealings with him myself. I also know what they are
asking when they say "do you KNOW any of us here?"

 

[Madeleine74]

Come on. When you are being questioned on whether you know the prosecutor (or defense attorneys or the judge), you know darn good and well what they are asking of you and you know darn good and well that if the prosecutor is the same man who prosecuted your husband that means you know him! You, through your husband, have had direct dealings with him. I really don't see how anyone can excuse her for this by saying she didn't understand what they actually meant by the word "know". Some have questioned her intelligence but like I said, come on!

Since that's intended for me...

I'm not excusing this juror in any way. What I am saying is that *I* didn't know if she had lied or not on the question of "do you know soAndso." Then last night Botwynmom posted J17's answer to a question that indicates J17 did lie during voir dire, and specifically she lied about something else: the time period she was with her ex-husband, and that answer made it seem like she was not with him during his legal issues with the court, when she was. And yes, that would clearly be a lie.

 

[RadarLuv]

In that case I would raise my hand, then the judge would ask how I know them, I would say through TV and the judge would obviously deem that that was ok.

Of course. I know who our local Prosecutor is, I see him on local TV frequently. But I have never had any dealings with him myself. I also know what they are
asking when they say "do you KNOW any of us here?"

 

[Madeleine74]

For those saying J17 did not deliberate, then why did the foreman and juror 18 both eventually tell the judge that J17 was deliberating, that things had "gotten better," that they both felt J17 could deliberate? It's in the court transcript of the 3/3/15 secret meetings. Should we discard the things they said directly to the judge and only take their media comments as the truth?

 

[ShadyLady]

For those saying J17 did not deliberate, then why did the foreman and juror 18 both eventually tell the judge that J17 was deliberating, that things had "gotten better," that they both felt J17 could deliberate? It's in the court transcript of the 3/3/15 secret meetings. Should we discard the things they said directly to the judge and only take their media comments as the truth?

Because obviously, after #17 saw the note that foreman sent to JSS she knew if she wanted to act like she was being honest, she needed to act like she was deliberating. BUT, calling the rest of the jury revengeful for voting DP showed her bias.

That being said, I think LWOP just might be the best justice for JA.

 

[katiecoolady]

And to the same question I would answer, "I know who he is (followed by the explanation of how I know who he is) but I've never spoken to him, and I don't know him." In other words, we're each defining what that means and without being prompted we're explaining why we answered the way we did, and neither of us would be lying.

I don't know if J17 was trying to get on the jury. She very well may have. And she didn't offer up information that she had. We might consider it lying but is it lying in the legal sense? I don't know.

I would absolutely "know" the attorneys the men who defended the men who killed my sister- something that close to home. I'm sure the men who killed my sister will never forget the name Cathy Hughes, nor will the women who still were attached to them (true story).

That is what is reasonable in my mind. The fact she didn't even identify she knew who he was and had THAT kind of close and "loaded" connection to Martinez who is VERY memorable, to me, is telling. Of what/why I don't know. It's just telling of something.

 

[katiecoolady]

Because obviously, after #17 saw the note that foreman sent to JSS she knew if she wanted to act like she was being honest, she needed to act like she was deliberating. BUT, calling the rest of the jury revengeful for voting DP showed her bias.

That being said, I think LWOP just might be the best justice for JA.

I'm with you on all counts here.

 

[Boytwnmom]

of the group of jurors that #17, previously #138, was in. Many, many of those prospective jurors exhibited the good faith necessary when responding to issues regarding fitness to serve on a jury. They made it clear they were on Facebook a lot, just had to watch the news, had already read too much about the case, whatever. It would have been very easy for #17 to speak up.

Instead she waited until further individual questioning where she deliberately misled the court about her history with felons and Juan. The only logical conclusion is she did so deliberately. Why? Because she failed to disclose so many relevant things: that her ex committed crimes while they were together, not just AFTER they split; that those charges included 1st degree murder; that Juan was the prosecutor; that a # of other serious charges were involved in a case that went on for many years while they were together.

All this tells me she knew exactly what she was doing. The question is why and how. And those questions will likely go answered as the system exists to protect itself. This kind of assault on the integrity of the system would hurt those in charge, those also responsible for investigating. So, I have no doubt little will happen unless there is some overwhelming citizen outcry, which I doubt.

I guess the good news is that so many people were honest. Course, most of them probably wanted off the jury. I loved one of the first ones to speak up-he was just sick of hearing about it-had been hearing about it for too long. Didn't even claim to be prejudiced-just sick of it. I know the feeling.

BINGO. The bold says it all IMO.

 

[katiecoolady]

For those saying J17 did not deliberate, then why did the foreman and juror 18 both eventually tell the judge that J17 was deliberating, that things had "gotten better," that they both felt J17 could deliberate? It's in the court transcript of the 3/3/15 secret meetings. Should we discard the things they said directly to the judge and only take their media comments as the truth?

Well now we can deliberate on the definition of the word deliberate. I think what's clear is their final conclusion, based on their statements in conclusion, is that she did not deliberate effectively. Again, they were charged to determine one decision: do mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors? If she was unwilling to explore all of those factors along with the rest of them, which it appears she did not, that is not participating effectively in deliberations in my opinion of course and in the opinion of her fellow jurors who not only reported her to the Judge for various violations but have been vociferous after the fact about her resistance to participate with them.

 

[katiecoolady]

I will further my opinion on the motivations, as I speculate them, about this what I'm calling (in my opinion) "stealth" juror once I see what she does with the aftermath. And with that, I'm talking specifically what financial opportunities she (and hers) may try to glean from her "standout" position here. I'll be watching on that one.

 

[katiecoolady]

And, in addition, I'd like to ask her to please explain to me how the age of the defendant, her alleged "abuse" and other in the list of mitigation outweigh that crime scene and two little (but big) words: gas cans.

 

[Greater Than]

Of course. I know who our local Prosecutor is, I see him on local TV frequently. But I have never had any dealings with him myself. I also know what they are
asking when they say "do you KNOW any of us here?"

Everyone does. It's a pointless argument. Don't take the bait.

 

[FelicityLemon]

https://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/arizona-female-prisoners-need-help/
For almost 20 years, in compliance with state law, companies such as Martori Farms, Wal-Mart’s vendor, pay Perryville women two dollars per hour, not including travel time. They have no choice: state law mandates that all able-bodied inmates work.
A woman prisoner who worked at Martori Farms described the conditions:

“We work eight hours regardless of conditions …. We work in the fields hoeing weeds and thinning plants … Currently we are forced to work in the blazing sun for eight hours. We run out of water several times a day. We ran out of sunscreen several times a week. They don’t check medical backgrounds or ages before they pull women for these jobs. Many of us cannot do it! If we stop working and sit on the bus or even just take an unauthorized break we get a MAJOR ticket which takes away our ‘good time’!!! We are told we get ‘two’ 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch like a normal job but it’s more like 10 minutes and 20 minutes. They constantly yell at us we are too slow and to speed up because we are costing $150 an acre in labor and that’s not acceptable… In addition, the prison has sent women to work on the farms regardless of their medical conditions.”

As it should be. You'd think the mere thought of being in jail, let alone prison, would be a deterrent to committing crimes. Life in Sheriff Joe's jail has been well publicized for years and still people commit crimes with that risk. Some out of desperation, some because they think they're smarter than the average bear and won't get caught.

Life in Perryville doesn't look much better with the exception that the food should be a lot better according to Troy Hayden :/ Small perks are something to look forward to nonetheless.

What's that? I can't quite hear inmates complaining about the conditions about life in an institution that is a result of their own choices and behavior.

Don't do crime. Crime is bad m'kay? (Riffing off Mr. Mackey)

I want to find the statistics on recidivism of released inmates from either Estrella or Perryville.

What a freaking nightmare. At least we can wake up.

 

[Hope4More]

I think, what the jurors that spoke meant by saying #17 did not deliberate was that they "felt" something was wrong. That she came in with an agenda. I think they are the best meter of how #17 acted. It was not an honest deliberation and they felt it. They did not know about #17 connections to Juan....but knew something was "off". I TRUST THEIR JUDGEMENT. And they didn't even have all the facts.

JSS asked potential jurors..."to be fair and impartial jury"...... " do NOT withhold information to be seated on this jury"..... "be honest and candid when answering questions".

Ya, right....

That it was not an honest deliberation.......based on what is becoming clearer, it seems likely that this is the most accurate description of what happened. Eleven jurors who remained committed and who were still actively listening after 5 extremely long and confusing months of trial deserve to be listened to about what their sense of juror 17. They sure did get everything else right.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I've been waiting for something concrete before passing judgment on J17. Now, having watched the video of juror selection, it's plain to me that she 'ducked under the wire' deliberately, and therefore had an agenda. Quite what her agenda was, we may never know. Could be DV experience/sympathy, but I would have expected her to recognise, then, that Arias was not a victim, but the perpetrator. Could be jury nullification, but there were 4? who initially voted 'life', and I would have expected her to try and persuade them back to her view if she were truly an anti-death stealth.

I'm more inclined to think that, given her penchant for the criminal element, she came in with sympathy for the defendant (any defendant). 'Us against the State' mentality. Just my opinion.

Nothing will be done - all water under the bridge now, and politically a :worms:

I content myself with the fact that she was not involved in the guilt phase.

I still want to know who released the list of jurors' names!!!