Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[MeeBee]

I just followed you on Twitter, MeeBee. My Twitter name is not the same as my name here, but it indicates my former career.

Hey I don't see you in my notifications!

 

[GigiG]

It was his instincts letting him know something was iffy and why, but he didn't quite pick up on it .. goddammit!!!!

I know, right!

But the fact is that he DID pick up on it, but that wasn't enough.

Who knows how many other more obviously egregious people he DID strike. It's such a crap shoot, and from what I see, he did his best. He seems to have super-human instincts about this stuff, but once JSS said that juror was good, it was a whole 'nother ballgame.

Having watched JM on these recently released tapes -- IMO -- it dispels all doubt as to his ability to quickly size things up. When JW was quoted by Troy Hayden, saying that Juan should have know better re: #17s background, well... ????? No words to express that kind of self-indulgence that suggests on her part.

Bottom line is that Juan DID have misgivings about this juror from day one. I do not find fault with him for her being on the jury. The other influences/parties at play there, not so much...

 

[emilycat]

Hey I don't see you in my notifications!

Should be there. I didn't realize my last name was there and quickly edited it. That was my first and only tweet.

 

[zebra]

Just watched Nurmi object & ask to approach and JSS actually said no.

Bonus - Nurmi objected because JM sarcastically asked Detective Flores if he has ever had sex with Nurmi (JM was trying to prove a point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcSKTirgr8 57:08

 

[Mindmatters]

Well, if JSS consults her Judicial Assistant, I am sure she will give JA LWP.

I want to know from the first trial why Janet W. was taken off the case, then she was put back on the case and the others removed off [who does she have pull with??? HR?]. Per former juror Kelly.

Shady, after listening to JSS advocate for J138/17 to remain as a juror in such a subjective way, it does give me some concern for the first time that she could do that. But I have to believe she would not give this manipulative murderer LWP.

ETA: WTH happened here, I was quoting ShadyLady on her post about JSS possibly giving the murderer LWP

 

[Jasper52]

After Jodi Arias trial, AZ legislators look to restrict information

:gaah::gaah::gaah::shame::banghead:

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Also keep in mind that I think her children are fairly young... Like I don't think any of them are even in High School yet...

I think she was with husband #1 almost until she met husband #2...

We need to see if we can find dates... I found pictures of her second wedding and I think the dates are with them...

 

[GigiG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ldfY-6HUyk

Still pretending there was NO premeditation..."I could not envision myself doing it".

Bu****it.

She envisioned it for weeks.

WTF!? Did JSS really think through what she said there? Even though I already knew that this happened, watching to it and listening to it is utterly astonishing!

God bless you David Bodney, wherever you are.

 

[ShadyLady]

Shady, after listening to JSS advocate for J138/17 to remain as a juror in such a subjective way, it does give me some concern for the first time that she could do that. But I have to believe she would not give this manipulative murderer LWP.

ETA: WTH happened here, I was quoting ShadyLady on her post about JSS possibly giving the murderer LWP

I was snarking as usual....if JSS doesn't give JA LWOP, hell's gates will open...

 

[FelicityLemon]

Thanks. Will work on the court docs....


Hypothetically....say it turns out she lied 6x over during voir dire about her ex. The question would still be why. She obviously shouldn't have been on the jury, and she had better be charged with perjury.

But....why? I trust that JM saw what he saw and knew what he knew. He thought she had been a victim of DV and was still too emotional about it to be objective. From what's been said about deliberations, that sounds accurate to me. Stealth in that she lied to get on, but I don't think it was a vendetta against JM.

IF she had been a victim of DV and she was crying or teary eyed about it in 2014, is it because her current husband is abusive? Surely, if her first husband was, it was so many years ago and supposedly she's been in a good, loving, supportive marriage might supplant those bad feelings? I know people feel things differently, but what happened in my past has thankfully been replaced by the here and now of good stuff. I mean the memory is there, but almost clinically because time has passed and good feelings replaced the sad ones. I dunno, something's not right. Maybe she was crying trying to NOT be chosen? Some people can turn on the waterworks - I had a coworker demonstrate for me once. It's incredibly manipulative. I'm not saying that's what she did, only that I find it odd.

Only my opinion of course.

 

[MeeBee]

After Jodi Arias trial, AZ legislators look to restrict information

:gaah::gaah::gaah::shame::banghead:

"Dan Barr, an attorney for the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, said lawmakers are kidding themselves if they think restrictions will lessen the public's thirst for information.

"You are just going to get speculation instead of actual facts," Barr said."

Ain't that the truth.

 

[janx]

WTF!? Did JSS really think through what she said there? Even though I already knew that this happened, watching to it and listening to it is utterly astonishing!

God bless you David Bodney, wherever you are.

I had the same reaction.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Also keep in mind that I think her children are fairly young... Like I don't think any of them are even in High School yet...

I think she was with husband #1 almost until she met husband #2...

We need to see if we can find dates... I found pictures of her second wedding and I think the dates are with them...

June 2012 I think was the second wedding...

 

[Hatfield]

By then it was too late. Really. JA would have won on appeal if 17 had been removed at that point.

Ive been thinking about this and Im not so sure. I really think that once the jurors independently began to have issues with this same juror, then that was proof enough that Juan's initial concerns were now validated and she should have been thrown off and an alternate used and make the jury start deliberations over again.

I agree that JA would appeal the case and maybe bring this incident up but I think it would be denied by COA because now you have a 2nd independent validation that the juror was being bias. Remember the foreman and the other jurors had sent a note initially that the juror was not deliberating with them and the others.

She only began to make it look like she was deliberating after the "dynamite charge" was given. So I think this was a perfect opportunity right before the dynamite charge to go ahead and remove the juror at that time. JSS had 2 reasons at that point. JSS had Juan's initial concerns and then a 2nd totally independent corroboration came from the foreman and other jurors. The jury themselves independently confirmed this juror is a problem. That should be all the proof needed to stand up to any appeal.

Oh well. Its definitely spilled milk now but this is really bothersome.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

IF she had been a victim of DV and she was crying or teary eyed about it in 2014, is it because her current husband is abusive? Surely, if her first husband was, it was so many years ago and supposedly she's been in a good, loving, supportive marriage might supplant those bad feelings? I know people feel things differently, but what happened in my past has thankfully been replaced by the here and now of good stuff. I mean the memory is there, but almost clinically because time has passed and good feelings replaced the sad ones. I dunno, something's not right. Maybe she was crying trying to NOT be chosen? Some people can turn on the waterworks - I had a coworker demonstrate for me once. It's incredibly manipulative. I'm not saying that's what she did, only that I find it odd.

Only my opinion of course.

The thing is, I don't think husband #1 was that long ago... The children she had with him I don't think are very old... I'm trying to see if I can find the picture that I saw that I thought had the kids in them... She said she has 2 from the 1st, and 1 from the 2nd...

 

[GigiG]

I wrote cliff notes (and called them that) about jury deliberations, based on Jen-foreman interview. Is that what you're remembering?

yes. they were very precise and succinct. thank you!

 

[FelicityLemon]

Just watched Nurmi object & ask to approach and JSS actually said no.

Bonus - Nurmi objected because JM sarcastically asked Detective Flores if he has ever had sex with Nurmi (JM was trying to prove a point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcSKTirgr8 57:08

BBM - just because it's SO freaking funny! And thank you Zebra for the time stamp!

omg:laughing::rollercoaster::great::clap::tyou::yourock::lol::laughcry::laughcry::laughcry:


Juan Martinez to Det. Flores: "Were you naked on the stand?"

 

[Hatfield]

IF she had been a victim of DV and she was crying or teary eyed about it in 2014, is it because her current husband is abusive? Surely, if her first husband was, it was so many years ago and supposedly she's been in a good, loving, supportive marriage might supplant those bad feelings? I know people feel things differently, but what happened in my past has thankfully been replaced by the here and now of good stuff. I mean the memory is there, but almost clinically because time has passed and good feelings replaced the sad ones. I dunno, something's not right. Maybe she was crying trying to NOT be chosen? Some people can turn on the waterworks - I had a coworker demonstrate for me once. It's incredibly manipulative. I'm not saying that's what she did, only that I find it odd.

Only my opinion of course.

I wondered if she began crying on purpose to make JSS feel sorry for her and keep her on the jury.

 

[Buttercup117]

Juan at sidebar trying to get rid of 138 for cause because she cried .. am I hearing this right? YEP listen: https://youtu.be/n7jqGuEniFA?t=26m11s

And Nurmi fought tooth and nail to keep her.. the one juror that hung the trial. hmmmm.

 

[Madeleine74]

Just listened to the juror voir dire, the one in which juror 138 (aka juror 17) was singled out for questioning. Here's the sequence:

1. JM wanted to excuse juror 138 (aka juror 17) for cause and made a motion to do so. The reason he gave the judge is that she appeared to get emotional and tear-up when talking about her past experiences with DV and he thought that was a sign she wasn't over it emotionally and saw that as a problem.

2. KN did not want her excused. Judge said she herself didn't see any tearing-up, but conceded the courtroom was large and that wouldn't be unusual for her not to see that level of detail being far away.

3. Judge decided they would ask J138 more questions after everyone else was out of the courtroom.

4. Judge questioned Juror 138 (aka juror 17), with the state requesting the judge to do so. Judge asked juror 138 about her prior DV and if she felt she could be impartial to judge this case. She said yes, she could. Judge asked juror 138 about her tearing-up and appearing emotional when questioned about her past DV. Juror 138 said she "felt embarrassed; she considered herself a smart person and yet she was in that situation and she felt embarrassed."

5. Back at the sidebar, JM renews his motion and wants her dismissed for cause. KN has no issue with juror 138

6. JSS said she sees no valid reason to excuse this juror and denies JM's motion to dismiss for cause and THAT IS HOW JUROR 138 GOT ON THE PANEL!


Now why Juan did not use a preemptory challenge I don't know, maybe he was out of them by then?


Sooo... Juan was concerned about the DV in her background and that's what he keyed in on right away. KN must have figured that might be good for his side, so he had no issues with that juror. And JSS decided to believe juror 138 at her word that she could be impartial and not consider her own DV background in this penalty phase.

And that right there is when this phase was lost....

Juan was right on the money.

Juror 138 (aka Juror 17) did not appear to have an axe to grind against the state because husband #1 (who she herself called "an idiot" multiple times) was in prison, nor husband #2, who she said realized he had done wrong and came to believe he was better off getting away from the people he had been associating with and told the court husband #2 was embarrassed about being in prison.

I now believe she was biased on the DV front -- specifically that she would end up seeing the rude things TA said to JA as abuse and whatever stories told by the defense would be ones that would most resonate with her. I think the defense had to have realized this. FGS juror 138/17 got teary during her voir dire on the DV issue. RED FLAG.