Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Ladylub]

Well isnt that great. May not have been JA's team after all that released the names, if she felt so strong about this case.

 

[atthelake]

This is a weird statement. I don't understand how it happened that way—they weren't home yet. I'd like to hear what the other jurors say about that warning and what the judge actually said and when she said it.

When i read it i was assuming she was talking about what happened with the previous jury. perhaps this is why the current jury wanted to stay and get it all out, in the very beginning?

:moo:
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Yes, Janet continued to assist JSS in the retrial (she can be seen in the videos being released). And that is an EXCELLENT question because given what is coming out about this so called assistant, in my mind she appears to be a very good candidate for the one who released the reported "official" list of all the jurors. JMHO

I would still put my money on MDLR. She had the same access and it is known that she is in up to her eyeballs with the free the killer crowd.

 

[TexMex]

Nope? As her sentencing has not yet been done and as you see Maria is still working on those mitigators :floorlaugh:

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Then she should be preparing a pre sentencing report...but wait, Arias declined the report...🙈

 

[Caylee Advocate]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/glendalecase0201-CR.html

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I know this is probably answered and I more then likely skipped over it as I as speed reading to catch up. But this court employee that was overheard saying things last trial, was she involved in this part of the trial and if so was she one of the 6 that received copies of the jurors names that was mysteriously posted on that other site?

RBBM: Yep !

:gaah: She should NOT have been JSS's judicial assistant for the re-try of the sentencing phase !

 

[bznbear]

I've watched the first part of the three part series involving juror #17.
Made a couple of observations.

1. Intellectually challenged.
2. Emotionally unstable.
3. Very thinly veiled lies.
4. Added additional information where it was not needed.
5. Feigned naiveté.
6. Went online (social media) asap, after verdict.
7. Called bailiff to see if she could "help", (*see #6), directly after the ****storm began.

I've met some people throughout my life that have offered to "help" under the guise of control.

8. Lied some more.

I'm so angry but yet, if she broke her shovel, so to speak; I would hand her another.
Coupled with the facts that we know, and what she has said so far may be helpful to the investigation.

BBM - We know someone else who called authorities offering to help.

 

[Nosey Parker]

@jeffgoldesq, juror 17 had lawyer with her during 12News interview.

 

[AZlawyer]

I've been out of the country for a week and trying to catch up. Shady Lady gave me a quick update (THANK YOU! ), and I listened to 3 parts of an interview with Juror 17 (it felt like it ended abruptly, so maybe I missed some parts) as well as JM's voir dire of her. I didn't listen to JM's attempt to strike her as the headline said he asked to strike for DV bias. Based on her voir dire, I assume JSS appropriately denied that request, unless she openly confessed some bias in her written responses that JM referenced during that argument. What I can't understand is why JM didn't use one of his "free" strikes on this lady if he was so concerned about her. Normally your first "free" strikes are used on anyone you unsuccessfully asked to strike for cause.

From JM's voir dire of juror 17 relating to her husbands' criminal histories, I couldn't tell what it was that she said that was false or misleading. Can anyone fill me in on that?

 

[AZlawyer]

:seeya: Just had a thought after reading your post:

I want to know WHY these jurors' names were NOT sealed by JSS -- at least seal the names for a period of time after the hung jury was announced -- as this was a high profile case.


So ... I went looking and this is what I found:


----------
Privacy/Confidentiality of Jurors

Both prospective and impaneled jurors have the right to privacy and confidentiality.
...

2.Your home or mailing address is known only to the court.
Only the judge can order the release of jurors' addresses, usually to the lawyers in the case, and only for a good, legal reason. This very rarely happens. At the conclusion of the trial, should you be contacted by the lawyers in a case in which you sat as a juror, remember that you are not obligated to divulge any information concerning the deliberations, the verdict, or your opinions about anything concerning the case unless ordered to do so by the court.

More at Link: http://www.azcourts.gov/juryduty/JuryServiceWhattoExpect.aspx#integrity

Link to Jury Service Information: http://www.azcourts.gov/juryduty/JuryServiceInformation.aspx
----------


RBBM: IF I am reading this correctly, only the judge can order the release of jurors' names and info ?

So WHY didn't JSS seal these jurors' names -- at least for a period of time ?

:gaah:

Normally, only the addresses are kept confidential, not the names.

 

[Hez]

Well isnt that great. May not have been JA's team after all that released the names, if she felt so strong about this case.

Ah yes, but I find it highly unlikely that this court employee would have direct access to the JAII people who posted the list on that site. There had to be a middle man (or woman, ahem) to facilitate the release to the person at JAII. :moo:

 

[atthelake]

----Then she should be preparing a pre sentencing report...but wait, Arias declined the report...

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

I'll have to review as i thought she just said that she did not want to be interviewed for the report. i was under the impression that the other parts e.g. sheriff joe report on her jail time review with still be considered

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[ShadyLady]

I've been out of the country for a week and trying to catch up. Shady Lady gave me a quick update (THANK YOU! ), and I listened to 3 parts of an interview with Juror 17 (it felt like it ended abruptly, so maybe I missed some parts) as well as JM's voir dire of her. I didn't listen to JM's attempt to strike her as the headline said he asked to strike for DV bias. Based on her voir dire, I assume JSS appropriately denied that request, unless she openly confessed some bias in her written responses that JM referenced during that argument. What I can't understand is why JM didn't use one of his "free" strikes on this lady if he was so concerned about her. Normally your first "free" strikes are used on anyone you unsuccessfully asked to strike for cause.

From JM's voir dire of juror 17 relating to her husbands' criminal histories, I couldn't tell what it was that she said that was false or misleading. Can anyone fill me in on that?

Here are listings. I think it was in part four at about 28:00, let me look to see when Juan tried to strike her for cause. Juan said she had tears in her eyes when recounting DV, she was held behind to be questioned by JSS and then said the right things. She was #138.

http://bluesharp1911.wix.com/courtchatter#!jodi-arias-archive/c1h5b

Found part @8:15 Juan starts questioning.

 

[Ladylub]

Ah yes, but I find it highly unlikely that this court employee would have direct access to the JAII people who posted the list on that site. There had to be a middle man (or woman, ahem) to facilitate the release to the person at JAII. :moo:

Unless she stuck her hand in that cookie jar after the guilty verdict came back and we just don't know about it. Its not like they will come out with that as public.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

For all we know, Janet was in charge of making and distributing the copies.

Yes, Janet continued to assist JSS in the retrial (she can be seen in the videos being released). And that is an EXCELLENT question because given what is coming out about this so called assistant, in my mind she appears to be a very good candidate for the one who released the reported "official" list of all the jurors. JMHO

Hmmm ... just had a thought after reading these posts:

I would NOT be surprised IF "J" released these names to the media ...

:thinking: BUT .. is it possible that "J" released these names to that [cough cough] other site ?

:moo:

 

[Gin]

Nope? As her sentencing has not yet been done and as you see Maria is still working on those mitigators :floorlaugh:

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

<modsnip> can mitigate till the cows come home...but she's not going to be able to make ja's attempts at corrupting a couple of 15 yo kids look pretty.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I'm not an Einstein like Jodi, but I have common sense. If it walks like a duck. Juror 17 should not have been on this jury and I'm very surprised that anyone would think she should have. And in the very least Janet should've been removed as JSS assistant, if not fired for all of her comments and shenanigans. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt once or maybe twice but when there are so many comments and lies and shady dealings surrounding someone, nope. If it walks like a duck. JMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

Exactly! This juror needs to keep silent. Nobody needs to hear her try to explain herself.

I agree with that as well.

Although there have been others who have opined in the last week they think Juror 17 owes it to them to explain herself and they have that expectation that she do so.

 

[ShadyLady]

Part 4, at 26:30 juan asks for #138 to be striken [sp].

 

[Madeleine74]

Clearly JSS didn't have all of the information (nor did anyone but J17). I feel confident that if JSS KNEW that Juan Martinez had prosecuted her former husband who went to prison, she'd have struck her then and there. Just like the Judge did to me for a weekend remodeling a bathroom with the prosecutor as part of a completely neutral team experience (a far cry from a court of law where my husband was being prosecuted).

No doubt JM would have made JSS aware of such a thing, even if it was a case that was 15 yrs old, had he been reminded of it or remembered it himself and that would have gotten J17 excused for cause.

How does one prove a juror remembers the prosecutor's name and/or face from a 15 yr old case? Sure, we can assume she must have remembered Juan, and then purposely hid such knowledge, but how does assuming it provide proof? This is the crux because the judge seems to be someone who trusts everything on face value.

I find it troubling that JM saw a clear red flag just with the DV issue itself and his motion was struck down by JSS based on her own opinion. The minute I heard about J17's prior DV issues, both growing up and with husband #1, it was clearly a red flag to me. She asked J17 if J17 felt she could be impartial and J17 answered back yes she felt she could. JSS took her at face value and overruled JM's motion.