Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Mrs G Norris]

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?

From my understanding of that, she only mentioned her ex-husbands 2008 case, and completely left out the drive by shooting case which ran between 2000-3 which Juan prosecuted .. lied by omission.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If JM had remembered her and she claimed not to remember him, IMO JSS would have stricken her. Everyone understands that sometimes a juror claims not to remember you BECAUSE they want to get back at you.

I don't get how the DV issue was a red flag. We have plenty of WS members who get emotional about their DV histories, but it only causes them to be able to see through JA's lies about DV. And the judge certainly couldn't strike everyone for cause who suffered from DV or was emotional about it. That's not a permissible basis on which to strike a juror.

SBBM

Could you answer a question which we have been unable to find an answer to?

During jury selection how common is it for lawyers to look up a juror to see if there might be a connection to themselves from an old case, like would it be common for Juan, upon hearing her ex-husband was a felon, and tried in the same county, to have a bit of a look and see if he was connected, or if there might be any cause for concern in regards to this juror?

 

[bznbear]

Hi Lewcch, Bznbear broke the news post #434, TexMex contributed with post #441, and Bonjoviblonde also posted #453 (page 19) on Tara's tweets yesterday about Janet http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Formal-Sentencing-Hearing-Jodi-Arias-7/page19

Hi, lewcch, we can't post twitter stuff here, but if you have a twitter account you can follow Tara Kelley, former alt juror #17, NOT J17. She claims this judicial assistant lost some court folks their jobs as well.

 

[Bernina]

Wow, I did not realize that you had actually seen the place. :scared: During the open house, did you see your ex's cell?

Yes........and it looked exactly like the one MSM has posted of CMJA's awaiting cell.

 

[bznbear]

Like she owns the courtroom.

I did notice the way she walks, with her head up in the air. She seemed a tad....arrogant.

 

[Madeleine74]

Anyone curious why JM didn't use one of his 10 free-for-all strikes on Juror 138/17 when he had the opportunity to do so, and with no permission from JSS needed for doing that? I'm curious. I'd love to know his reasoning and what the factors were.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Juror 17 said she met her newest hubby online, possibly here. No hard facts, just a thought.



http://www.writeaprisoner.com/inmate-profiles/DisplayState.aspx?sState=AZ

 

[LambChop]

Hi, lewcch, we can't post twitter stuff here, but if you have a twitter account you can follow Tara Kelley, former alt juror #17, NOT J17. She claims this judicial assistant lost some court folks their jobs as well.

Tara was a juror. She has a direct connection to the trial so you can post her tweets.

 

[Val1]

MrsG- because I said I would:


FACTS – juror 17- Ex-husband- JM-current husband


17’s voir dire: “Met (Santino Alejandro) at 16. Together for 11 years.”

“(Alejandro) was sent to prison when we were separated, imprisoned for robbery, Verizon, shot at police.”
------------------

Offenses: 8/30/1998.

Delia Neal- original prosecutor: 11/1998-1/1999. Withdrew, conflict of interest.

10/13/1999 pretrial conference.

10/15/1999- (only “trial “date listed in case)

6 trial continued/reset dates in record.

Continuances- 4/16/99-5/2/2000, requested alternatively by both defendant and State.

On at least one of the dates a continuance was granted, JM and Alejandro were in court together. If both parties were in court for every continuance and trial reset dates in the record, they would have been in court together on 19 days (including pretrial conference and 1 trial day) between September 1999 and May 10, 2000 when he was sentenced.

Final Charge: Attempted Burglary, 2nd degree

Date for Plea bargain: 5/3/2000 (by prosecutor’s motion- JM)

Dismissed by JM: aggravated assault, drive by shooting, murder 1st degree

Sentence: Maricopa County Jail, for a period of four months , November 29, 2000 and not be released until March 28, 2001.

--------------
They may or may not have been separated at the time of sentencing, as 17 said in voir dire, but they were not married yet either. They were married afterwards, on May 29, 2000.

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/03/jodi-arias-just-when-you-thought-it-was.html


17 and S. Alejandro Divorce Proceedings began 11/2009

Were divorced on 2/18/2010
-------
17’s current husband:

Voir dire: “met online, dated 6 months, he had been out of prison for 3-4 years.”

Husband’s 1st offense: attempted armed robbery, 4/4/97, given probation on 12/4/97

Husband’s second offense 6/12/2003

Sentenced: 2 years-- Admission Date: 1/09/2003. Release Date: 4/11/2007

If 17’s dates are accurate, she began dating second husband mid-2010 or mid-2011.

Sorry if this has since been corrected, but according to this document they did get married the day before her first hb got sentenced and yes he did have to go to jail for a period of time.:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062000/m0156617.pdf

"SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
05/30/2000
<snip>
As punishment for this crime(s),
IT IS ORDERED suspending imposition of sentence and placing
the Defendant on probation as to Count(s) I for a period of
three years commencing May 30, 2000 under the supervision of the
Adult Probation Department of this Court, in accordance with the
formal Judgment and Order suspending sentence and Order imposing
terms of probation signed by the Court.
As a condition of probation,
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the terms of probation should
include incarceration in the Maricopa County Jail as a term and
condition of probation.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant be incarcerated in the
Maricopa County Jail for a period of four months commencing
November 29, 2000 and not be released until March 28, 2001." etc.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Also, JSS kept her behind for questioning by her (requested by Juan) about the tearing up and J17 said it was because she was embarrassed at having been in that situation because she thinks of herself as a smart person. Effectively explaining away her emotional state.

eta TO ME this seemed to indicate that if she had admitted to still being bothered by her experience with DV she would have been let go

*BINGO!!* IMO a truthful DV victim would have said, "I'm so sorry" it is still a very tender subject for me even after all this time and therapy"

...and maybe not the "I'm so sorry" part 'if' in therapy they worked with her about feeling guilt as a result of being a DV victim and not having to say "I'm sorry" about everything...this is just my opinion, something I would look for in a true DV victim... This is also why when she called her ex an "idiot" in such an authoritative way it was another red flag to me... It wasn't so much 'what' she said, but 'how' she said it. Even a healed victim of DV wouldn't use that tone when talking about her abuser... The pain never goes away...

 

[east2west]

Bernina post #1025, thanks for sharing that eye opener. I'm still unclear about the horrors of Prison vs Jail and the discrepancies we've read about. Can County Jail be worse than a State Prison?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

*BINGO!!* IMO a truthful DV victim would have said, "I'm so sorry" it is still a very tender subject for me even after all this time and therapy"

...and maybe not the "I'm so sorry" part 'if' in therapy they worked with her about feeling guilt as a result of being a DV victim and not having to say "I'm sorry" about everything...this is just my opinion, something I would look for in a true DV victim... This is also why when she called her ex an "idiot" in such an authoritative way it was another red flag to me... It wasn't so much 'what' she said, but 'how' she said it. Even a healed victim of DV wouldn't use that tone when talking about her abuser... The pain never goes away...

I think that it is obtuse to stick all DV victims in one category for how they should feel or react. I was abused at one time, And harbor no ill feelings or issues from it, But all cases and abuse are different too. I am not going to judge someone's level of healing or after effects of abuse.

DV is different for every victim.

I don't have an issue with a DV survivor being on the jury. I believe with all my heart, that someone who was a victim would see through the lies and see that this was not a victim at all but an abuser that sat before them.
I think that in the case of J17, she could have just been one of those people that in the end could not vote for death. And that is her choice and right. IT may be that some of these things could have been an issue but really who knows?

It is the verdict that was meant to be.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Sorry if this has since been corrected, but according to this document they did get married the day before her first hb got sentenced and yes he did have to go to jail for a period of time.:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062000/m0156617.pdf

"SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
05/30/2000
<snip>
As punishment for this crime(s),
IT IS ORDERED suspending imposition of sentence and placing
the Defendant on probation as to Count(s) I for a period of
three years commencing May 30, 2000 under the supervision of the
Adult Probation Department of this Court, in accordance with the
formal Judgment and Order suspending sentence and Order imposing
terms of probation signed by the Court.
As a condition of probation,
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the terms of probation should
include incarceration in the Maricopa County Jail as a term and
condition of probation.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant be incarcerated in the
Maricopa County Jail for a period of four months commencing
November 29, 2000 and not be released until March 28, 2001." etc.

A few more interesting docs...

She/they bought house in 2010, only she is on title (totally understandable if husband has bad credit, etc.. but again, another piece of circumstantial evidence b/c current husband is a felon and b/c we are trying to find a motive behind all this)

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20100970374.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20100970375.pdf


The documents below pertain to ex husband and current husband's restitution

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20140307688.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/19990215317.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/19970542475.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20110164275.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20031424942.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20031580591.pdf


I added this only b/c being that her husband is a felon I'm wondering if he has something up his sleeve, like wanting to creating a reason to refinance her house and add him to the title... Again, I'm just speculating, trying to figure out what their/his motives could be in all of this... "just been busy sleuthing again" - Nancy Drew ;0)

Arizona is one of the nine community property states in the United States. Community property is a principal of Spanish law and the states that are community property states were part of the old Spanish empire.

Community property law means that the marriage is in essence a community that anything earned (or debt incurred) during the marriage is to be divided fifty-fifty. Of course there are exceptions. Property that was earned prior to the marriage or gifted or inherited by one spouse is considered &#8220;separate property&#8221; and should remain solely the asset of that person.

Arizona is a &#8220;non-fault&#8221; or &#8220;no-fault&#8221; state. This means that the court will not consider the conduct of spouses when dividing property. Of course there are exceptions. There is a concept of community waste, meaning that if a spouse spent money on a gambling habit or any other activity that was not for the benefit of the community the innocent spouse should not be liable for those expenses and be reimbursed for any waste.

Because it is not easy to establish community waste it is best for the innocent spouse to file for divorce quickly thus minimizing their responsibility for the debts incurred by the other spouse. Under Arizona law, filing and serving the other party with the divorce action will sever the financial community and debts incurred thereafter will be those of the spouse that incurred them.

 

[fifteen89]

As warmup to the big event, some of my favorite videos of Jodi in stripes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3bXH5G9mlY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W0BmKX6nlk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjQVSTKRorg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY-edyCd5Is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRMwGuyackQ

Metamorphosis coming soon to orange! And she won't be out and about in court ever again, multiple guards in bullet proof vests or not!

I'm sure you all have other stripey favorites?

Ooooo thanks! I needed that!

Can someone refresh my memory? Who was she glaring at while she was walking into court in the first video? Was is jurors from the guilt phase of the trial?

 

[Jasper52]

Bernina post #1025, thanks for sharing that eye opener. I'm still unclear about the horrors of Prison vs Jail and the discrepancies we've read about. Can County Jail be worse than a State Prison?

This is life for women prisoners in Arizona. https://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/201...ers-need-help/

HTH

 

[ElleElle]

FWIW I don't see a big payday for Juror 17 re interviews, a book, etc. I could only make myself watch part one of her interview and that was enough! She was not eloquent, had poor grammar, rambled, repeated herself, took a very long time to say very little, and it was all about self-justification and patting herself on the back. No true insight as to the horror of the death of Travis, the horror of this trial, the pain of Travis's family, or the mitigating factors vs. the aggravating factors.

Add to that her history with various people with criminal backgrounds - I see very little to endear her to the mainstream public.

BBM ~ Yes, ITA! She sounded very frazzled when asked about knowing Juan. I guess she did not learn how to lie without sounding obvious from watching NG last trial.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I think that it is obtuse to stick all DV victims in one category for how they should feel or react. I was abused at one time, And harbor no ill feelings or issues from it, But all cases and abuse are different too. I am not going to judge someone's level of healing or after effects of abuse.

DV is different for every victim.

I don't have an issue with a DV survivor being on the jury. I believe with all my heart, that someone who was a victim would see through the lies and see that this was not a victim at all but an abuser that sat before them.
I think that in the case of J17, she could have just been one of those people that in the end could not vote for death. And that is her choice and right. IT may be that some of these things could have been an issue but really who knows?

It is the verdict that was meant to be.

No, no...I totally agree... My point was simply that (IMO) the pain never goes away... I am in no way opposed to a "truthful" DV victim being on this jury..

If fact, I think it's a good thing to have a real DV victim on this jury, b/c they would be see through JA's lies and it would be clear that she was never a DV victim.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Ooooo thanks! I needed that!

Can someone refresh my memory? Who was she glaring at while she was walking into court in the first video? Was is jurors from the guilt phase of the trial?

Wasn't it Katie Wick???!! JA was so jealous of her and it was SO OBVIOUS!!! :hilarious:

 

[AZlawyer]

It was a red flag to Juan for reasons only Juan can properly explain. It's all in the video of that voir dire of juror 138.

He told the judge he saw the potential juror tearing-up and that it appeared to him, even with her year of therapy about the DV she experienced, she still wasn't dealing with it (I'm paraphrasing). That was the motion he made to JSS and it was that issue (DV and her current reactions when talking about it) that JSS inquired more about, with Juan still wanting to strike this juror even after she explained more about why she got emotional.

I don't see how JSS could possibly have granted that motion.

Factually, or based on assumptions?

1. Assumption- She lied when she didn&#8217;t raise her hand and say she knew JM.

She had to have known JM because JM prosecuted her husband for 1st degree murder in 2000. Either she was in court with her groom-to-be and saw JM, and couldn&#8217;t forget him because he is JM, or her felon husband mentioned his name numerous times and she wouldn&#8217;t be able to forget it.

2. She mentioned her ex&#8217;s 2nd degree burglary conviction to JM, but did not volunteer that her ex had been charged with 1st degree murder and aggravated assault OR that JM had prosecuted her ex.

Therefore she lied by omission (severity of a separate crime) and directly (by not acknowledging she knew JM).

Factually (draw your own inferences).

1. JM did not ask her about crimes her 2 husbands were charged with. What she was asked in her questionnaire on this and how she replied are unknown. She obviously mentioned her ex&#8217;s conviction for burglary on the questionnaire.

2. JM was not her ex&#8217;s original prosecutor (see timeline up-thread). IMO there is a great big piece missing as to why JM offered the ex the plea he did, after months of continuances and only one day of trial.

The ex was 17 years old when he was committed a 2nd degree burglary, and 18 years old when he allegedly committed 1st degree murder, a drive by shooting, and aggravated assault.
JM allowed him to plea on the 2nd degree charges, and dropped everything else. Does that make sense to you? It doesn&#8217;t to me. Something is missing, and maybe that something has something to do with why 17 answered as she did. Or not.

3. She said she was separated from her husband at the time he went to prison. From what I&#8217;ve read, that is untrue, if she meant the term he served for that burglary. She married him on May 29, 2000, BEFORE he went to prison on that charge. Unless she married him and then separated by the end of the same year.

4. She married him May 29, AFTER his plea deal. Does that mean she must have gone to court at least a few times and met JM there and therefore lied about knowing him? Or not.

5. She said she met her second husband, also a felon, online and after he&#8217;s been out of prison for 3-4 years. I think many have said that&#8217;s a lie, but couldn&#8217;t figure out the basis for that and won&#8217;t be trying to to either.

6. Many here seem to think she isn&#8217;t really a DV victim. JM thought she was. That&#8217;s why he tried to remove her for cause. I think so too. Haven&#8217;t seen any hospital records or police reports though&#8212;maybe she&#8217;ll provide them in another interview?



Saw your post when I went to edit my upstream post. Reply to you= edit. Take care

Thank you!

It looks like SA was only 16 when the offenses were committed in August 1998 (involving alleged murder 1, etc.), not 18. His birthday is in Oct. 1981. Although juvenile records are supposed to be confidential, they show up on the Maricopa County Superior Court website anyway if you know the juvenile's name. You can tell he was a minor, though, because the case shows up as "Minor Minor" for the name in the search results. Frankly, I think this is a glitch in the system, but everyone seems to know about it and no one seems to care.

I don't know if juror #17 had met him yet or was his girlfriend yet, or whether she knew what the charges were. SA's attorney arranged a plea agreement after JM took over that was accepted by the court in May 2000, at which point it does appear SA was living with juror #17. Normally, the family and girlfriend-type people are quite grateful when a murder 1 charge results in a plea down to attempted burglary, probation and 4 mos. in prison. I doubt they saw the situation as SA being "prosecuted" by JM, who would have been telling the judge, together with SA's counsel, that it was appropriate for the court to accept the plea agreement.

More than likely, the "easy" plea was offered due to lack of evidence, to answer your question about that. JM probably felt he could not get a conviction but didn't want this kid to "skate" and maybe think he was invulnerable to the law.

JM was no longer personally involved in the case after that day in May 2000, although his name was left on some of the court records. The first (maybe only) time juror #17 appeared in court to speak on SA's behalf was November 2002, when he was being accused (by a different prosecutor) of violating probation.

If you know people in the right circles, you will know that it is not unusual to be separated 6 mos. after getting married. Or even to get married while not "together," for purposes such as (1) getting military benefits, (2) looking good for sentencing or probation reports, (3) immigration issues, (4) etc. etc.

From her interview, I do think she minimized how much she knew about the JA case, though.

 

[Greater Than]

2. JM was not her ex&#8217;s original prosecutor (see timeline up-thread). IMO there is a great big piece missing as to why JM offered the ex the plea he did, after months of continuances and only one day of trial.

The ex was 17 years old when he was committed a 2nd degree burglary, and 18 years old when he allegedly committed 1st degree murder, a drive by shooting, and aggravated assault.
JM allowed him to plea on the 2nd degree charges, and dropped everything else. Does that make sense to you? It doesn&#8217;t to me. Something is missing, and maybe that something has something to do with why 17 answered as she did. Or not.

3. She said she was separated from her husband at the time he went to prison. From what I&#8217;ve read, that is untrue, if she meant the term he served for that burglary. She married him on May 29, 2000, BEFORE he went to prison on that charge. Unless she married him and then separated by the end of the same year.

4. She married him May 29, AFTER his plea deal. Does that mean she must have gone to court at least a few times and met JM there and therefore lied about knowing him? Or not

RSBM

I read all the court minutes on the ex's cases, so I think I can clarify some of this.

2. On 10/21/98 he was arrested for 1st degree murder/drive by shooting/aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The crimes occurred on 8/30/98. He was placed in custody with no bond. On 11/2/98 he was indicted for the above crimes.

On 2/2/99 he was indicted for attempted burglary. The crime occurred on 7/16/98. This has a separate case number and is specifically listed as a separate but related case to the one above.

He was 16 when he committed all of these crimes. He turned 17 five days after he was arrested. After many months of several continuances, the judge denied JM's final motion to continue on 5/2/2000 and set trial to begin the next day, 5/3/2000.

The only conclusion I can draw is that JM was not prepared to begin trial the next day (lack of evidence?), so he offered the ex a plea agreement. On 5/3/2000 he presented the plea agreement to the court and the ex plead guilty to the attempted burglary charge. The 1st degree murder/drive by shooting/aggravated assault charges were dropped.

3. The burglary charge and subsequent imprisionment that #17 discussed during jury selection was the 2008 case, not the case(s) mentioned above. She excluded the above case(s), the one(s) that JM prosecuted, altogether as if they never occurred. She told how he had stolen cell phones from Verizon and shot at police. That was the 2008 case. What she failed to disclose about that one though was that he was not merely charged with burglary, he was charged and convicted of burglary, 3 counts of aggravated assault, and misconduct involving weapons. That case did not go to trial - he pled guilty and was sentenced to 30 years.

She claimed they were separated when he was sent to prison, but in the court minutes for the sentencing hearing on 6/27/08, it states she made a statement to the court on his behalf. The only conclusion I can draw from that is they were not, in fact, separated. IMO after he was sentenced to 30 years WOP, she decided to leave him.

4. Yes. She was definitely in court on 5/3/2000 when JM presented the plea agreement because one of the conditions of the agreement was that the ex would reside with #17. As for the ex's other appearances in court with JM prior to the plea agreement, I think as a couple in love enough to marry prior to sentencing, she was present in court. He was in custody. IMO she would be there to see him and show her support. There is nothing that will convince me she didn't know who JM was.