Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Greater Than]

OK, I'm confused. I haven't read everything on his cases like you have, though--just skimmed through. I do think he was 16 when he committed the July/Aug. 1998 crimes, not 17, because his birthday shows as Oct. 1981 most of the time (Oct. 1980 once that I saw). Either way, I wonder if juror #17 thought she shouldn't disclose juvenile information or that it didn't count for whatever question she was asked in the questionnaire. The jury questionnaire should be available from the court clerk if anyone's communicating with any reporters, by the way.

There is no indication in the minutes that juror #17 was present at the 5/3/00 hearing, although as you said it was approved for SA to live with her as part of the plea deal, so I would think she would have been there to pick him up.

Although SA was sentenced on 6/27/08 for the later crimes, he got a presentence incarceration credit of 146 days, so if we're trying to figure out if juror #17 was truthful when she said they were separated when he went to prison, perhaps we should be looking at Jan. 2008 rather than June 2008 as the separation date.

ETA: Or 2/1/08, the date of the offense.

You are absolutely right. He was 16 when he committed the offenses in the 1998 case(s). I calculated incorrectly. I edited my post above. I apologize for the confusion.

But since it was a 1st degree murder case and he was being held without bond, it would appear he was being tried as an adult. Maybe that's why all the info is available to the public? A juvenile's case would be sealed.

 

[ohreally]

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).

12 News ‏@12News 2m2 minutes ago

#Juror17 says the #JodiArias jury was not instructed to stay off social media. She talks about her choice tonight https://t.co/F8zRInMNh3
— 12 News (@12News) March 16, 2015​

#Juror17 says the #JodiArias jury was not instructed to stay off social media. She talks about her choice tonight

I cannot wait for this one to air now. While JSS questioned her she said she only went onto her Facebook one time, and that was to wish her sister a happy birthday. Wonder how many times she will now admit too?

 

[Mindmatters]

For your evening's amusement, while we wait for the news bombshell that we will all love, but is being held back for Sweeps Week, whatever that is:

There is video on the State vs Arias Facebook page from just before Arias' taking the stand in secret. She was determined to 'walk' to the witness box like all the other witnesses - no way was she going to be treated as a common defendant - entitlement much? JSS was concerned that her restraints would be apparent to the jury, so she had Arias rehearse her 'walk'. In the end, after looking up the case Juan cited, JSS had to concede that he was correct after all - it was a possible appellant issue should the jury notice her 'equipment'. Enjoy!

NP, I couldn't believe I was watching events that were in an actual courtroom. From the very onset of the "I want to walk like a regular person" drama, JM clearly--after JSS instructed those in the courtroom to check to see if her restraints were visible as she walked-- wanted to ensure there was NOT A CHANCE that her restraints could be seen thus avoiding any potential legal ramifications thereof. So we sit through at least 10 minutes of total BS, where JSS is trying to meet Travis' murderer's demands only to have JSS decide that JM was correct. Interesting side note, Mr. Shutz actively contributed to the issue as well.

You seriously cannot make this crap up--ludicrious!!

 

[Charterhouse]

For your evening's amusement, while we wait for the news bombshell that we will all love, but is being held back for Sweeps Week, whatever that is:

There is video on the State vs Arias Facebook page from just before Arias' taking the stand in secret. She was determined to 'walk' to the witness box like all the other witnesses - no way was she going to be treated as a common defendant - entitlement much? JSS was concerned that her restraints would be apparent to the jury, so she had Arias rehearse her 'walk'. In the end, after looking up the case Juan cited, JSS had to concede that he was correct after all - it was a possible appellant issue should the jury notice her 'equipment'. Enjoy!

She got to rehearse her "walk"? Unbeliveable

 

[Val1]

Well, if they had objected to his use of his "free strikes," there would have been a (no doubt sealed) proceeding to discuss that, which I suppose would be in the batch of released videos now. I don't think it happened, though.



That would not be normal. It's a big county with lots of prosecutors.



OK, I'm confused. I haven't read everything on his cases like you have, though--just skimmed through. I do think he was 16 when he committed the July/Aug. 1998 crimes, not 17, because his birthday shows as Oct. 1981 most of the time (Oct. 1980 once that I saw). Either way, I wonder if juror #17 thought she shouldn't disclose juvenile information or that it didn't count for whatever question she was asked in the questionnaire. The jury questionnaire should be available from the court clerk if anyone's communicating with any reporters, by the way.

There is no indication in the minutes that juror #17 was present at the 5/3/00 hearing, although as you said it was approved for SA to live with her as part of the plea deal, so I would think she would have been there to pick him up.

Although SA was sentenced on 6/27/08 for the later crimes, he got a presentence incarceration credit of 146 days, so if we're trying to figure out if juror #17 was truthful when she said they were separated when he went to prison, perhaps we should be looking at Jan. 2008 rather than June 2008 as the separation date.

ETA: Or 2/1/08, the date of the offense.

BBM - Perhaps she was just being literal... and that the date of their actual disintegration of their marriage only occurred after she decided to start a new life, after she gave her statement to the court for his sentencing in 2008:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/072008/m3255785.pdf

One thing that strikes me as rather odd, is that while she was obviously involved in courthouse matters during June of 2008, she claims to have little to no knowledge of the trial of the decade happening right there under her nose and within a few miles of her home. I'm guessing she may have been one to have believed the ninja/atonement stories... until the evidence and confession blew those out of the water.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I'm just stepping away until sentencing. I think the whole world knows j17 is the duck and there's some shady trees down at the maricopa county courthouse. I Just cannot stand a wrong not being made right and it appears that's not forthcoming. I'll see you all on sentencing :rollercoaster::judge:

 

[ladonna]

I cannot wait for this one to air now. While JSS questioned her she said she only went onto her Facebook one time, and that was to wish her sister a happy birthday. Wonder how many times she will now admit too?

Yup and every time the Judge asked the panel if they watched social media and whatnot.....crickets.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Occam's Razor. Juan wanted this trial over with. Also, was she the only Hispanic female on the jury?

It did cross my mind that ethnicity might have been a factor in why JSS denied the request for dismissal. I have no idea until we know the makeup of the entire jury.

It's just so odd to deny the request.

 

[ElleElle]

I'm just stepping away until sentencing. I think the whole world knows j17 is the duck and there's some shady trees down at the maricopa county courthouse. I Just cannot stand a wrong not being made right and it appears that's not forthcoming. I'll see you all on sentencing :rollercoaster::judge:

Me too. I think feeding into J17 is just causing more harm than good. I'll be lurking but that's about it.

 

[mydirtysecret]

You are absolutely right. He was 16 when he committed the offenses in the 1998 case(s). I calculated incorrectly. I edited my post above. I apologize for the confusion.

But since it was a 1st degree murder case and he was being held without bond, it would appear he was being tried as an adult. Maybe that's why all the info is available to the public? A juvenile's case would be sealed.

Azl. I'm not familiar with arizona criminal l codes but generally as a rule in Oklahoma a 16/17 year old will be tried In adult court where there was a gun involved. Gun enhancement

 

[FelicityLemon]

Here's what I don't understand, Juror 17 was talking about the crimes (that she admitted to) that her first husband committed when questioned about them. Yet when talking about her second husband she said that she checked out his crimes herself because she didn't want her children around someone that would be a bad influence (paraphrase). But didn't both of them commit similar crimes (that she admitted to)?!? So why was it not ok with the first husband, after all she did divorce him, but ok with the second husband?

Yes. Crimes with weapons.

 

[Niner]

I

I read a transcript. I couldn't stand to actually listen.

Oh "where" please??!! I've looking for a transcript too!! Also, anyone know if there are/or will be transcripts of the YouTube videos of the trial???

TIA! :wave:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It did cross my mind that ethnicity might have been a factor in why JSS denied the request for dismissal. I have no idea until we know the makeup of the entire jury.

It's just so odd to deny the request.

What is odd about it? You can not just dismiss jurors. There has to be good cause. I think JSS did the right thing here. Had she dismissed her, and the new juror voted against death then what? If they voted for death then basically JSS just made the jury vote for death and it would have been overturned.

It is a fine line to walk.

 

[Val1]

The house purchase is interesting to me. Is this the same house that she owned at the time of her marriage? Was it after her divorce from her first husband was finalized, which was also in 2010. When Juan questions her she says that they were dating for two years then quickly changes it to four months. Then something about looking at a house to buy. Then in the next statement she says that they didn't marry until after the baby was born. Hmm only dated four months but had a baby (nine months) before they got married. What am I missing?
Why lie about how long she was dating her second husband?

Wow, those got scrubbed fast...

 

[wendiesan]

I'm interested in the discussion about the possibly outspoken Janet.

So, I wanted to be sure as to what exactly a Judicial Assistant's job description is, and to whom a jud.asst. is responsible, and found the following.

Judicial Assistant Job Description
Judicial assistants work for federal, state and county court judges. They perform administrative tasks to help judges manage their workload and court schedule. The position is a government job and despite working for a judge, these assistants are generally employees of the government responsible for funding the courthouse. This position can also be referred to as administrative assistant, court clerk or another similar title.

Requirements
Most employers require a high school diploma or GED equivalent for this position. Prospective assistants may also need professional experience. Although not required, assistants can also gain training through a certificate or associate's degree program from a related area, such as customer service, paralegal studies or criminal justice.

Job Duties
Judicial assistants are primarily responsible for running all aspects of the judge's office. Common job duties include filing and copying, answering questions about court proceedings, issuing court orders and transcribing court correspondence.

They may also be responsible for managing schedule trials, motions and court hearings, as well as supervising interns, volunteers or law clerks. Some judicial assistants draft basic court documents to be reviewed and approved by the judge, such as notices that a hearing is scheduled or that another document has been received.

http://study.com/articles/Judicial_Assistant_Job_Description_Duties_and_Salary.html

 

[ohreally]

Wow, those got scrubbed fast...

I listened to the video again within the last half hour to make sure I was remembering correctly. They are still up. I don't know how to link from my tablet, but It is on the video where Juan is asking individual jurors questions.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I'm just stepping away until sentencing. I think the whole world knows j17 is the duck and there's some shady trees down at the maricopa county courthouse. I Just cannot stand a wrong not being made right and it appears that's not forthcoming. I'll see you all on sentencing :rollercoaster::judge:

I agree with you but I'm not sure the whole world knows. Lots of excuses being made for poor J17 and the shady trees.

 

[Val1]

I listened to the video again within the last half hour to make sure I was remembering correctly. They are still up. I don't know how to link from my tablet, but It is on the video where Juan is asking individual jurors questions.

Sorry, I meant the links about the house were scrubbed, or something.

 

[ohreally]

Sorry, I meant the links about the house were scrubbed, or something.

Oh, ok sorry I misunderstood. Thank you.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

BBM - I agree.
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052000/m0139919.pdf
"SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
05/03/2000"

"PLEA AGREEMENT/CHANGE OF PLEA
10:55 a.m. State is represented by Juan M. Martinez"

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant shall reside with"...her maiden name was still on the court documents...

She also had to have been 18 then, b/c I doubt they would release a minor to another minor would they?? (Unless they were married maybe, and they weren't yet if her maiden name was on the docs)