Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[dog.gone.cute]

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

:gaah: And of course, JSS said NO !

Juan KNEW #138 a/k/a #17 was going to be a problem from her answers in voir dire -- AND -- she was "crying" !

:gaah:

 

[Moonchime]

Is it worth my time watching #17s interview or will I just end up more frustrated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'll just end up more frustrated. I couldn't even make it through the second "excerpt" of her interview. Juror # 17 is full of bull.

 

[Niner]

Fess up... Who is it??!! Lol!

I can't imagine that it was a WS memeber... non members can read WS post too, right? Maybe they should block non-members...

There are "private" forums for members only on this website... just in case you didn't know! :wave:

 

[fifteen89]

I'll bet she watched the whole first JA trial, realized who JM was, and then started watching other shows with JM in them. Volunteering that you're not interested in something? Protest-ith much-ith?

I just watched the 3 excerpts here http://www.azcentral.com/search/juror 17/ and it's sticking out like a sore thumb to me. Was it her likes on facebook that included Nancy Grace and HLN? She admits she watched 'bits and pieces' of the lifetime movie while she dusted her house -- but the other jurors said she commented how after seeing those bits and pieces she expected a monster but didn't see one in court.

Now she mentions watching a true crime show that had Martinez in it. BUT.....she says she didn't pay attention to the Jodi trial because she 'didn't want to get sucked in'.

I find all of that really hard to believe. Someone who 'likes' NG, watches true crime shows AND lives in Phoenix wasn't already sucked in to this trial????? Jodi did so many shows/interviews, her ridiculous smirking mug shot, her infamous 'no jury will ever convict me' line and her odd behavior in the interrogation room -- all of that alone had us all sucked in before we even knew all the horrific details of the crime.

I'm not buying it J17.

And no way she remembers JM from a true crime show but not from her husbands case. She remembers the show was about a woman who stabbed her husband in his sleep but she doesn't remember JM from her own husbands case? Really???? His hair might be grayer now but he's still JM.

Nope. Not buying a word of it.

 

[Bernina]

Can you elaborate on just how bad. TIA.

My 1st ex was incarcerated in the San Juan unit, now known as the Lumley Unit. It's called Lumley after the guard who was murdered there by an inmate. I spent 2 years visiting him twice a week before I dropped divorce proceedings on him.
It went from an all male minimum/medium security prison to an all female medium/maximum prison.
Anyone who says that place is better than Estrella has never been there. I have seen and been in the cells, they had an "open house" during visitation at one point. This was in 1983. The facility opened in 1981. It went from what appeared to be an open college campus to a gladiator school very quickly.
Myself and other visitors watched an inmate rape his wife on a picnic table one evening as the guards ignored it. We could leave, the guards had to deal with these inmates every day, the last thing they were going to do is get between an inmate and a "civilian" and have a bull's eye on their backs. I was assaulted by my ex in the visitation room......the guard operating the sallyport got the door open in time before my ex literally beat the crap out of me. No one stepped in.
Prison is an equal opportunity environment. The women are just as violent and deadly as the men. They have their gangs, their drugs, shake downs, hit lists, their food chain. "Dog eat dog".
Estrella is "summer camp" compared to Perryville. I'd say ADOC Florence is far better, and they still use the old cell blocks erected back in the early 1900's along with the newer facilities. (been there also, as a visitor)

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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.

:seeya:

BBM: Yep ... that's what I'm thinking !

I sure hope we learn the TRUTH because IF it turns out to be the COURT itself, some heads should roll !

:gaah::gaah::gaah:

 

[Amster]

We don't know what happened during the proceeding where Juan could use his 10 strikes....

Because. It. Is. Secret!

 

[ShadyLady]

My 1st ex was incarcerated in the San Juan unit, now known as the Lumley Unit. It's called Lumley after the guard who was murdered there by an inmate. I spent 2 years visiting him twice a week before I dropped divorce proceedings on him.
It went from an all male minimum/medium security prison to an all female medium/maximum prison.
Anyone who says that place is better than Estrella has never been there. I have seen and been in the cells, they had an "open house" during visitation at one point. This was in 1983. The facility opened in 1981. It went from what appeared to be an open college campus to a gladiator school very quickly.
Myself and other visitors watched an inmate rape his wife on a picnic table one evening as the guards ignored it. We could leave, the guards had to deal with these inmates every day, the last thing they were going to do is get between an inmate and a "civilian" and have a bull's eye on their backs. I was assaulted by my ex in the visitation room......the guard operating the sallyport got the door open in time before my ex literally beat the crap out of me. No one stepped in.
Prison is an equal opportunity environment. The women are just as violent and deadly as the men. They have their gangs, their drugs, shake downs, hit lists, their food chain. "Dog eat dog".
Estrella is "summer camp" compared to Perryville. I'd say ADOC Florence is far better, and they still use the old cell blocks erected back in the early 1900's along with the newer facilities. (been there also, as a visitor)

Wow, thanks for sharing. It must have been very hard to go through.

I suspected that it is going to be a big step down for JA, and deservedly so.

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM - I'm sorry but I don't see the DV "reasons" that have been given that some seem to see. :/

I'm not saying they are valid reasons, only that juror 17 used one of the stated mitigating factors (well, actually 2 of them) to justify during deliberations not voting for the DP. And it's true that Juan's motion to excuse Juror 138 (who then became Juror 17) was based on her being emotional when talking about her past DV experiences.

 

[Mindmatters]

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:

DGC, I think it is salient to note that it has been reported (veracity unconfirmed) that Janet and MDLR are friends or close, at least something to that effect.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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

:seeya: Thank You ... this was all I could find, and did not see anything specific regarding a juror's name.

So IS there a law/statute that allows for jurors' NAMES to be sealed -- especially in a high profile case ?

TIA !

Now, IIRC, didn't Judge Perry seal the jurors' names/addressed for a certain period of time in the CA case ?

 

[Amster]

When choosing a jury for a DP case, if the prospective juror states they are against the DP no matter what the crime, aren't they released right away?

 

[janx]

My 1st ex was incarcerated in the San Juan unit, now known as the Lumley Unit. It's called Lumley after the guard who was murdered there by an inmate. I spent 2 years visiting him twice a week before I dropped divorce proceedings on him.
It went from an all male minimum/medium security prison to an all female medium/maximum prison.
Anyone who says that place is better than Estrella has never been there. I have seen and been in the cells, they had an "open house" during visitation at one point. This was in 1983. The facility opened in 1981. It went from what appeared to be an open college campus to a gladiator school very quickly.
Myself and other visitors watched an inmate rape his wife on a picnic table one evening as the guards ignored it. We could leave, the guards had to deal with these inmates every day, the last thing they were going to do is get between an inmate and a "civilian" and have a bull's eye on their backs. I was assaulted by my ex in the visitation room......the guard operating the sallyport got the door open in time before my ex literally beat the crap out of me. No one stepped in.
Prison is an equal opportunity environment. The women are just as violent and deadly as the men. They have their gangs, their drugs, shake downs, hit lists, their food chain. "Dog eat dog".
Estrella is "summer camp" compared to Perryville. I'd say ADOC Florence is far better, and they still use the old cell blocks erected back in the early 1900's along with the newer facilities. (been there also, as a visitor)

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

 

[dog.gone.cute]

DGC, I think it is salient to note that it has been reported (veracity unconfirmed) that Janet and MDLR are friends or close, at least something to that effect.

:seeya: Oh yes, I read that and posted about it earlier on this thread ...

And no doubt, this info came from a very trustworthy source here at WS ...

Oh -- and Janet, MDLR and Kiefer are BFF's !

:gaah: Ya can't make this carp up !

 

[Amster]

:seeya: Thank You ... this was all I could find, and did not see anything specific regarding a juror's name.

So IS there a law/statute that allow for jurors' NAMES to be sealed ? TIA !

Now, IIRC, didn't Judge Perry seal the jurors' names/addressed for a certain period of time in the CA case ?

Yes, he did. Were their names ever released? Did any of them write books?

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

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.

:seeya: Thank You ... this was all I could find, and did not see anything specific regarding a juror's name.

So IS there a law/statute that allow for jurors' NAMES to be sealed ? TIA !

Now, IIRC, didn't Judge Perry seal the jurors' names/addressed for a certain period of time in the CA case ?

I don't know if they could be sealed forever--after all, this is supposed to be a public court.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

I hope we get more information on the in-chambers meeting the judge had with j17. I would like to see factual conformation that it was the Dr Drew misunderstanding. With all that's come out, now I'm not so sure when Flores started investigating her. Maybe Juan was the one who complained about her then, not KN. Who knows because Secrets.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

J17 can deny ever meeting JM but why would she not disclose her ex's first arrest unless she was aware that JM was the prosecutor in that case. If she did not remember she would have disclosed it. But all she mentioned was the Verizon theft. That is significant that she failed to disclose information she knew would keep her off. jmo

The other thing I was thinking about is, she said she met her current husband online... Which makes me wonder 2 things;

1. Is she more into social media than what she claims?
2. When she met her current husband was he still in prison, and was it on a dating website for inmates??!

 

[janx]

Wow, thanks for sharing. It must have been very hard to go through.

I suspected that it is going to be a big step down for JA, and deservedly so.

Yes, it will be a big step down: like falling off a cliff.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

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.