what's the mental illness? isn't a personality disorder different from a mental illness? and couldn't you say this about pretty much anyone who commits a murder? that there has to be something wrong with them?
I'm not a psychiatrist, but since they offer "not-your-fault" explanations for both personality disorders and "true" mental illnesses, I don't see the distinction as it applies here.
Yes, you could say that pretty much anyone who commits a murder has something wrong with them. But sometimes the "something wrong" seems to be evil, while other times it seems to be craziness. Perhaps this is just our own ignorance, but it's still something a jury is likely to consider.
There is a lot of back & forth going on about the jury being deadlocked or not. Many people are insisting that there is no possible way the judge misunderstood the jury's note. Especially because she brought in the lawyers & families back to the courtroom. What do you think? Is it possible she simply misread the note? If there was a misunderstanding would the judge come out and say that publicly? Also, I am under the impression that she forgot to give the jury part of the instructions (this could be the cause of the jury question episode). Can this cause any future problems? I appreciate any info you can share, I'm trying to clear up some confusion.
If the people in the media who quoted the exact language of the note were correct, then I think she should have responded with, "If you are deadlocked, you should use [whatever form] to inform me of that fact." Then, if she got the form back from them, she should have given the "go back and try harder" speech. I don't think it makes much difference, though--what harm can there be in giving the speech to a jury that is not deadlocked?
I'm not sure if the instruction was really forgotten or was written in response to a request from one side or the other, or what, in fact, the instruction actually was. The media reports were conflicting as usual, and I couldn't find a link to the video that would work on my ipad. :banghead: If anyone can help me out with that, I'll be happy to try to answer the question. Certainly there is a normally-given instruction that says (summarizing) that if they vote "life," the judge decides between LWOP and 25-to-life. If that's the instruction, and if it wasn't given at first but was given before deliberations ended, I don't see the problem.
Firstly , thank you to AZ, and any of the other attorneys that help us understand the trial process - very kind of you to share your knowledge and much appreciated.
My legal question is: If a new jury becomes necessary for the sentencing phase, what happens if the court is unable to find jurors who have not heard or seen any interviews with the convicted individual? Do they move it to another court, or does some action happen automatically (like LWOP)?
In one of the interviews, JA was asked her thoughts if a new jury was needed, to which she responded "good luck finding an untainted jury pool anywhere in the world" - a response I found oddly calm and disturbingly frightening (to be fair, I find much of what she says to be off-putting and frightening - particularly her demeanor). Is this statement something that could be an issue, and if so - why would she be permitted to conduct virtually limitless interviews if it could theoretically impede her chances to a fair trial?
Do First Amendment rights to free speech trump the defendant right to fair trial (sixth amendment maybe?)? Even if the defendant wants that to happen, wouldn't the court intercede to ensure trial can conclude justly?
Sorry for all the questions - really all one long question, and thank you in advance if you are able to answer!
IMO there will be no problem finding an untainted jury. JA is living in a fantasy land in which everything revolves around her. In reality, maybe 25% of the people in Phoenix have paid any attention to this case. And remember that this jury would be instructed to accept as true that JA killed Travis with premeditation and cruelly. So if the potential jurors are only "prejudiced" on those issues, IMO they should be good to go.
Three Questions:
1. When a jury question is received by the Court, is the judge allowed to ask for clarification from the jury? Lots of confusion on if the judge misinterpreted the jury question.
2. If the judge cannot ask for clarification, is the response to their question based on the courts interpretation and agreed to by the attorneys? Seems to me that the judge may have given the hung jury instruction as a response since it was a possible interpretation of the question asked.
3. If someone leaked a jury question to the media, would their be consequences for the parties involved? Both the reporter and the party who released the info?
1. Yes, the judge could ask for clarification. In my experience, however, the practice in Maricopa County is to give the jury the most confusing possible response to their questions, as if to prove that judges and lawyers have no idea how to talk to "normal people." :banghead:
2. See above.
3. No. Jury questions are public record. Now, this particular judge seems to like to seal things, so I suppose a jury question could be sealed, but we have no indication that this question was sealed.
