Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*

[JusticeJunkie]

Ooooh, sorry. I just thought of another question.
Yesterday Arias stated as fact the reason her childhood friend refused to testify was because of threats.
The judge left the portion the DT wanted stated to the jurors off, but then Arias states it. It sems to be something Jan was unable to tell the other side of the story. Is that true?
If so, why was Arias allowed to bring up something Juan had no legal way to correct?

Could have Arias disclosed conversations that took placed behind closed door hearings?
Could she have said she thought JS was biased?
ECT.

What exactly WERE her limits?

 

[CarolinaWoman]

If this jury cannot reach a verdict, what are the options?

1. The State removes the death penalty and settle for LWOP?
2. A new jury is brought in? If new jury what info do they receive?
3. Hung ... new trial?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Would a new jury just go by transcripts of the sentencing phase? Or could JA give another allocution?

 

[Lbodine]

Hi lawyers!
If the jury made some agreement to convict on M1 with an understanding that one or some of the jurors would NOT vote for death - would that cause any later problems for either the jurors or the case?

 

[Sign]

Hi AZLawyer,

IF (and we have no evidence for this obviously) there is one (or possibly two) hold-outs whose REASON for holding out is because they have gotten cold-feet on sentencing her to death, are there specific instructions to the jury to guide them in such a situation, i.e. to inform the Judge that that is the reason behind the (potentially) hung jury? My concern is that the jury may end up hung when in fact one or more of the jurors who were vetted as death-qualified have now changed their minds. If that is the case, is there any inquiry the Judge can make into the reason/breakdown of the jurors at this point (with a mind to perhaps replace a juror who is no longer death-qualified with an alternate)?

I realize this is speculative, just wondering if there are rules in place to assist the foreman and/or Judge to root out this cause if it exists.

TIA

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

When is the media and public allowed to find out what juror questions there may be for the Judge during the penalty phase?

 

[Iz?s#1Mom]

Az lawyer. TYIA.

If the jury is hung and a new jury is brought in for the penalty phase does it really matter if the new jurors have seen any coverage of the trial because she has already been convicted?Would the new jury be required not to know anything about the case?

:banghead:

 

[AZlawyer]

Az lawyer. TYIA.

If the jury is hung and a new jury is brought in for the penalty phase does it really matter if the new jurors have seen any coverage of the trial because she has already been convicted?Would the new jury be required not to know anything about the case?

:banghead:

The new jury would be required to be unbiased by anything they may have seen, just like the old jury.

 

[AZlawyer]

When is the media and public allowed to find out what juror questions there may be for the Judge during the penalty phase?

The juror questions are filed with the court clerk and become public record. This might not happen until after the final verdict, though.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZLawyer,

IF (and we have no evidence for this obviously) there is one (or possibly two) hold-outs whose REASON for holding out is because they have gotten cold-feet on sentencing her to death, are there specific instructions to the jury to guide them in such a situation, i.e. to inform the Judge that that is the reason behind the (potentially) hung jury? My concern is that the jury may end up hung when in fact one or more of the jurors who were vetted as death-qualified have now changed their minds. If that is the case, is there any inquiry the Judge can make into the reason/breakdown of the jurors at this point (with a mind to perhaps replace a juror who is no longer death-qualified with an alternate)?

I realize this is speculative, just wondering if there are rules in place to assist the foreman and/or Judge to root out this cause if it exists.

TIA

No, the system assumes that the jurors are truthful when they say they are able to sentence the defendant to death if appropriate.

This is certainly not a case where you would have to assume a juror lied in voir dire if they are leaning toward life. Jodi is clearly mentally ill, and some people are not OK with executing crazy people.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi lawyers!
If the jury made some agreement to convict on M1 with an understanding that one or some of the jurors would NOT vote for death - would that cause any later problems for either the jurors or the case?

Yes, although there's certainly no reason to think that has happened.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would a new jury just go by transcripts of the sentencing phase? Or could JA give another allocution?

They would start over from scratch. Also, they would have to re-present any mitigation evidence and rebuttal that had been presented in the guilt phase.

 

[AZlawyer]

If this jury cannot reach a verdict, what are the options?

1. The State removes the death penalty and settle for LWOP?
2. A new jury is brought in? If new jury what info do they receive?
3. Hung ... new trial?

1. Yes, this is an option.

2. This would happen if no agreement is reached. The new jury would be told that they must accept that Jodi is guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder with the aggravating circumstance of cruelty.

3. No, this would not happen.

 

[iSleuth]

Do you think Judge SS watch the new psycho JA interviews?

 

[cosmos]

Is the use of a second jury in the penalty phase consistent with Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty? Would a unanimous death sentence by a second jury need to be appealed to the Supreme Court, or is the use of a second jury in the penalty phase something that states are already allowed to do by the Constitution?

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

The juror questions are filed with the court clerk and become public record. This might not happen until after the final verdict, though.

Thank You - According to Keifer at azcentral, he claims to have seen at least one juror question already:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/free/20130522jodi-arias-jury-deadlocked.html

Snippet:

"The jury sent a handwritten note on an official question form to the judge. It said: “If the jury is unable to come to a unanimous decision @ this stage, do we notify the judge of this on the form (verdict) or do we just tell the judge her instruction on the bottom P. 10 on the final jury Instruction-Penalty phase?”

It was signed by juror No.18. "

If this is Public Record now, can we find it online anywhere? TIA

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

They would start over from scratch. Also, they would have to re-present any mitigation evidence and rebuttal that had been presented in the guilt phase.

Than you. So the DT could call new witnesses?

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think Judge SS watch the new psycho JA interviews?

Who knows? She might have had enough of JA in the courtroom.

Is the use of a second jury in the penalty phase consistent with Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty? Would a unanimous death sentence by a second jury need to be appealed to the Supreme Court, or is the use of a second jury in the penalty phase something that states are already allowed to do by the Constitution?

I don't think it's been challenged yet.

Thank You - According to Keifer at azcentral, he claims to have seen at least one juror question already:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/free/20130522jodi-arias-jury-deadlocked.html

Snippet:

"The jury sent a handwritten note on an official question form to the judge. It said: “If the jury is unable to come to a unanimous decision @ this stage, do we notify the judge of this on the form (verdict) or do we just tell the judge her instruction on the bottom P. 10 on the final jury Instruction-Penalty phase?”

It was signed by juror No.18. "

If this is Public Record now, can we find it online anywhere? TIA

It sounds like you already did find it online. But AZ state court filings are not available online unless someone goes to the clerk, gets a copy, and posts it somewhere.

Than you. So the DT could call new witnesses?

Yes.

 

[Lark2]

No, the system assumes that the jurors are truthful when they say they are able to sentence the defendant to death if appropriate.

This is certainly not a case where you would have to assume a juror lied in voir dire if they are leaning toward life. Jodi is clearly mentally ill, and some people are not OK with executing crazy people.

AZ Lawyer, do you think this might be going on in this case? The whole borderline thing that Wilmott tried to push at the end?

 

[AZlawyer]

A TH HLN attorney just said that Juan committed reversible error when he mentioned to the jury that Jodi might get life with parole. Is that true?

No, I don't think so, because it's true.

Is it common for families to come into court for a jury question? Thanks

If they want to, they can.

When can an alternate juror be used? Can they come into play in regards to a hung jury?

No, alternates cannot be used to "fix" a hung jury.

There is some conflict as to whether JSS received a QUESTION - what happens if we can't agree, or a note STATING THEY COULD NOT AGREE.
I see that as a HUGE difference. But my question is this:

If JSS was only asked a question of what would happen if they are unable to agree unanimously on a verdict:

Is she able to explain that they may be replaced with a new jury, or is that not allowed?

ETA: Another question. If they DID say they were unable to reach a verdict, why wouldn't that have been on the actual jury form rather than a note?

TIA

IMO Judge Stephens could and should have told them about the second-jury procedure.

Based on the media reports about the note, it sounds like they weren't sure what form to use.

Also, attorneys - Aren't there curfew hours, or visitor's hours that the press would have had to abide by?

It's all up to the Sheriff's Office. There would be general visitors' hours, but the Sheriff can make exceptions if he wants to.

Ooooh, sorry. I just thought of another question.
Yesterday Arias stated as fact the reason her childhood friend refused to testify was because of threats.
The judge left the portion the DT wanted stated to the jurors off, but then Arias states it. It sems to be something Jan was unable to tell the other side of the story. Is that true?
If so, why was Arias allowed to bring up something Juan had no legal way to correct?

Could have Arias disclosed conversations that took placed behind closed door hearings?
Could she have said she thought JS was biased?
ECT.

What exactly WERE her limits?

JM didn't really have any evidence to contradict JA's statement about Patty W. He only had his supposition that she backed out due to her criminal issues. JA's statement was hearsay, but hearsay is OK in the mitigation phase.

If something is sealed, JA would be bound by court order not to reveal it just like anyone else who was present, although I'm sure that wouldn't stop her if she wanted to reveal something.

I suppose she could have said she thought the judge was biased, yes.