SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[Gypsy Road]

Wait a second? I thought Nancy Grace was interviewing a juror tonight? I thought it was advertised earlier on HLN? Am I imagining things?

 

[YESorNO]

One person, who did not even deliberate, says she's not going to break her commitment to keep the jury decisions private, but then blabs that the "older people" didn't vote for death? And now it's being generalized to say "no old people should be on the jury!"? Really?

I don't understand why people cannot accept that this group of diverse people deliberated and concluded as they did. It was not a mistake or an error. They did what they were supposed to do: deliberate to try to come to a unanimous decision but not compromise their values/beliefs in order to do so.
In our opinions, we may have felt a certain outcome was appropriate. That doesn't make our opinion the 'correct' one.

Juror number 10: "interview me! I want to be on TV! I will tweet about the case all day....everyone pay attention to me!" That's what I perceive. So good, she'll get her attention. That doesn't make her opinions irrefutable facts. They're just her opinions.

BBM
From what I gathered from Mr. Jury Foreman, they didn't deliberate. He/they had a problem with understanding just what the jurors were suppose to do and therefore didn't deliberate. They didn't avail themselves of the lawyers or the judges help and, to me, that doesn't constitute "deliberations" to me because if they didn't understand something they should've asked- not just decide to keep their "beliefs/values". They needed to deliberate for goodness sakes and they didn't. MOO. :twocents:

 

[ElleElle]

I'm very interested in seeing if the referee's whistle using is markedly different. I want to see a whole lot more penalty flags thrown against the DT next time.

I want to see the next jury sequestered.

 

[Tenaciousdae]

Hey All! Hope you all had a nice weekend.

Just catching up on some juror interviews. Honestly, the fact that one or more jurors were willing to believe Jodi was verbally/emotionally abused by Travis comes as no surprise to me... But I am 'effing STUNNED that anyone believed she was physically abused. Is it possible they are referring to abuse at the hands of her parents only? Or did they actually buy that both her parents and Travis abused her physically?

:facepalm:

Are you OK with retrying the guilt phase after a hung jury? Because that's done all the time.

Please tell me if I'm wrong...
my understanding of the directions that are given in this phase tell the jury not to consider previous testimony or evidence and that only the mitigating factors weigh the decision. If true, or partially, wouldn't a clean slate of jurors decide the verdict purely on the directions and not have muddied opinions?

It seems like a fair scenario to me. However I may be simplifying it too much...:seeya:

 

[YESorNO]

Where's the juror on NG? HLN liars- must be related to JA.

 

[TigerBalm]

I want to see the next jury sequestered.

Why???

The last time a jury was sequestered in Arizona was like 82 years ago or so.

 

[AZlawyer]

Understood, but I was asking (because I respect your opinions so much) if you think it is right to be able to do that? Guess what I'm questioning is not the legality (I know it is legal) but the fairness to the defendant.

For example, say he is accused of bombing a post office and is charged first by the federal government and when they don't get a guilty verdict the state tries the person for the same bombing and gets a guilty verdict. It is legal, but is it right?

I can see why it would feel unfair to the defendant. On the other hand, which jurisdiction would you deprive of its sovereign right to prosecute crimes? I think I'm hampered in my ability to think of "fairness" as divorced from "law" after 19 years of practicing law.

 

[marlap]

Wait a second? I thought Nancy Grace was interviewing a juror tonight? I thought it was advertised earlier on HLN? Am I imagining things?

I thought so too....

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, and she was just found not guilty.

Another one goes free in Florida.

I think they got that one right.... Based on the little I know and listening to the 911 tapes and her at the scene


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Wait a second? I thought Nancy Grace was interviewing a juror tonight? I thought it was advertised earlier on HLN? Am I imagining things?

Yes we heard from No10 on JVM .. OH wasn't No17 going on Dr Drew?

 

[Gypsy Road]

Okay...maybe I had it wrong...

Nancy didn't interview any jurors, but Dr. Drew is just starting and he said he has two jurors on tonight. Turn your t.v.'s on....

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM
From what I gathered from Mr. Jury Foreman, they didn't deliberate. He/they had a problem with understanding just what the jurors were suppose to do and therefore didn't deliberate. They didn't avail themselves of the lawyers or the judges help and, to me, that doesn't constitute "deliberations" to me because if they didn't understand something they should've asked- not just decide to keep their "beliefs/values". They needed to deliberate for goodness sakes and they didn't. MOO. :twocents:

Why do you think they didn't understand something, though?

They are expressly instructed to follow their individual consciences.

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM
From what I gathered from Mr. Jury Foreman, they didn't deliberate. He/they had a problem with understanding just what the jurors were suppose to do and therefore didn't deliberate. They didn't avail themselves of the lawyers or the judges help and, to me, that doesn't constitute "deliberations" to me because if they didn't understand something they should've asked- not just decide to keep their "beliefs/values". They needed to deliberate for goodness sakes and they didn't. MOO. :twocents:

I think they were deliberating. That's what it's called. They weren't being coercive according to what the foreman said, but really, do we know exactly what went down in that jury room? No we don't. And the foreman's command of the language and the nuances therein are woefully inadequate because people have read a lot into the things he's said, some of it inaccurately.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Where's the juror on NG? HLN liars- must be related to JA.

Yeah...What's up with THAT!?

Liars!

They advertised a Belvin Perry interview a few weeks ago and didn't deliver that either!!!

Why do they lie like that and then give viewers no explanation? Not cool.

 

[AZlawyer]

Please tell me if I'm wrong...
my understanding of the directions that are given in this phase tell the jury not to consider previous testimony or evidence and that only the mitigating factors weigh the decision. If true, or partially, wouldn't a clean slate of jurors decide the verdict purely on the directions and not have muddied opinions?

It seems like a fair scenario to me. However I may be simplifying it too much...:seeya:

No, that's not correct. The jury is told at the penalty phase that they SHOULD consider all evidence from prior phases that is relevant to the determination of death vs. life. So the new slate of jurors will have to see that evidence as well.

 

[nightwatch]

Very wrong .. HLN is going to cause a retrial sooner or later .. I so wish the jury had done a press conference then just left it alone.

bbm
does any of the mental health pros here know why these people feel a need to be heard? i just don't understand i would be in such a hurry to get back to my personal life. :scared:

 

[Tenaciousdae]

No, that's not correct. The jury is told at the penalty phase that they SHOULD consider all evidence from prior phases that is relevant to the determination of death vs. life. So the new slate of jurors will have to see that evidence as well.

Thank you now I cam go back to:scared:

:seeya:

 

[TorisMom003]

I think they were deliberating. That's what it's called. They weren't being coercive according to what the foreman said, but really, do we know exactly what went down in that jury room? No we don't. And the foreman's command of the language and the nuances therein are woefully inadequate because people have read a lot into the things he's said, some of it inaccurately.

If we don't know what happened in the jury room, which we don't, and the foreman is inadequate in his description of what he really means or wants to say then how do we know that our interpretation of his words is incorrect or inaccurate?

 

[AZlawyer]

bbm
does any of the mental health pros here know why these people feel a need to be heard? i just don't understand i would be in such a hurry to get back to my personal life. :scared:

Maybe because thousands of strangers are accusing them of failing to deliberate and being unable to read jury instructions?

 

[polleypockets]

She sure is excited to tweet her opinions and get on TV. Hope her 15 minutes doesn't create any issues. Ditto for the others seeking media attention.

juror 17 was nice enuff to answer our twitter questions, juror 10 was on JVM - 2 dif jurors