SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[ShadyLady]

Yes, you are correct. They do it every time. But it is in the instructions and a foreman is the gatekeeper and somehow the court is failing to properly instruct those who have that position. It could very easily go the other way in terms of not being fair to the defendant. Hard to believe but it could because of them not following instructions. I don't think the foreman liked JM telling him there were no mitigating circumstances that pertained to the crime. I think he took that as "talking down to them" because the foreman had already made up his mind there were mitigation factors that he would consider. So the foreman (even though JM was telling him this) he decided to ignore what he was being told. Had the foreman been someone who felt the DP was appropriate they would have still deliberated until they were unanimous.

I bet the last question might have been about "trying to change opinions". How much could they debate. JSS told them they did not need to validate/justify their decisions, etc etc....I like to hear the final jury instructions again.

 

[Karmady]

Yes, you are correct. They do it every time. But it is in the instructions and a foreman is the gatekeeper and somehow the court is failing to properly instruct those who have that position. It could very easily go the other way in terms of not being fair to the defendant. Hard to believe but it could because of them not following instructions. I don't think the foreman liked JM telling him there were no mitigating circumstances that pertained to the crime. I think he took that as "talking down to them" because the foreman had already made up his mind there were mitigation factors that he would consider. So the foreman (even though JM was telling him this) he decided to ignore what he was being told. Had the foreman been someone who felt the DP was appropriate they would have still deliberated until they were unanimous.

If Juan said that, maybe the juror felt that it was misleading since the mitigation factor(s) don't have to be related to the crime at all. jmo

 

[Just Sailing Thru]

Wonder how the cmja is doing in Sherrif Joe's TO ???

 

[kscornfed]

I don't understand how he was not extradited for the other crimes?

it's a very convoluted case. they couldn't prove he killed his friend, and his wife's body was never found, i don't believe.

he's quite a study. watch the movie----it was pretty accurate as far as it went.

 

[MeeBee]

If Juan said that, maybe the juror felt that it was misleading since the mitigation factor(s) don't have to be related to the crime at all. jmo

No, but you do have to weigh the mitigation factor against the aggravation factors in deciding DP. That's not misleading. No matter if you think Jodi is talented or was abused, it doesn't mean she didn't commit an especially cruel crime.

Besides the point, because I doubt that's why the juror said that in the first place.

 

[KarmicLaw]

I can't find the link with all of Jodis interviews in jail during the penalty phase. There was a link that took us to all videos in order of hardball questions to softball. If anyone knows and can help me find, id be much obliged. TIA

 

[DairyGirl]

and..and...and..."he wants to go see her! visit her in jail..to find out - well what we all want to find out- what happened that day"!? and she will lie to him too.

the thought...makes me truly ill. Am I wrong? the thought of them becoming buddies makes me feel ill.

Do you really think JA would want to be friends with a person that helped her get a murder 1 conviction and then voted that the crime was extremely violent? Just because he didn't agree that she should die for the crime? He is no longer on the jury and therefore she has no use for him. Other then add him to the list of people she would kill if the opportunity ever presented itself.

 

[21merc7]

Just came up downstairs.

the police - synchronicity 2 (synchronicity).wmv - YouTube

I'm still waiting for breakfast at Brideshead! :floorlaugh:

 

[TexMex]

He didn't just come across that way ... He stated exactly those two things. JM "talked down" to the jury ... and he felt sympathy for Jodi while the "merciless" Juan was questioning her on the stand. :facepalm:

Perhaps Martinez should have just let the manipulative psychopath run the courtroom :banghead:

 

[LambChop]

If Juan said that, maybe the juror felt that it was misleading since the mitigation factor(s) don't have to be related to the crime at all. jmo

The mitigating factors Jodi selected would have nothing to do with the decision to save her life. She did not suffer abuse as a child, nor as an adult, that was pretty obvious and a lie. She will never get to do any of those things she claims that will make the prison system better. Nor will she be the prison photographer or a graphic artist, nor an advocate for DV victims. Everything on that list was useless it terms of a reason to spare her life and pale when compared to what she has done. I personally don't have an opinion on DP or life. I just don't want to hear she is ever out on parole and at my age I have no worries in that department. Pretty much the feelings I have about Charles Manson. For me the important part is already done. For the Alexander's, they have a ways to go yet and I feel sorry they have to endure this, yet again.

 

[mollyf]

I can't find the link with all of Jodis interviews in jail during the penalty phase. There was a link that took us to all videos in order of hardball questions to softball. If anyone knows and can help me find, id be much obliged. TIA

Here it is:
"In order of smack down" lol
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - *graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial media/ timeline thread **no discussion**

Listed in order of smack down by the interviewer, included photos (note the jailhouse stripes ) of the two worth watching. :moo:
(disclosure: I only listened to a couple questions from the last two interviews listed, a couple too many at that IMO.)

Jodi Arias Feels 'Betrayed' By Jury
The convicted killer sat down with ABC News' Ryan Owens after pleading for her life.
04:49 | 05/22/2013

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-interview-2013-arias-calls-reporter-hater-19231549
(she states she feels betrayed by the jurors, also she gets upset with Owens and calls him a hater :lol

Jodi Arias gives interview as jury decides life or death
Posted: May 22, 2013 12:07 AM EDT
Updated: May 22, 2013 1:20 AM EDT
PHOENIX - Jodi Arias interview, take two. FOX 10's Troy Hayden sat down again with convicted killer Jodi Arias after she begged jurors for her life in court.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...-speaks-out-to-choice-media-before-sentencing
(she gets a little snarky with Hayden, he also ends the interview after a few mins)



Jodi Arias interview: Arias speaks out to ABC15 as jury deliberates on death penalty
Arias sat down with ABC15's Amy Murphy on Tuesday night, just hours after jurors began deliberating, to speak out about the trial, her feelings about Travis Alexander's death and whether she wants to live or die.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...to-abc15-as-jury-deliberates-on-death-penalty


Jodi Arias talks before jury sentencing decision
In her first interview since pleading with jurors for her life, Jodi Arias sits down with 12 News anchor Mark Curtis and Arizona Republic reporter Michael Kiefer to discuss her case.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/articles/20130521jodi-arias-talks-before-sentencing.html


ETA:
Jodi Arias: Death penalty would be 'revenge,' not justice
Video: As an Arizona jury continues deliberating whether Jodi Arias deserves the death penalty after being convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend, Arias sat down with NBC’s Diana Alvear.
http://www.today.com/news/jodi-arias-death-penalty-would-be-revenge-not-justice-6C10018471

 

[LambChop]

Perhaps Martinez should have just let the manipulative psychopath run the courtroom :banghead:

I thought she did, LOL. She was on the stand for 18 days. I don't know if I could ever suppress the urge to slap someone in the face should they ever ask me: "How did that make you feeelllll?" :jail: :stormingmad:

 

[Garlandy]

I just finished watching the interview with 3 of the jurors that was on GMA. I can't believe how much my faith has been restored and to know that they saw through all of the ways of this manipulative evil person. I have been very upset listening to some of the interviews from the foreman. These three jurors absolutely got "CKJA" ...thank goodness for that. I admire them and I am pretty sure they must be able to sleep at night knowing they did what was right. As I used to say when my daughter was young and she wanted to do something that 'everyone' else was doing and she couldn't comprehend why I was saying no.....I would try and explain to her that doing what I thought to be the right thing is way harder than giving in. I think these three jurors (and obviously some of the other jurors) did the hard thing...but absolutely the right thing. And just my opinion, but I feel that voting for the DP would have been much, much harder than not, even though there was a mountain of evidence. And in this case (again my opinion)..there is no doubt that is what was warranted and I have so much respect for the jurors that had enough strength to vote for the DP. No person that commits a savage act like JA did, deserves to ever laugh, smile or enjoy anything - ever. What she did, this horrible, horrible act is undisputed...it's not like the jury had to decide if there was enough proof she did it...there was 100% proof she did. That along with the brutality of the murder is a pretty good reason for the death sentence in this case. What more could she have done to poor Travis, her act was animalistic and makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it. I understand not everyone is in favour of the DP and that is their opinion and they are entitled to it, even though in this case I don't agree - I do get it that some people can't go there. Here in Canada we don't have the DP anymore and I read the other day that over 150 people in just a 20 year period have been murdered by criminals that were in jail and then got released on parole. That is a hard pill to swallow. I am really hoping for the DP for JA, because she deserves it and also it will allow the Alexander family to start healing. The only way the family of Travis will be safe from her wrath is if she goes away. Because as long as CKJA has a mouth or fingers to write - she is going to torment this family to her dying day. Maybe if she would have stopped talking a long, long time ago more people would settle for life without parole. It's her own fault for tormenting this innocent family.

 

[KandyKane]

Correct me please if I am wrong but given the fact that 18 said they never tried to change anyone's opinion and the final vote was 8-4,we will never know if the three could have been persuaded differently because 18 threw the towel in and the judge called it instead of sending them back one more time.
It seems his agenda can be seen as to not deliberate, just ask who votes how and he quickly told judge they were hung so that he got the outcome he wanted...IMO

ETA: since he stated "they" we're all shocked, I have to wonder if a wrong form was filled out and they really only had a question, did JSS jump the shark because of the form thAt was handed in?

This is very confusing

To be fair, the foreman said that they ALL agreed to that decision, and we have no idea who's idea it was to throw in the towel and not deliberate. I'm REALLY angry with this jury who's job it was to at least TRY to come to a unanimous decision totally dropped the ball and ALL agreed not to try to sway other jurors to one side or the other. Geez, how ELSE are they supposed to move forward toward a unanimous decision???

They ALL gave up and let themselves remain hung so they could pass the buck to the judge as they ALL mistakenly believed that the judge would decide on life or death. And I'd love to know WHY they all thought that.

 

[Jenivere]

This is an ABC News Exclusive...
And, all three of these jurors voted for the DP.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-jurors-sentenced-death-matter/story?id=19259867

Isn't the juror on the far left the one JC kept saying was "defiant," looks like CMja's mother, and a possible hold-out? Oops, Jean!:scared:

 

[Steely Dan]

hoh: Curiosity kills cats? :scared:

I think it's the foreman's ego that makes him think he, being more astute, could find substance
in CMja that is not even there within her.

He said, IIRC, that he'd like to talk to Jodi and find out what really happened. This dude, IMO, is so naive about Jodi that he thinks it's even possible to get a true answer about it.

Well, there are. They are called jury consultants. Perhaps the most famous is JoEllan Demetrius, who picked the OJ jury for the defense. Robert Hirshhorn is probably the best. They don't just pull this stuff out of thin air. They do focus groups, mock trials, etc. using the facts of the particular case they are working on. Some lawyers poo-poo jury consultants and think they know their community well enough to have a feel for things (Marcia Clark infamously disregarded what her jury consultant told her in the OJ case). These folks don't come cheap, but I have found the good ones to be invaluable when a client can afford it.

It's not a black or white choice either. We learn from jury consultants what questions to zero in on. So, just because you might be an older male doesn't automatically disqualify you, but it just sets up a bit of a red flag.

Morris Dees, one of the founders of the SPLC said, in one of his books (approx.), that he thought jury consultants were worthless. He was persuaded to use one for one of his trials and he said after that trial he never prosecuted a trial without one. IIRC.

One of many points you are sharing here. I've had neighbors tell me they simply did not like an attorneys attitude and display, so they chose to vote against the theatrics. Scary to hear and to know.

Before we went to deliberate, the judge in our trial instructed us that we are only to consider evidence. The way the lawyers behaved or any personal opinions of them should not enter into the decisions.

We all hated this one lawyer, but it didn't enter into our decision. Despite convicting his client. BTW, I was sure one of the cops was dirty, but his testimony was useless in the trial. When I say dirty, I mean he'd be willing to say anything to get someone convicted.

 

[Karmady]

No, but you do have to weigh the mitigation factor against the aggravation factors in deciding DP. That's not misleading. No matter if you think Jodi is talented or was abused, it doesn't mean she didn't commit an especially cruel crime.

Besides the point, because I doubt that's why the juror said that in the first place.

Agree to disagree on the misleading part. If the prosecutor tells me that there are "no mitigating factors relating to the crime" and I go back to the jury room and read my instructions that tell me the mitigating factors don't need to relate to the crime - I'm wondering why he bothered to add "relating to the crime" since it's totally irrelevant. The only thing I can come up with is that the prosecutor wanted me to think it was relevant. jmo

I don't know what the juror was thinking, obviously, but it's as reasonable a speculation as any, imo. Especially since he apparently thought Juan was treating the jury as though they were stupid.

 

[Karmady]

The mitigating factors Jodi selected would have nothing to do with the decision to save her life. She did not suffer abuse as a child, nor as an adult, that was pretty obvious and a lie. She will never get to do any of those things she claims that will make the prison system better. Nor will she be the prison photographer or a graphic artist, nor an advocate for DV victims. Everything on that list was useless it terms of a reason to spare her life and pale when compared to what she has done. I personally don't have an opinion on DP or life. I just don't want to hear she is ever out on parole and at my age I have no worries in that department. Pretty much the feelings I have about Charles Manson. For me the important part is already done. For the Alexander's, they have a ways to go yet and I feel sorry they have to endure this, yet again.

Whether or not there were mitigating factors unrelated to the crime is a separate issue, imo. Based on your post, Juan could simply have said there are no mitigating factors, period. jmo

 

[MeeBee]

Agree to disagree on the misleading part. If the prosecutor tells me that there are "no mitigating factors relating to the crime" and I go back to the jury room and read my instructions that tell me the mitigating factors don't need to relate to the crime - I'm wondering why he bothered to add "relating to the crime" since it's totally irrelevant. The only thing I can come up with is that the prosecutor wanted me to think it was relevant. jmo

I don't know what the juror was thinking, obviously, but it's as reasonable a speculation as any, imo. Especially since he apparently thought Juan was treating the jury as though they were stupid.

He didn't say there were no mitigators though. He only said that none of means she should not get the DP. He said, hey, you may think Jodi is a talented artist. Cool. But that doesn't mean she should get the DP.

Finding a mitigator is not finite. You can find one but still find it doesn't outweigh the aggravator. That is not misleading. That is what he meant by it doesn't relate to the crime.

I think he felt the sarasm was the talking down to them.

 

[TigerBalm]

Do you really think JA would want to be friends with a person that helped her get a murder 1 conviction and then voted that the crime was extremely violent? Just because he didn't agree that she should die for the crime? He is no longer on the jury and therefore she has no use for him. Other then add him to the list of people she would kill if the opportunity ever presented itself.

Yes, so she can manipulate the person to fauxmit (falsely admit) to some nefarious behavior during trial, so she has a juror issue for appeal. :lol: