The Jury Speaks Thread

[JSR]

:seeya: I totally agree with you, JSR !

And just jumping off your post here, which gave me an idea ... FWIW :

BBM: I sure wish the reporter would have asked jury foreman :

IF Jodi were a "male" who slaughtered a "female" like Jodi slaughtered Travis, would foreman have felt that "he" was a danger to society ?

I bet his answer would have been totally different ... and I bet he would have voted for the DP ...

Of course, all JMO and MOO !

:moo:

I'm pretty sure your thoughts are correct. I think had Jodi been male the foreman would have thought she was a danger to society. It's all such a double standard.

 

[Ricki]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias...sentence-death/story?id=19231911#.UboGpJxIO71

Arias said. "If you're not abusing me and attacking me and threatening to kill my life, there's no reason to fear."

That's an odd way of saying (threatening to kill me)

 

[popsicle]

That to me was the most alarming thing he said that he felt Jodi was not a danger to society. I don't have any earthly idea how you could look at those photos of Travis and believe she isn't a danger. It just doesn't make sense. He must have really been besotted with her.

I haven't said much of anything about this person...a waste of time mostly. What seriously bothers me about him and his thinking process is this... after all this time has elapsed and he has learned all the facts of JA since the end of the trial, he stills has these opinions of his. That is not only alarming to me because they are warped, but leads me to believe that he would never have voted for the DP, ever.

I also want to add, every person that has murdered has started with one. Every criminal starts with their first crime. Juveniles are dealt harsh penalties when they murder, just not death...so why the heck wouldn't an adult that commits a premeditated, cruel, torturous murder be given death? gmab

I do agree with one thing he said, I too hope he never serves on another jury ever again. Now I wish this person would go away already.

 

[Quester]

I think it is perfectly clear that ...

the jury DID NOT reach a unanimous verdict, IOW all voting the same way either all for life or all for the DP ...

however, the jury did all agree that, at that particular point, they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

JMHO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias...sentence-death/story?id=19231911#.UboGpJxIO71

Arias said. "If you're not abusing me and attacking me and threatening to kill my life, there's no reason to fear."

That's an odd way of saying (threatening to kill me)

:seeya:

In "Jodi-speak" it means : "Don't ____ with me or I'll slaughter you."

Just like she did poor Travis

She is a danger to society and should never be let out of :jail:

:moo:

 

[fifteen89]

Does anyone remember how early the jury asked 'what happens if we can't agree on a verdict?' Kinda makes me wonder if it was the foreman's question.

 

[Linda From New York]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?

I was thinking maybe the jury, like me, thought if they could not come to a decision, the judge does!

 

[Quester]

Does anyone remember how early the jury asked 'what happens if we can't agree on a verdict?' Kinda makes me wonder if it was the foreman's question.

HTH:

ETA: There was also this note from foreman:

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arias-juror-note-followup.pdf

* * *

To my earlier point/question: please note JSS response:

"If you are unable to come to a consensus, notify the court
by sending a note on a "Juror Question" form."
​

And ... what did the foreman end up doing? ... He used the "Verdict" form!!!

 

[prospektor]

I really don't get how anyone could come to the conclusion she's not a danger to society. She even testified that she got a gun for that camping trip, just in case someone would make a move on her, and as a battered woman she can't just say no, she has to obey, even when feeling uncomfortable, and then she starts shaking, and then someone might say something mean to her, and - woosh! - she's in THE FOG and only regains consciousness several hundred miles away with blood on her hands and the vague idea that something bad had happened.
And that's only taking her own testimony and interview, and not considering the possibility she killed out of jealousy or even simply monetary gains.
She showed a massive amount of criminal energy, not only in planning the crime, but also in her attempts to cover it up and further her new claims of self defense (see the magazine messages). There's no remorse, no insight, no barrier to mess with justice.

On a lighter note, maybe the foreman's rather delusional statements can serve as a future example that a new jury wasn't tainted to JA's disadvantage. Everyone likes to cite HLN, but with all those interviews of JA and now the foreman, there's plenty of support for her point of view spread through the media. So it gets harder to argue it's one-sided.

 

[fifteen89]

HTH:

ETA: There was also this note from foreman:

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arias-juror-note-followup.pdf

* * *

To my earlier point/question: please note JSS response:

"If you are unable to come to a consensus, notify the court
by sending a note on a "Juror Question" form."
​

And ... what did the foreman end up doing? ... He used the "Verdict" form!!!

Both say "filed 5:00pm" on the 23rd. The Judge was clear that the foreman should use the juror question form and yet the foreman chose to use the verdict form instead. I'm not a conspiracy theory person (although I did love that movie!) but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the foreman did it on purpose thinking he was taking death off the table and the Judge would chose life or lwop. Also wouldn't surprise me to hear from other jurors (not that I think they'll ever tell) that the foreman didn't do much listening/deliberating.

How he heard that there was a lot of abuse from Travis to Jodi is beyond my comprehension.

How he could conclude that Jodi is not a danger to society after those photos is waaaaaay beyond my comprehension.

 

[Quester]

Both say "filed 5:00pm" on the 23rd. The Judge was clear that the foreman should use the juror question form and yet the foreman chose to use the verdict form instead. I'm not a conspiracy theory person (although I did love that movie!) but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the foreman did it on purpose thinking he was taking death off the table and the Judge would chose life or lwop. Also wouldn't surprise me to hear from other jurors (not that I think they'll ever tell) that the foreman didn't do much listening/deliberating.

How he heard that there was a lot of abuse from Travis to Jodi is beyond my comprehension.

How he could conclude that Jodi is not a danger to society after those photos is waaaaaay beyond my comprehension.

I wonder if the other jurors read/were aware of the Judge's direction: "If you are unable to come to a consensus, notify the court by sending a note on a "Juror Question" form."?

And ... I wonder if the other jurors were aware that the foreman ultimately filled out the "Verdict" form?

 

[fifteen89]

That to me was the most alarming thing he said that he felt Jodi was not a danger to society. I don't have any earthly idea how you could look at those photos of Travis and believe she isn't a danger. It just doesn't make sense. He must have really been besotted with her.

That's what I don't get about the people doing these interviews. If I was interviewing him and got that answer? I'd have no choice but to pull out the photos of Travis and ask a simple follow-up question: "Did you not see these photos?"

 

[fifteen89]

<respectfully snipped by me>
...
On a lighter note, maybe the foreman's rather delusional statements can serve as a future example that a new jury wasn't tainted to JA's disadvantage. Everyone likes to cite HLN, but with all those interviews of JA and now the foreman, there's plenty of support for her point of view spread through the media. So it gets harder to argue it's one-sided.

After hearing about the Lifetime movie coming out, when I heard today that the defense wants a delay, my first thought was so they could argue the movie tainted the new jurors.

 

[fifteen89]

I wonder if the other jurors read/were aware of the Judge's direction: "If you are unable to come to a consensus, notify the court by sending a note on a "Juror Question" form."?

And ... I wonder if the other jurors were aware that the foreman ultimately filled out the "Verdict" form?

Didn't the really articulate juror that's been on Dr. Drew (is her name Diane?) say something about being surprised? I'm thinking she did but don't remember what she was referring to. All I know is, imo this jury didn't have a chance with the foreman in the group - whether he was foreman or not, he wouldn't have changed his vote no matter what so there would've always been 1.

 

[cosmos]

There is a reason why the verdict form offers "No unanimous agreement" as an option. The jury doesn't know the reason. Most people don't know the reason. Why not let each juror chose "life" or "death" and turn in the forms that way? Why make them be unanimous in saying they are not unanimous. What is the difference?

Without knowing the reason, there is a natural tendency for people to guess what the reason is, and then wanting to know the facts, ask the judge if their guess is correct.

That's what happened here. The foreman didn't know the reason and he was struggling to clarify his or other jurors' confusion. The judge was not allowed to explain. It resulted it some non-illuminating dialog going back and forth.

So basically the judge said: ask questions on the question form. That wasn't what he wanted to hear. But that's all she could say.

To prove my point: Does anyone here know the reason why the state of Arizona requires ""No unanimous agreement" to be an option on a death penalty verdict form? Without using some legal reference to look it up.

I looked it up. But the jury can't look things up.

 

[Quester]

There is a reason why the verdict form offers "No unanimous agreement" as an option. The jury doesn't know the reason. Most people don't know the reason. Why not let each juror chose "life" or "death" and turn in the forms that way? Why make them be unanimous in saying they are not unanimous. What is the difference?

Without knowing the reason, there is a natural tendency for people to guess what the reason is, and then wanting to know the facts, ask the judge if their guess is correct.

That's what happened here. The foreman didn't know the reason and he was struggling to clarify his or other jurors' confusion. The judge was not allowed to explain. It resulted it some non-illuminating dialog going back and forth.

So basically the judge said: ask questions on the question form. That wasn't what he wanted to hear. But that's all she could say.

To prove my point: Does anyone here know the reason why the state of Arizona requires ""No unanimous agreement" to be an option on a death penalty verdict form? Without using some legal reference to look it up.

I looked it up. But the jury can't look things up.

BBM - I don't ... please share. Thx

 

[cosmos]

It communicates to the jury that they are not required to reach a verdict. It's extra emphasis on top of the instructions they are given. It gets them to sign acknowledgment that they are aware. It's required to avoid this issue being raised on appeal.

 

[Quester]

It communicates to the jury that they are not required to reach a verdict. It's extra emphasis on top of the instructions they are given. It gets them to sign acknowledgment that they are aware. It's required to avoid this issue being raised on appeal.

Ok ... well, if I'm understanding you correctly, ... common sense/logic would lead one to believe that reaching a unanimous verdict would not and could not be a requirement.

So now I'm confused ... what is your point in bring this trivia into the conversation?

 

[AngelWings444]

The "threatened" Juror #18 hasn't had enough of his 15 minutes...he will be on Dr. D on Monday.

I hope ALL the other jurors get together and tell the "real" story. Something isn't right. JMO

 

[cosmos]

Ok ... well, if I'm understanding you correctly, ... common sense/logic would lead one to believe that reaching a unanimous verdict would not and could not be a requirement.

So now I'm confused ... what is your point in bring this trivia into the conversation?

But that's exactly my point! It is common sense. It is trivial.

And that's why its existence is confusing to the jurors, which is not a trivial problem. It's something logic dictates should not be there. So the jurors guess the reason. And they apparently guessed wrong.