The Jury Speaks Thread

[SmoothOperator]

What brought it on home for me was when one of the members here posted about what dynamics played themselves out between his older parents throughout their watching Jodi's trial... he said that plain and simple his father was very firm of the mindset and would not be convinced otherwise in that there is absolutely no young woman, period who is going to prefer, enjoy, initiate anal sex..his father kept this same firm mindset throughout the entire trial and was extremely vocal about it to the point that the wife no longer would let him watch the trial with her since they were so adamantly opposed regarding this issue..

when this member shared this about his fathers adamant mindset that in essence allowed sympathy for Jodi..well, like it if not(and regardless of the FACT this particular mindset is incorrect in I know plenty of women who do in fact like, enjoy, and even initiate it) however the fact remains that believe it or not THE OPPOSITE IS the firm mindset of some people and in their being adamant REGARDLESS OF WHAT JODI SAID OR ACTED ON THE STAND, they firmly believe she didn't enjoy it, prefer, or initiate it there for seeing Travis as the aggressor...

and in the end while they could still see it was a premeditated first degree murder and even proven agg factor of especially cruel..yet, their firm mindset of Jodi in a sympathetic light of being manipulated into anal sex that she did not want was a sufficient factor in their minds that was enough to spare her life in the final penalty phase..

like it or not..believe it or not..there are absolutely individuals that even after all the testimony and evidence STILL ARE OF THE FIRM MINDSET NO YOUNG WOMAN WOULD EVER PREFER, ENJOY, OR INITIATE ANAL SEX..

and IMO that mindset would be enough for some to spare her life of the penalty of death.

 

[Sherazhad]

Unless you are a liar (when filling out the form, etc), you never would have been chosen to sit on this jury or any death penalty trial. Never. So consider yourself lucky

Next, there was ZERO evidence of any abuse towards Jodi from Travis. Zero. It was never ever ever ever EVER presented by anyone. Jodi claimed it. Jodi. You know that chic who is a pathological liar and even admitted to her lies? So why anyone would believe anything that ever came from her mouth, has bought into her manipulation hook line and sinker. One has been 100% manipulated if they believe she was abused and sexually assaulted by Travis, as there is zero evidence. Just the liars word.

As far as no criminal convictions. lol Ummm, what does that have to do with the price in China? Nothing. She actually did engage in criminal activity over and over and over. She just didn't get caught and charged by law enforcement. She physically assaulted an animal, her mother and who knows who else that was too chicken to call police. She partook in illegal drugs. She stalked Travis which is against the law. She slashed his tires which is against the law. She stole things such as a gun from her grandparents, which is against the law. She perjured herself over and over. She has a nice long record of criminal activity. That is FACT. Lack of arrest or conviction means absolutely nothing!

I am sorry that anyone feels that the life of Travis just was not bad enough. The fact his throat was slit, and he was stabbed over and over resulting in the absolute slaughter of his body. That is truly heartbreaking to him and his family. Travis just didn't meet the threshold. He just didn't matter enough.

But the jury did not get to hear about abuse of animals or slashing tyres. In fairness to the previous poster I don't think she was saying that Travis' death was not bad enough or heartbreaking. I think her point was that as heinous as JA's crime was it is not as heinous in law as that of a serial killer or a child murderer. The tragedy to the family is great of course as any family of a murdered victim. Wether you agree or not I think this is a point that did weigh on some jurors. We all filter the world through our own experiences & this is how the jury decided. You don't have to like it, but I don't believe this happened because Travis didn't matter enough. Think of how many heinous murders occur in the US (in death penalty states), think of how many criminals are given the death penalty, it's relatively rare.

 

[Sleuth5]

What brought it on home for me was when one of the members here posted about what dynamics played themselves out between his older parents throughout their watching Jodi's trial... he said that plain and simple his father was very firm of the mindset and would not be convinced otherwise in that there is absolutely no young woman, period who is going to prefer, enjoy, initiate anal sex..his father kept this same firm mindset throughout the entire trial and was extremely vocal about it to the point that the wife no longer would let him watch the trial with her since they were so adamantly opposed regarding this issue..

when this member shared this about his fathers adamant mindset that in essence allowed sympathy for Jodi..well, like it if not(and regardless of the FACT this particular mindset is incorrect in I know plenty of women who do in fact like, enjoy, and even initiate it) however the fact remains that believe it or not THE OPPOSITE IS the firm mindset of some people and in their being adamant REGARDLESS OF WHAT JODI SAID OR ACTED ON THE STAND, they firmly believe she didn't enjoy it, prefer, or initiate it there for seeing Travis as the aggressor...

and in the end while they could still see it was a premeditated first degree murder and even proven agg factor of especially cruel..yet, their firm mindset of Jodi in a sympathetic light of being manipulated into anal sex that she did not want was a sufficient factor in their minds that was enough to spare her life in the final penalty phase..

like it or not..believe it or not..there are absolutely individuals that even after all the testimony and evidence STILL ARE OF THE FIRM MINDSET NO YOUNG WOMAN WOULD EVER PREFER, ENJOY, OR INITIATE ANAL SEX..

and IMO that mindset would be enough for some to spare her life of the penalty of death.

So you feel the anal sex was the pivotal issue?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Here are the jury instructions for the penalty phase by TxJan1971 : Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - *graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial media/ timeline thread **no discussion** worth a read through ..

 

[Nezumi]

I have to say this would have been me had I sat on that jury. I probably wouldn't call it an excuse, but I am vehemently against the death penalty, and could never find it within myself to put somebody to death no matter their crime. I am also of the belief that living out your natural life behind bars is a tougher punishment than death. If I had to give a justification for my decision had I been sat on the Arias jury, it probably would have been that there was a mutual level of mental abuse, and I would have also taken into account some mitigating factors such as no prior criminal convictions.

If I was forced into slapping the death penalty on to a criminal it would be somebody like Frederick Baer. To me Jodi Arias' crime, although I can appreciate its awful cruelty, does not quite meet the threshold of someone like Baer (multiple victims, child victim, unknown victims - not saying it makes it any better to kill somebody that you know, but in TA and JA's case there had been a worsening of relations etc - and sexual assault prior to murder). I hope that makes sense!

As someone who is "vehemently against the death penalty" it would have been (and would be) incumbent upon you to disclose that fact in voir dire. And , having done so, you would never be seated on Jodi Arias' jury or any other death penalty qualified jury.

 

[graceholl]

BBM

Well, here's the thing. This was supposedly a "death qualified" jury, the potential jurors being questioned before they were chosen because they ALL had to say they COULD vote to put someone to death.

I think that is a flaw in the justice system. I think it should be totally chosen at random. If 50% of the country, hypothetically, is against the death penalty, and juries on DP cases can only be taken from the remaining 50%, I don't think that's fair. That's not really a 'random' jury. Selecting jurors without asking them their inherent preferences acts like something of a referendum on the death penalty itself, and I think that's really important to have.

I know I wouldn't have been able to serve on that jury (not only because I'm British, but also because I'm against the DP). I would have charged JA with first degree murder no doubt. But just because I'm not predisposed to a DP verdict I don't think should stop me from performing jury service on a DP case. I'm just glad I'll never have to!

 

[graceholl]

You wouldn't be on a DP case jury if you were honest during voire dire. Second, I'm unclear how a "worsening of relations" reduces the killer's culpability, and third... there was no sexual assault, period, at anytime.

I was referring to sexual assault in the other case that I mentioned...sorry for confusion.

I know I wouldn't have been on that jury. And I certainly would have been honest during voire dire. If I was allowed to be - i.e. they did not 'filter out' those against the DP - that would have been my justification for sparing her life.

By 'worsening of relations' I was talking again in the context of the other case I mentioned, where the perp literally chose a random house and random vics. That to me is unfathomable. Murder of an ex-boyfriend is not as inherently cold as there has been a steady worsening of relations. It doesn't reduce the culpability, it just makes it a little easier to understand WHY such a murder might have taken place.

(Difficult to explain myself without sounding like I think murder has a justification in some cases - absolutely not what I think!!)

 

[MeeBee]

I think that is a flaw in the justice system. I think it should be totally chosen at random. If 50% of the country, hypothetically, is against the death penalty, and juries on DP cases can only be taken from the remaining 50%, I don't think that's fair. That's not really a 'random' jury. Selecting jurors without asking them their inherent preferences acts like something of a referendum on the death penalty itself, and I think that's really important to have.

I know I wouldn't have been able to serve on that jury (not only because I'm British, but also because I'm against the DP). I would have charged JA with first degree murder no doubt. But just because I'm not predisposed to a DP verdict I don't think should stop me from performing jury service on a DP case. I'm just glad I'll never have to!

That's not a flaw, I think. If the max sentence someone is up for is DP, then everyone on the jury should be able to impose that sentence if they see fit. If someone like you makes it on the jury of a DP case, someone who could never under any circumstances impose the DP, then that's a problem. The point is that a jury should only make up their mind after they've heard all the evidence and aggravators and mitigators. An anti-DP person will have already made up their mind while someone who could impose the DP is more likely to weigh it all together. Everyone on the jury said they could give the DP if they saw fit but in the end four people found they did not feel this warranted the DP. That's the justice system at work.

 

[Quester]

I think that is a flaw in the justice system. I think it should be totally chosen at random. If 50% of the country, hypothetically, is against the death penalty, and juries on DP cases can only be taken from the remaining 50%, I don't think that's fair. That's not really a 'random' jury. Selecting jurors without asking them their inherent preferences acts like something of a referendum on the death penalty itself, and I think that's really important to have.

I know I wouldn't have been able to serve on that jury (not only because I'm British, but also because I'm against the DP). I would have charged JA with first degree murder no doubt. But just because I'm not predisposed to a DP verdict I don't think should stop me from performing jury service on a DP case. I'm just glad I'll never have to!

Most respectfully, "flaw"ed or not, US courts qualify DP jurors.

Were US courts to do as you suggested - not qualify potential DP jurors - there would be no point in ever seeking the DP because it would never be imposed, not even for the "Frederick Baer"'s of the world - I suppose opponents of the DP would cheer over this prospect. JMO

 

[rabidstoat]

I wouldn't be eligible for a jury like this as I am against the death penalty, not rabidly so but I wouldn't vote it myself.

That said, I don't think it's really fair to assume that the jurors who voted for life were lying on their death eligibility. It is possible that when push come to shove, they couldn't convict someone to death. More likely, I think, is that they have their own criteria for what they feel is a death penalty worthy crime, and for whatever reason (which you may or may not disagree with), this particular crime did not meet that criteria for them. And they are the ones who have to live with what is, ultimately, a very big decision, so being true to themselves is the way to go, no matter how frustrating it may be to us and, most especially so, to Travis' family.

I also tend to agree that, to me, though this murder was cruel, I don't consider it to be 'the worst of the worst'. That's not at all meant to trivialize it. I can think of a lot of murders that are less worse, so far as 'rating' horrible deeds more, but also some that are a lot worse. So I can see how if a person agreed that the death penalty was warranted in some cases, this one might not qualify in their own personal 'rating' system.

That said, I'll be disappointed if we get another hung jury and the judge rules she's eligible for parole in 25 years. Yes, people can change, and yes, people deserve second chances-- but not in every single case.

 

[Quester]

I wouldn't be eligible for a jury like this as I am against the death penalty, not rabidly so but I wouldn't vote it myself.

That said, I don't think it's really fair to assume that the jurors who voted for life were lying on their death eligibility. It is possible that when push come to shove, they couldn't convict someone to death. More likely, I think, is that they have their own criteria for what they feel is a death penalty worthy crime, and for whatever reason (which you may or may not disagree with), this particular crime did not meet that criteria for them. And they are the ones who have to live with what is, ultimately, a very big decision, so being true to themselves is the way to go, no matter how frustrating it may be to us and, most especially so, to Travis' family.

I also tend to agree that, to me, though this murder was cruel, I don't consider it to be 'the worst of the worst'. That's not at all meant to trivialize it. I can think of a lot of murders that are less worse, so far as 'rating' horrible deeds more, but also some that are a lot worse. So I can see how if a person agreed that the death penalty was warranted in some cases, this one might not qualify in their own personal 'rating' system.

That said, I'll be disappointed if we get another hung jury and the judge rules she's eligible for parole in 25 years. Yes, people can change, and yes, people deserve second chances-- but not in every single case.

BBM - Who "assume[d] that the jurors who voted for life were lying on their death eligibility"?

BUT, *IF* any of the jurors did lie, were seated and the truth became known, they should have been kicked off and replaced. JMO

 

[neesaki]

I have had misgivings on the use of the DP, only because there are unfortunately flaws in the justice system that have at times resulted in wrongful convictions.

This was not one of those cases though, and the murder of Travis was not only premeditated but excessively cruel enough to justify the DP, imo.

I was just thinking that there will always be people who don't have the backbone and strength of character to make wise but difficult decisions, and some who just exercise poor judgment their whole lives. I am still in disbelief how in the CA trial there were 12 of 12 that fit this profile.

In this case the 12 at least had it in them to get to a M1 guilty verdict. But when it came to the DP there were four who just weren't strong enough or have the courage to do it. Those four are quite possibly the type that have gone through life having difficulty making decisions, exercising poor judgment, and lacking the conviction to stand up for what's right. That's just my own view, of course.

 

[PMLsmom]

Not to nit-pick, but this is The Jury Speaks thread, not a DP pro/con thread...MOO

 

[KPinMN]

I think that is a flaw in the justice system. I think it should be totally chosen at random. If 50% of the country, hypothetically, is against the death penalty, and juries on DP cases can only be taken from the remaining 50%, I don't think that's fair. That's not really a 'random' jury. Selecting jurors without asking them their inherent preferences acts like something of a referendum on the death penalty itself, and I think that's really important to have.
I know I wouldn't have been able to serve on that jury (not only because I'm British, but also because I'm against the DP). I would have charged JA with first degree murder no doubt. But just because I'm not predisposed to a DP verdict I don't think should stop me from performing jury service on a DP case. I'm just glad I'll never have to!

BBM
If you feel that asking questions to feel out jurors before placing them on a jury makes it not fair then I imagine you feel that way about every American jury selected, not just DP qualified ones. In the American judicial system potential jurors are always asked personal questions and carefully selected based on the answer to those questions. Without doing this you may end up with a very unfair trial.

For example, if a potential juror has a prejudice against all black people and the defendant is black that would be incredibly unfair to the defendant.

Another example, if a potential juror has a prejudice against Latinos and the victim is Latino while the defendant is white that would deny the State a fair trial.

While I understand your feelings on the issue I think there are some clear reasons why questioning potential jurors is absolutely necessary. The jury system in America is "of your peers", there is no requirement that they be "random", just of one's peers.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Unsealed: the jury questions: http://www.azcentral.com/video/2437160829001

 

[JudyBolton]

I wouldn't be eligible for a jury like this as I am against the death penalty, not rabidly so but I wouldn't vote it myself.

That said, I don't think it's really fair to assume that the jurors who voted for life were lying on their death eligibility. It is possible that when push come to shove, they couldn't convict someone to death. More likely, I think, is that they have their own criteria for what they feel is a death penalty worthy crime, and for whatever reason (which you may or may not disagree with), this particular crime did not meet that criteria for them. And they are the ones who have to live with what is, ultimately, a very big decision, so being true to themselves is the way to go, no matter how frustrating it may be to us and, most especially so, to Travis' family.

I also tend to agree that, to me, though this murder was cruel, I don't consider it to be 'the worst of the worst'. That's not at all meant to trivialize it. I can think of a lot of murders that are less worse, so far as 'rating' horrible deeds more, but also some that are a lot worse. So I can see how if a person agreed that the death penalty was warranted in some cases, this one might not qualify in their own personal 'rating' system.

That said, I'll be disappointed if we get another hung jury and the judge rules she's eligible for parole in 25 years. Yes, people can change, and yes, people deserve second chances-- but not in every single case.

I have not read/seen all of the jurors' interviews - have any of them indicated that they this was not "The Worst of the Worst" kind of murder? Because if so ..... I think that would show they were totally ignoring the instructions to the jury. It is NOT their job to consider other murderers... It is NOT their job to compare CMJA to say Charles Manson....It is NOT their job to rate murderers on a scale of one to ten and see where does CMJA fall in that hierarchy of other convicted murderers. Hoping these are just your speculations and not something that has been stated or even hinted at by juror interviews.....

 

[karen302]

I have had misgivings on the use of the DP, only because there are unfortunately flaws in the justice system that have at times resulted in wrongful convictions.

This was not one of those cases though, and the murder of Travis was not only premeditated but excessively cruel enough to justify the DP, imo.

I was just thinking that there will always be people who don't have the backbone and strength of character to make wise but difficult decisions, and some who just exercise poor judgment their whole lives. I am still in disbelief how in the CA trial there were 12 of 12 that fit this profile.

In this case the 12 at least had it in them to get to a M1 guilty verdict. But when it came to the DP there were four who just weren't strong enough or have the courage to do it. Those four are quite possibly the type that have gone through life having difficulty making decisions, exercising poor judgment, and lacking the conviction to stand up for what's right. That's just my own view, of course.

Bolding mine -

Just because someone makes a different choice, based on how they see the evidence, does NOT mean they have little or no backbone, nor a weaker character than someone else. It simply means they see it differently.

For those of you who wonder why the jurors who voted life don't speak out...why would they subject themselves to the scrutiny? Many people, here and other places have already voiced their opinions on the character of those 4 people without even knowing what brought them to their decision.

I don't think being "victim supportive and victim friendly" means everyone else is fair game. All the jurors on this case spent 5-6 months out of their regular lives, doing their job/civic duty and deserve a great deal of RESPECT and support, no matter which way they voted.

Just my .02

 

[redbud]

Unsealed: the jury questions: http://www.azcentral.com/video/2437160829001

Thanks! Is there a list with all the questions anywhere?

 

[Quester]

Not yet ... we're anxiously looking and awaiting that list of juror questions which were not asked, along with other unsealed documents/transcripts.

 

[Emmi]

Bolding mine -

Just because someone makes a different choice, based on how they see the evidence, does NOT mean they have little or no backbone, nor a weaker character than someone else. It simply means they see it differently.

For those of you who wonder why the jurors who voted life don't speak out...why would they subject themselves to the scrutiny? Many people, here and other places have already voiced their opinions on the character of those 4 people without even knowing what brought them to their decision.

I don't think being "victim supportive and victim friendly" means everyone else is fair game. All the jurors on this case spent 5-6 months out of their regular lives, doing their job/civic duty and deserve a great deal of RESPECT and support, no matter which way they voted.

Just my .02

Good post. I agree.