Verdict is in! GUILTY of MURDER ONE - Hung Jury On Penalty Phase

[believe09]

You know what? If she had done this to a total stranger, there is NO WAY she would have gotten anything less than the death penalty.

I wish I had never heard his interview.

It shouldn't matter that there were some angry text messages there. What she did was CRUEL, and if Travis had been a stranger, she would have gotten the death penalty.

Respectfully snipped. One of my soapboxes is how intimate relationships devalue victims in the courtroom. I am not a social scientist-but I see this time and time again. Abigail Young (in my signature) was found guilty of endangering her child. She put her child into the hands of a child rapist, covered up the rapes when she came onto CPS's radar and then not only cleaned up the crime scene when Emma was beaten and raped for the final time...she let her die by the side of the road before she called for help.

Endangering her child? Really? Pick a domestic violence case....it it were a stranger crime, the penalty would be far more severe. It's like there is some kind of ownership or entitlement when the victim is an intimate partner or biologically related.

:banghead:

 

[raisincharlie]

Yep. In her allocution she mentioned a different prison than Perryville...
Did she really not know where she'd be going?
Had she not talked to women in the jail who had served time in prison?
She admits in one interview that she didn't know what kind of opportunities to serve others/participate in programs would be available
Did she just make all of that up to manipulate the jurors? Make them think her life would be days of book clubs, Spanish classes, recycling etc.
Perryville sounds brutal.

I believe the murderer never referenced the prison but rather the location - Perryville is the prison, she referenced Goodyear which is a town near the prison. Apparently no one, not even the mitigation lady, bothered to tell her she was dellusional in thinking she could do the things she listed. Was it made up for the jury, of course it was. It is also dellusional to think that she would actually volunteer to serve others, she serves no one but herself.

 

[Ransom]

wont load for me on any browser :scared:

It took a long time to load but I finally got to see #9. He didn't really say anything ... taking time off, etc. The other bus riders were mainly talking.

 

[rose222]

Dontcha know that when you find that the victim's family is going through he$$ and you admit it's gut-wrenching the first thing you do (as a foreman) when you give your post-hung jury interview is to blame the murdered victim for having been abusive.:steamed:

I'm waiting for the other jurors (regardless of whether they voted for death or not) to tell us how horrible JA is and how much they feel for Travis.

 

[molly333]

I have had the great privilege of seeing Robert Hirschhorn, the best jury consultant in the US, lecture. One time he even showed a live mock jury for us. One of his messages is that cases are usually won or lost during voir dire (jury selection). I was not following this case at the beginning, but I thought I heard that JM used a jury consultant. Does anyone know?

Now, to say this case was a loss for the state is silly: the Defendant was convicted of 1st degree premeditated murder. But I wonder if there was enough attention paid to selecting jurors who would really impose death. This is not a criticism of JM. Just something I am thinking about and something JM is certainly thinking about right now.

As a lawyer, do you think that abuse could be a mitigating factor for the death penalty? How about mental illness? How about both?

Why does everyone assume this was not a death qualified jury?

Of course they were death qualified but that doesn't mean they are going to automatically give death in every case.

Otherwise they wouldn't deliberate independently for the life or death phase.

IMO

 

[SunnyinMO]

Did you guys see a guy on the bus (when media tried to talk to juror 9)? He said he is not for the death-penalty but had he been on this jury he would have voted for death!

http://www.azcentral.com/video/2405627568001

rose, thanks for posting this....JVM took so much verbal bashing because she too ran him down....she wasn't alone!!

 

[HarvestMoon]

Okay, so the jury foreman says he believes that Arias was abused by TA. Great when she hears this she will never shut up about being a DV martyr.

 

[grammieto5]

No. This would be horrible. It would be so warped with political correctness and just simply politics that there would be no hope of true justice. Just look at our "professional" legislators these days!

I think our justice system still has great potential, but one change needs to be made... Get rid of UNANIMOUS decisions. Seriously, there are just too many biased people (we are all biased in some way or another), with their own histories or agendas. All jury verdicts should be decided by a 3/4 vote. 8 out of 12 should carry a verdict. And I'm not saying that because that happened to be the split this time. It would prevent the mistrials from the majority of hung juries. It would reduce the jurors who later claim that they were pressured to vote one way or another. But it also still protects from a person's fate being decide by a simple majority, 50/50 split, coin toss.

I would be all for majority rule, but I'd take it further and make it a 3 person jury! And for sure at least make sure the jury knows the law, and especially understands the law.

 

[Schuby]

Morning all.

Last night I dreamed that Vinnie Politan took me and my parents out for Chinese food then drove us all home in a big white van, which we later had sex in. What does this mean?????? anic:

 

[Colt46]

Jodi had makeup on in court. Looks like she waxed or severely tweezed the brows, too. She never had makeup on before the makeup demands for the media tour.

Several of the reporters have said Jodi demanded they give her base, powder, shadow and waterproof mascara; not film her putting it on; not film the prison stripes and cuffs.

Now, what I want to know is why she was allowed to keep this stuff in her cell. No pencils or fungus cream, but makeup?[/QUOTE]

BBM

I was thinking the same thing yesterday. She probably never washed her face after the interviews, lol.

 

[Stripehaven]

It is really bothering me that some are getting irate over SPECULATION about the jury's thought processes. Except for the foreman, none has spoken out. We have no idea why any of them voted as they did. And I want to point out again that the foreman said that INITIALLY (i.e., when he "first walked into the courtoom") he found it hard to believe a young woman had committed this crime. He stated this in response to a leading remark from the interviewer , and it sounded to me like he did not even mean it literally but just that it eas extremely hard to comprehend. And I suspect many of us had that same initial reaction. I know I did. I believed it but I "couldn't believe" it.

Clearly the foreman and all the others DID believe it, as they convicted her of Murder One.

In other news, I wish Jodi would answer one more question: Where are your glasses?

 

[Colt46]

Duplicate deleted

 

[Sleuth5]

the sad truth is nobody can be absolutely positive someone won't get out of prison, no matter what the sentence. even here in texas.

remember kenneth mcduff? absolutely the worst of the worst. i think he killed at least 14 people. he got the DP----then got that commuted to LIFE. then he got out with TIME SERVED and killed several MORE people.

this is the problem----we just need to know what the hell is really going to happen with these sentences. when a jury says death, they MEAN death, and same with LIFE. it's a joke, really.

Oh, yeah, I remember McDuff.

 

[Annie]

Your comment about demographics is correct as it pertains to high profile/ long trials. The pool of "available" jurors to sit on a jury in excess of months means that the pool often contains a disproportionate percentage of retired people, and unemployed people, or people employed in non-traditional settings (self employed in the home, seasonal workers, etc). Almost no employer will pay wages for a traditional employee to sit on a jury for more than a week or 2, and we all know jurors are seldom paid more than $20/ day in any state.

So the demographics of the pool of jurors become ever more skewed as jury selection proceeds, and younger people with younger children are excused, and people with jobs who cannot forego their income for months on end. Or professionals (such as medical professionals) who simply cannot be away from their jobs and patients for weeks on end. This skews the demographics of the age range. If a trial is projected to be 2 weeks or less, the demographics of the jury more closely mirror the general population in the county.

This is one area, IMO, that jury reforms could make changes. BUT-- it would cost $$ to do that. IMO, a juror should be able to be paid at least 80% of the average of their last 3 months' income during their service. That would be an incentive for more to serve, and not try to "get out of" jury duty. But who would pay for this? Employers? We can't force them to do that. The state? Maybe, if there was enough will of the people to be taxed. We will pay millions to try the accused, but pay almost nothing to the jurors whose lives are interrupted for weeks to months on end.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents!

I think part of the problem is allowing a trial to go on so long. The court time should begin early and last all day. The lunch break should be one hour. A headache is no reason to cancel court. Give them a Tylenol and go on. I always had to keep working when I had a headache. The judge should not allow lawyers to go on and on. It is ridiculous to keep a person on the stand for eighteen days. They should not be allowed to continually approach with the same objection over and over, sometimes just to stop the continuity of the questioning. I do not think any trial should be allowed to go on as long as this one did. The Alexanders would not have had to be away from home so long if more discipline had been applied in the courtroom. I am not so sure that the age of the jurors can be directly tied to the lack of verdict on penalty phase. I am older and I very much wanted the death penalty. I would have preferred life in prison, however, over no decision.

 

[popsicle]

YES!!! Show videos of JA in different scenarios. Show how she can change on a dime. Juan has to SHOW the jurors how she is.

Just show how she changed after the jury left the room even.

 

[hindsight2020]

I have mixed feelings about professional jurors, but certainly potential jurors should be required take some sort of aptitude test to determine logic and comprehension. As it stands now, the only qualifications to serve on any jury, is to read, write and speak english, geez.

 

[TXProfessional]

Defense request sealed by the court. Months prior to trial. It's in the court records on the court web page

Thanks for the info TexMex. Did you happen to get my PM?

 

[Shelby1]

Morning all.

Last night I dreamed that Vinnie Politan took me and my parents out for Chinese food then drove us all home in a big white van, which we later had sex in. What does this mean?????? anic:

Well, it depends.....if it was just you and Vinnie having sex, it means the Chinese food was really good.

If your folks were involved in the sex....well, then....errrr......




:floorlaugh:

 

[HarvestMoon]

Morning all.

Last night I dreamed that Vinnie Politan took me and my parents out for Chinese food then drove us all home in a big white van, which we later had sex in. What does this mean?????? anic:

Schuby, I'm shocked. :facepalm:

 

[nawd68]

It is really bothering me that some are getting irate over SPECULATION about the jury's thought processes. Except for the foreman, none has spoken out. We have no idea why any of them voted as they did. And I want to point out again that the foreman said that INITIALLY he found it hard to believe a young woman had committed this crime. He stated this in response to a leading remark from the interviewer , and it sounded to me like he did not even mean it literally but just that it eas extremely hard to comprehend. And I suspect many of us had that same initial reaction. I know I did. I believed it but I "couldn't believe" it.
Clearly the foreman and all the others DID believe it, as they convicted her of Murder One.

This is what I've been trying to say for the last hour. You said it better than I.