VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Retrial Day 43, Part 2

[Reagan]

I really hope she doesn't do that. She must know it would only add insult to injury, and idiocy to incompetence.

After the whole secret testimony debacle, the violation of the constitution, and treating the jury as well as the family's time with complete disdain.. I think she knows a whole lot of nothing, or quite simply doesn't care.

 

[neesaki]

Can't really keep up anymore because I have been living at the hospital at my son's bedside since the end of January so I have just been skimming posts when I can. But my two cents based on what I have read and tried to piece together, I think the jury will end up hung when it is all said and done .I think Judge Sherry will go with LWOP. But I have a question, Nurmi has asked for mistrial a million plus one times since this retrial started, can Juan go for mistrial? And were Nurmi's requests for mis-trial this go around just for mistrial just in relation to the current sentencing retrial? If Juan were to ask for mistrial could he not base it on something the "judge" ruled on that he felt was inappropriate - cause I think there has been several instances of rulings that just did not make sense or favored the defense. And if a mis-trial was deemed to be so , does that mean they redo the sentencing trial. Hope you all understand what I am getting at.

Hi lilyet, I'm so very sorry to hear about you're son, but good to see you here. Your questions sound like good ones to me, I just wish I could answer them.
Prayers to you, your son and family. Keep in touch whenever you can. God Bless :grouphug:

 

[mydirtysecret]

Oyvey. Just got a call schools are out tomorrow for potential bad weather. Sounds like a storm is brewing for sure

 

[PenElaine]

:blushing::heartbeat::heartbeat:

Nothing. They went home. Disappointment abounds. Jury is obviously deadlocked. No hope. So depressing.

Tomorrow another chance but based on today, its looking like this jury will be a hung one.
JMO of course.

Tried to sneak peeks at Twitter while in class today and I went from excited anticipation to oh no to what the HE_ _ is going on to WTF to please God nooooooo.

How is it EVEN POSSIBLE that there are jurors who aren't convinced that the DP is not the right and just sentence for this creature? If CMJA's crime is not deserving of the death penalty, then what, pray tell, is this sentence even for???? What an utter waste of AZ taxpayers $$$ & the AZ justice system's time. It's akin (albeit on a much, much larger scale) to LE chasing down jaywalkers while DV perps, drug lords, child molesters and other serious criminals are ignored.

I am, as I'm sure most of you other faithful, caring, kind and deeply sincere folks here are, tremendously saddened by this deadlock situation. It hurts me most because the Alexander family's wishes will very possibly never be realized. This, after all of their unimaginable heartache, their incredible sacrifices attending 2+ years of trial and no doubt countless days/hours in meetings, responding to correspondence & phonecalls, etc. How much more could they possibly endure??? Oh, Steven, I hurt for you most of all ....

Never mind the tireless efforts of Juan, Det. Flores, TA's friends who testified, and even the fierce loyalty of all of you WS'ers who have hung in here for so long, sharing insightful thoughts and theories, demonstrating boundless compassion, empathy and support for all of the trial players and for many of our forum members too. It's so very very sad.

I will deeply miss the camaraderie and spirit of friendship on this forum. I pray for peace, love, laughter and joy for each and every one of you, no matter the outcome. If anyone here would like to stay in touch, I would be honored to receive a PM requesting Facebook or Twitter contact info. I'm just a small player here compared to most, but your "friendships" will remain hugely important in my mind and heart for the rest of my life and it would give me great joy to remain in contact in the real world (mods - hope this isn't out of line...)

With sincere affection,
Cait (Penny Lane)

 

[ShadyLady]

Yes. These jurors were sworn in promising to logically weigh aggravating factors v mitigating ones. None of the mitigators make sense. Juan spent time knocking down each one IMO

And defense trashed even Juan in front of jury, iirc.

And did JSS allowed Juan to defend himself against the charges???? No.

 

[bettybaby00]

Imo I think the problem is that if you go back to the beginning of this sentencing phase, Oct?, this jury was made aware of most of the circumstances of the murder. That said, their job is only to determine if the mitigators put forth by the DT were legitimate and if so, weigh those against what has already been decided by the first jury as murder 1 with cruelty as to whether any(one, some or all) of those mitigators basically made TA deserve death and in the manner he received it, or, whether any of the mitigators gave JA a legitimate excuse for having premeditated, then carried out the vicious manner of the his murder.

Yes from what I can recall Juan was able to lay out the FACTS from the first trial, and they jury had to accept that she was a convicted felon, with premeditation and extreme cruelty.

Also, I can't for the life of me believe that most of the jurors were not privy to what went on in the first trial, even if they weren't avidly following the case like we do here. for them it was local news, and I'm sure the day to day happenings were featured heavily daily on their local news.

If I understand the proceedings correctly these jurors were not precluded from "knowing" about the case before hand. I think if they do hang it's going to be b/c of the "mentally ill" factor. For me that wouldn't be a mitigator b/c the cray cray is a given when someone butchers another human being. IMO

 

[ElleElle]

Originally Posted by jabberwocky
If that is true then they lied during voir dire.



Or maybe one or more jurors just don't think Arias' crime met their personal threshold for voting for death -- not that they're stealthily opposed to the death penalty outright. [smh]

I'm just trying to rationalize my anger and frustration from earlier in the day. I just don't understand how Juan didn't make it crystal clear to them how deserving JA is of the death penalty. What more would she have had to do to warrant a vote for death from the holdout(s)??? [sigh]

BBM ~ Because he did not get the last word in, Nurmi did. The sentencing was all about JA and why her life should be spared. Unfortunately, as much as we wanted to, this trial was not really about TA. And, that's why I get frustrated with the justice system. Criminals get more rights than the victims.

JMO

 

[mugwump*]

LOL the spoiler was massive!!!

I will admit I skimmed that part, but the beginning of the instructions are pretty damn straight forward IMO.

I'm bothered by this. They were allowed to change mitigating factors and defense during this penalty phase.

 

[JusticeFever]

[/B]

BBM Now, that statement might be a mitigating factor...no one in her family has stood up to try to save her life.

But they could have, no one or nothing stopped them, other than maybe perjury charges.

In all reality, even if the DP is given, what are the chances it will actually be carried through?
Scott Peterson has been on Death Row for about 10 years now and still fighting and filing appeals.
I want JA on Death Row because it will be so much worse for her, she will have to hear the words "sentenced to death" and the conditions and her privledges will be limited to the fact , that there are barely any.
If someday the DP is overturned ,still so what? That where she needs to be, and if I am not mistaken,exactly, where she wanted to be.
"If I did this to Travis, I would beg for the Death Penalty".
Give her what she wanted.

 

[ShadyLady]

:blushing::heartbeat::heartbeat:

Tried to sneak peeks at Twitter while in class today and I went from excited anticipation to oh no to what the HE_ _ is going on to WTF to please God nooooooo.

How is it EVEN POSSIBLE that there are jurors who aren't convinced that the DP is not the right and just sentence for this creature? If CMJA's crime is not deserving of the death penalty, then what, pray tell, is this sentence even for???? What an utter waste of AZ taxpayers $$$ & the AZ justice system's time. It's akin (albeit on a much, much larger scale) to LE chasing down jaywalkers while DV perps, drug lords, child molesters and other serious criminals are ignored.

I am, as I'm sure most of you other faithful, caring, kind and deeply sincere folks here are, tremendously saddened by this deadlock situation. It hurts me most because the Alexander family's wishes will very possibly never be realized. This, after all of their unimaginable heartache, their incredible sacrifices attending 2+ years of trial and no doubt countless days/hours in meetings, responding to correspondence & phonecalls, etc. How much more could they possibly endure??? Oh, Steven, I hurt for you most of all ....

Never mind the tireless efforts of Juan, Det. Flores, TA's friends who testified, and even the fierce loyalty of all of you WS'ers who have hung in here for so long, sharing insightful thoughts and theories, demonstrating boundless compassion, empathy and support for all of the trial players and for many of our forum members too. It's so very very sad.

I will deeply miss the camaraderie and spirit of friendship on this forum. I pray for peace, love, laughter and joy for each and every one of you, no matter the outcome. If anyone here would like to stay in touch, I would be honored to receive a PM requesting Facebook or Twitter contact info. I'm just a small player here compared to most, but your "friendships" will remain hugely important in my mind and heart for the rest of my life and it would give me great joy to remain in contact in the real world (mods - hope this isn't out of line...)

With sincere affection,
Cait (Penny Lane)

Love your posts. And completely agree with your previous post on the Hughes. Dead on.

 

[mydirtysecret]

As we sign off this evening, I sensed I pizzed off some folks with my "y'all, y'all." Please take my "clunky reference" as a 1) a third generation Washingtonian (not D.C) and 2) a great-great-great grand daughter of Texas.

My kin settled Texas. See Chapter "Mrs. Nancy Kelley" in "Early Settlers and Indian Fighters of Southwest Texas"

As a born and raised okie. I love y'all. No offense taken

 

[Ladylub]

[/B]

BBM Now, that statement might be a mitigating factor...no one in her family has stood up to try to save her life.

For me while I might feel bad for her had I not heard all the evil she did to Travis. Since I heard her evil ways I have to stop and think if even her own family doesn't really like her what has she done to them.

 

[SuzDuJour]

I got no problem with y'all. All y'all...

 

[wenwe4]

Can't really keep up anymore because I have been living at the hospital at my son's bedside since the end of January so I have just been skimming posts when I can. But my two cents based on what I have read and tried to piece together, I think the jury will end up hung when it is all said and done .I think Judge Sherry will go with LWOP. But I have a question, Nurmi has asked for mistrial a million plus one times since this retrial started, can Juan go for mistrial? And were Nurmi's requests for mis-trial this go around just for mistrial just in relation to the current sentencing retrial? If Juan were to ask for mistrial could he not base it on something the "judge" ruled on that he felt was inappropriate - cause I think there has been several instances of rulings that just did not make sense or favored the defense. And if a mis-trial was deemed to be so , does that mean they redo the sentencing trial. Hope you all understand what I am getting at.

lilyet,
So sorry you and your son are struggling ((((hugs)))))! Sending warm beams of healing light your way!

(IANAL translation I am not a lawyer)
but I think AZL answered this awhile ago. IIRC she said the State cannot ask for a mistrial because they will not try this case again. Nurmi wanted a mistrial so that the DP can be taken off the table (due to no redoing the sentencing trial). But gotta give it to Nurmi (IMO) he gave Jodi everything she ever wanted, he managed to get a few hours for her to testify in secret, he managed to coerce JSS into the secret trial from h*!! (IMO), and he continues even in the 11th hour to file or make a motion for mistrial. He has used every underhanded dirty trick possible and he forced the State to break up and confuse the jurors with stop/start, witnesses out of order, secret affidavits from nicknamed people who "have one and use it".

 

[ElleElle]

Lol, you didn't finish reading my thought... I said depending on the culpibility(ie. I personally feel drunk driving would qualify for one of those punishments) would make that punishment more of an option, with mitigators. So if you were running highways with bald tires, never maintained your vehicles, had a record of accidents related to the poor condition of your vehicle, then like any accidental killing, you could possibly be charged with the punishment set as high as LWP. For an example, how many times have you heard of heavy equipment companies running their equipment into the ground without a care as to whether it is likely to cause serious injury or death? Should someone die because the rig they're driving suddenly loses its brakes or drop the engine, shouldn't that equate to murder by negligence, still accidental but worthy of a higher penalty than blowing a tire by accidentally running over a big pothole or rock on the road? See what I mean? Not that everywhere would consider LWP or LWOP as proper punishments for those cases, just as some places don't have the DP now, not even for serial baby murderers.

If that happened, you would probably be charged with manslaughter (at least in Canada anyways). Being negligent does not equal to premeditation.

 

[Hatfield]

Thanks Daisydomino for the Jury Instructions as I finally read most of them and I think I found a LOOPHOLE to get around the impasse.

I wish I was the foreman because I think I might be able to sway the holdout jurors with this argument. Lets assume a 10-2 impasse for DP.

When we read this part,

"If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of life. If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of death."

I would tell the holdouts that "Unanimously" means just that. It means the 10 of us unanimously are in favor of the DP and you 2 are in the minority, so we are the unanimous party and according to those instructions, you should go to this next instruction and sign the form with us.

"In order to return a verdict, all twelve of you must agree on the sentence to be imposed. Please mark your decision on the verdict form provided."

Notice how this part does not say anything about "unanimous". It just says all 12 have to agree on the verdict form. So, I take that to mean that the fact that 10 of us were unanimous from the top part, the other 2 really should agree with us in this bottom part, if they so be inclined.

Oh well, I tried. LOL

 

[DexterMorgan]

Obviously these jurors lied on the application when they put that they would be capable of giving a death sentence. I mean how much more gory did the crime need to be.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I don't think the jurors who don't want to give JA the DP lied .. they just don't think that's the right sentence after hearing all the evidence.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Thanks Daisydomino for the Jury Instructions as I finally read most of them and I think I found a LOOPHOLE to get around the impasse.

I wish I was the foreman because I think I might be able to sway the holdout jurors with this argument. Lets assume a 10-2 impasse for DP.

When we read this part,

"If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of life. If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of death."

I would tell the holdouts that "Unanimously" means just that. It means the 10 of us unanimously are in favor of the DP and you 2 are in the minority, so we are the unanimous party and according to those instructions, you should go to this next instruction and sign the form with us.

"In order to return a verdict, all twelve of you must agree on the sentence to be imposed. Please mark your decision on the verdict form provided."

Notice how this part does not say anything about "unanimous". It just says all 12 have to agree. So, I take that to mean that the fact that 10 of us were unanimous from the top part, the other 2 really should agree with us in this bottom part, if they so be inclined.

Oh well, I tried. LOL

HAHA so basically, if foreman you'd just sort them out and say 'Look, clearly there are 10 of us here who think the same way, just admit that you're brain is mush and come along with us and nobody gets hurt...' I kinda like it ..

 

[La-Cooks]

But they could have, no one or nothing stopped them, other than maybe perjury charges.

"If I did this to Travis, I would beg for:banghead: the Death Penalty".
Give her what she wanted.

"Well, I don't understand what that means. Does it mean I was lying when I said I wanted the death penalty, or does it mean it was lying when I said I didn't? I don't know." (Shrugs)

:maddening: