VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Retrial Day 44, Part 2

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Will the killer be sentenced immediately if the jury returns a verdict (any verdict)? I thought that sentencing almost always took place at another hearing. Like w/ Lacey Spears, she was found guilty of murder 2 and will be sentenced in a few weeks. Is that because the judge would get to decide the terms of her sentence? If it is a non-negotiable life w/o parole or DP verdict does it begin immediately, no sentencing hearing at another day? Hopefully I'm making sense!

I think if they give her death that is that and she is toast and off to prison.

 

[Apparition]

I was on a murder trial, but not a death penalty one. The trial lasted 4 days. The jury foreman gave us all a slip of paper and asked us to write down guilty/not guilty or undecided. We came back at 10 guilty and 2 undecided. It took us less than an hour to deliberate the other two. If I were on this case and we voted, lets say 8 to 4 or something close. Here is what I would say to those that wanted to spare her life.
1) I would hold up the photos of Travis and say, Imagine you or your wife/husband/child killed in this manner. How would you feel about the person that did this?
2) She planned to do this, hair change, gas cans, rental car, ect.
3) Used sex as a weapon to get him vulnerable in the shower, then struck cold and hard, without mercy, stabbing him 27 times, slit his neck ear to ear and shot him with a stolen gun from her own family.
4) made fake calls to the person she killed to hide her tracks among other things.
5) Told the police she would never hurt Travis, lied about being there, told the ninja story, then when caught in a lie admitted doing it, and try to blame the victim, that he somehow deserved to die at her hands in a brutal way.
6) Refuses to take responsibility for her for her actions and still shows no remorse for Travis or his family.
7) Continues to smear Travis, making false statements accusing him of being a spouse beater, pedophile and all around bad person. She was the one that figured Mormans were easy prey if she threw some sex at them, magic panties ring a bell?
8) Still, in her ego and mind, she thinks she will get away with it.
9)I pray the jury gives her death, then she can count down the days, but her death will be a lot less painful then Travis was.......

 

[Greater Than]

Ive been thinking about what to do if we were in this situation with the jury and lets say there are 2 holdouts that wont budge and rest want to give her DP.

Now lets say they try and try and realize there just is no way to convince those 2 at all and they tried for more days and it is obvious to every juror there is no way the 2 will ever ever ever budge.

OK, now.....heres the thing. Since we know that if the jury hangs, it will get turned over to JSS to decide on a life sentence of some sort and we know that it could be up to a month or more before she schedules her sentencing hearing.

So, if we were on that jury, would there be any benefit to having everyone agree to give her a Life Sentence?

Im wondering if it would accomplish these advantages or not?
1-It would be a resolution finally
2-It would prevent any more unecessary delays having to wait on JSS to decide anything
3-Would it also mean it would definitely be LWOP (so no chance JSS could give her LWP)

I know my gut is telling me that I would not want to do that, but in that exact situation which the jury may be in right now, would this actually be a better way to go.
Have all 10 flip to join the 2 and finally end this thing.

Again, im only considering that if there has already been multiple day attempts to go the other way and it has become totally obvious to every juror that there is no way the 2 will ever ever ever ever ever budge. Like right before declaring hung for sure.

IMO you start at the top. If you find that the law supports the DP, you're done...you do not even consider the lesser penalty. I get where you're coming from, but IMO a consolation prize has no place in jury deliberations. I would personally rather hang the jury myself, if that's what it came down to, than compromise my integrity.

 

[krkrjx]

LOL.. I am kind of all over on this aren't I?

I don't know. Ignore me until I get more coffee..
The juror questions just bother me. I don't know why but it irritates me for no logical rational reason.

Question for you, SS:

If the first jury had hung on whether she was guilty and a mistrial was called, would you expect the state to not try again with a new jury? Certainly you would not see that hung jury as a verdict of acquittal?

 

[Hatfield]

Will the killer be sentenced immediately if the jury returns a verdict (any verdict)? I thought that sentencing almost always took place at another hearing. Like w/ Lacey Spears, she was found guilty of murder 2 and will be sentenced in a few weeks. Is that because the judge would get to decide the terms of her sentence? If it is a non-negotiable life w/o parole or DP verdict does it begin immediately, no sentencing hearing at another day? Hopefully I'm making sense!

Yes and you described it well what I am wondering about. I maybe wrong, but I think there maybe an actual advantage if the 10 DP jurors switched their vote and end this thing (rather than hang the jury again).

But only if it means LWOP for sure and it means JSS doesnt get a vote. That part I dont know for sure one way or the other.

Its rather confusing isnt it?

Your other example you are 100% correct on. When it is a normal case, the judge usually has to sentence the defendent herself anyway and only uses the jury's decision as a recommendation for sentencing. The judge usually follows what they want, but the judge doesnt have to. That always bothered me too because we have had judges that go crazy sometimes. LOL

 

[Val1]

Bringing this over from the previous thread...



But the people who know the law and the rules of the law aren't the ones who need to ask questions. It's the laypeople on the jury who sometimes need clarification of the law so that they can accurately apply the law to the case they are rendering a verdict on. IMO it's always a positive sign when a jury asks questions. It indicates that they are taking their role seriously and not just haphazardly checking off a box on the verdict form. I fail to see how a jury asking questions to ensure they have a clear understanding of the law can be considered a bad thing.

To be clear, the first jury didn't say "no DP." They hung. There's a big difference. And double jeopardy doesn't attach until a unanimous verdict is reached.

I'm not even sure you could say that they had declared they were hung, they were as surprised as some of us were when JSS suddenly declared that when they sent in more questions, which JSS had told them to do if they needed to...

 

[wendiesan]

I feel that just as there may be some disagreement over "reasonable doubt" and "some possibility of doubt", so might some jurors have different opinions about mitigating factors and how much value to place on any of the factors proposed by JA's DT.

Or, perhaps, there could be disagreement in deciding which mitigating factors actually exist and which do not.

 

[Val1]

Yes and you described it well what I am wondering about. I maybe wrong, but I think there maybe an actual advantage if the 10 DP jurors switched their vote and end this thing (rather than hang the jury again).

But only if it means LWOP for sure and it means JSS doesnt get a vote. That part I dont know for sure one way or the other.

Its rather confusing isnt it?

Your other example you are 100% correct on. When it is a normal case, the judge usually has to sentence the defendent herself anyway and only uses the jury's decision as a recommendation for sentencing. The judge usually follows what they want, but the judge doesnt have to. That always bothered me too because we have had judges that go crazy sometimes. LOL

My understanding is whether it's hung or the jury actually comes back with Life, JSS still gets to decide on what Life means... :/

 

[Steve44]

I still don't understand why JA was not allowed to be questioned by Juan. She got on the stand and testified but he could not cross her. I don't get that.

The defendant can refuse or agree testify if the defense team wants them to (or they themselves want to) regardless of the reason chosen in this case. JA agreed in this case because JSS agreed to close the courtroom. After that was overturned, JA refused to retake the stand and couldn't be forced to, even though Juan hadn't gotten the chance to cross-examine her. Juan had the option of having her existing testimony struck, but decided not to. That was his only option. There were reasons that benefited him to let it stand, but that was his only choice.

 

[Hatfield]

IMO you start at the top. If you find that the law supports the DP, you're done...you do not even consider the lesser penalty. I get where you're coming from, but IMO a consolation prize has no place in jury deliberations. I would personally rather hang the jury myself, if that's what it came down to, than compromise my integrity.

I understand and I think most people would probably do the same, so I suppose its a silly consideration, but when you look at those 3 advantages, it begins to make sense rather than letting JSS get control and delay this trial even further.

I agree though. I doubt I would ever do my own idea. LOL

I would want to go on record as voting the way I really wanted to and Im pretty sure most people would do the same.

 

[mydirtysecret]

Yes and you described it well what I am wondering about. I maybe wrong, but I think there maybe an actual advantage if the 10 DP jurors switched their vote and end this thing (rather than hang the jury again).

But only if it means LWOP for sure and it means JSS doesnt get a vote. That part I dont know for sure one way or the other.

Its rather confusing isnt it?

Your other example you are 100% correct on. When it is a normal case, the judge usually has to sentence the defendent herself anyway and only uses the jury's decision as a recommendation for sentencing. The judge usually follows what they want, but the judge doesnt have to. That always bothered me too because we have had judges that go crazy sometimes. LOL

The way i think They understand it. The jurors only immediate concrete choice is DP. IF they hang or choose life it will go toJSS to choose natural life or parole. The jury has no say in which life she would receive. Its entirely possible they feel jss would give lwp based on how actions in court and so those that are for death would just dig in even harder. There's no prize to lessen the alexanders prolonged trauma if they don't give the DP

 

[krkrjx]

I feel that just as there may be some disagreement over "reasonable doubt" and "some possibility of doubt", so might some jurors have different opinions about mitigating factors and how much value to place on any of the factors proposed by JA's DT.

Or, perhaps, there could be disagreement in deciding which mitigating factors actually exist and which do not.

I think a large number of citizens confuse reasonable doubt with shadow of a doubt.

In most things, there is some doubt. The question in legal venues is about how much doubt. Reasonable doubt is called that because there is some doubt expected--a reasonable amount is to be expected. When it goes beyond that amount, the doubt is considered greater than the amount of doubt to be expected--great enough that it makes a difference.

Shadow of a doubt means barely any doubt at all--even less than a reasonable amount.

Often people think that a shadow of a doubt is enough to make a difference but in legal venues it is not.

 

[Mollyandme]

Yes and you described it well what I am wondering about. I maybe wrong, but I think there maybe an actual advantage if the 10 DP jurors switched their vote and end this thing (rather than hang the jury again).

But only if it means LWOP for sure and it means JSS doesnt get a vote. That part I dont know for sure one way or the other.

Its rather confusing isnt it?

Your other example you are 100% correct on. When it is a normal case, the judge usually has to sentence the defendent herself anyway and only uses the jury's decision as a recommendation for sentencing. The judge usually follows what they want, but the judge doesnt have to. That always bothered me too because we have had judges that go crazy sometimes. LOL

There is no advantage to them all switching to life. JSS still gets to decide if its life w possible parole or LWOP. If I were on the jury and voted for death, which I would bc the law supports the death sentence in this case, I would rather hang the jury, I would be shocked if jurors who want death felt any differently.

 

[ElleElle]

I was on a murder trial, but not a death penalty one. The trial lasted 4 days. The jury foreman gave us all a slip of paper and asked us to write down guilty/not guilty or undecided. We came back at 10 guilty and 2 undecided. It took us less than an hour to deliberate the other two. If I were on this case and we voted, lets say 8 to 4 or something close. Here is what I would say to those that wanted to spare her life.
1) I would hold up the photos of Travis and say, Imagine you or your wife/husband/child killed in this manner. How would you feel about the person that did this?
2) She planned to do this, hair change, gas cans, rental car, ect.
3) Used sex as a weapon to get him vulnerable in the shower, then struck cold and hard, without mercy, stabbing him 27 times, slit his neck ear to ear and shot him with a stolen gun from her own family.
4) made fake calls to the person she killed to hide her tracks among other things.
5) Told the police she would never hurt Travis, lied about being there, told the ninja story, then when caught in a lie admitted doing it, and try to blame the victim, that he somehow deserved to die at her hands in a brutal way.
6) Refuses to take responsibility for her for her actions and still shows no remorse for Travis or his family.
7) Continues to smear Travis, making false statements accusing him of being a spouse beater, pedophile and all around bad person. She was the one that figured Mormans were easy prey if she threw some sex at them, magic panties ring a bell?
8) Still, in her ego and mind, she thinks she will get away with it.
9)I pray the jury gives her death, then she can count down the days, but her death will be a lot less painful then Travis was.......

I would do the same. But, it may take one or more who believe her psychological make-up is unstable and she needed help. In other words, she is a sick woman.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Hopefully the family has prepared themselves that it just might not be the verdict they want. I know their hearts would be broken, but they need to know in their hearts that they gave it their all for the brother they dearly loved. The strength they have shown after years of continued abuse is amazing. I hope I am wrong, and no, I haven't given up hope that a DP verdict could still come. No family should EVER have to endure the pain they have been subjected to. I hope that CMJA dies a very slow and painful death when it does happen. :stormingmad:

 

[Wing Ding]

Yes and you described it well what I am wondering about. I maybe wrong, but I think there maybe an actual advantage if the 10 DP jurors switched their vote and end this thing (rather than hang the jury again).

But only if it means LWOP for sure and it means JSS doesnt get a vote. That part I dont know for sure one way or the other.

Its rather confusing isnt it?

Your other example you are 100% correct on. When it is a normal case, the judge usually has to sentence the defendent herself anyway and only uses the jury's decision as a recommendation for sentencing. The judge usually follows what they want, but the judge doesnt have to. That always bothered me too because we have had judges that go crazy sometimes. LOL

* I really don't have anything to add to your post except I like that judge in Florida who I think presided over the Dalia Dippolito trial and one other one that I followed on In Session/HLN -- the Mark Goodman trial #1 I think. Anyway, the guy was personable, even-keel, fair, kept the court informed of his decisions and kept the ball rolling by making decisions on the spot. In both of the trials I watched, he was always firmly in control of his courtroom. Probably a real nice guy outside of court, too.

Here he is: the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath

 

[mydirtysecret]

* I really don't have anything to add to your post except I like that judge in Florida who I think presided over the Dalia Dippolito trial and one other one that I followed on In Session/HLN -- the Mark Goodman trial #1 I think. Anyway, the guy was personable, even-keel, fair, kept the court informed of his decisions and kept the ball rolling by making decisions on the spot. In both of the trials I watched, he was always firmly in control of his courtroom. Probably a real nice guy outside of court, too.

Dalias retrial starts soon. She won an appeal

 

[mydirtysecret]

Dalias retrial starts soon. She won an appeal

Another one. where The victim was put on trial. Thank God he was still alive to tell his truth to The jury

Crud..i meant to edit my first post and add this not .make two posts.. Grr phone

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Dalias retrial starts soon. She won an appeal

How did she win an APPEAL?! What the heck.

 

[mydirtysecret]

How did she win an APPEAL?! What the heck.

Mostly voir dir problems and jury problems as a whole