VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Retrial Day 44

[Mindmatters]

PER BK: Court PIO has told them the jury is done for the day; BK says they have not seen the jurors leave yet

 

[raisincharlie]

Don't hang. Keep at it.
Reread JA's complete 18 days on the stand if you must.

Sorry, I have not kept up with this re-trial of the penalty phase but my question is, does this jury have the opportunity to review materials from the trial ?

 

[RR0004]

Seriously? I leave and do RL stuff and still no verdict?? Enough already!!! jmo

 

[Kadoober]

Maybe they started off 5-7 (either way).
Then they were 4-8. Then 2-10. We just don't know what's going on in there, we have only the very subjective analysis of their facial expressions to go on. But it's entirely possible that they ARE making good progress towards a unanimous verdict (either way). It ain't over til it's over, guys. Hang in there! Hugs at you all!

 

[Greater Than]

Regarding the periodic secrecy JSS has maintained throughout... The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal court proceedings are open to the public. The open system protects our system of justice from corruption. From my understanding, when a court determines the need to keep certain information secret from the public, the first amendment requires that the closure be no broader than necessary to protect it.

If JSS had minimally excercised the need for secrecy I think there would probably be just cause for closure at times, but I cant help but question if she has overly denied the public's constitutional right of access.

Freedom of the press falls under the first amendment. Denying the media and thereby denying the public of countless closed-door secret proceedings in this case raises red flags to me. Maybe some of our legal eagles will weigh in, but I wonder if any media attorneys have considered making a stink about how JSS has denied access.

 

[Quester]

??? - RBM

* * *

Brooke Powell ‏@nailgirl4u 14m14 minutes ago I'm really bothered that we will have to pay $ in order 2 view this #JodiArias trial in full! #JusticeforTravisAlexander site has the deets.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Yes I want to know that too. How long can a Jury deliberate?

 

[ZsaZsa]

And when the Court of Appeals overturned her decision on the secret testimony, we saw first hand she goes too far with the secret proceedings. If AZL says its not the usual way trials are conducted in AZ, I believe her.

AFAIK all the requests for secrecy have come from the DT - IMO she has been intimidated by them since day one.....

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Or some Opus One. I will gladly send a bottle if it helps lol!

I prefer a "super" Tuscan to Opus One.

 

[TexMex]

BK
Jury back 9:30 Thurs
No delib Fri

 

[Mindmatters]

PER BK: The jurors will return tomorrow at 9:30, and according to PIO will not be deliberating on Friday.

 

[Kaddy Wonders]

JSS AND JM and JA team can't ask that...........

I meant the jury. Maybe the jury had sent a note to JSS asking that? And the court had to confer with counsel?

 

[steelman]

Don't hang. Keep at it.
Read JA's complete 18 days on the stand if you must.

That maybe exactly what they are doing........researching and verifying the horror and mayhem she caused. They may be pointing these things out to the hold-outs that refuse to impose death.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Troy H was streaming live and he said some really interesting things about this second trial. He basically said if the first jury who heard ALL of the evidence was split 8-4, how was there an expectation that this second jury who heard less evidence was going to come up with a 12/12 verdict? He talked about the endless money spent on this second mini/sentencing trial and how he thinks it should have been life after the first jury couldn't decide on an exact sentence. So much time, more heartbreak for the Alexanders having to go through the murder again, endless money, expecting a jury to do what the first jury couldn't do, even with less evidence. I also feel like having a second jury sort of says we don't believe or trust the first jury...

I don't know what to think but I do believe he made some good points.

If Arizonians don't like this law then they need to tell the lawmakers to change it. Personally I think this jury heard about more things in this penalty phase than in the last one. Juan seem to get in more and was able to stress certain things that were brushed over in the first trial.

From what I read earlier.... since the law was enacted stating there would be a second sentencing phase if the first jury was hung.... they have been more successful in getting the death penalty than not getting it. I believe I read out of the four cases with second sentencing phases three out of four ended in a death sentence and one wound up to be LWOP.

But I imagine those convicted defendants were males instead of females.

The problem seems to be that when a female commits premeditated murder with cruelty they rarely get the death penalty no matter how evil and depraved their crime is. If JA was a male the verdict of death would have been returned by the first jury last year...which would have been the correct sentence. IMO

I have been listening to one of the online live youtube new sites and some very interesting things were said about JSS. It seems even other Judges and other lawyers from that area frown on how she has conducted this case throughout. Many said they had never seen another Judge try a case there like she has done. One guy said a Judge told him that if he had been the presiding Judge it would have been over last year. They also mentioned the secrecy which none of them have ever seen before.

I got the impression some of her peers don't agree with what she allowed into the trial nor the way she has handled it and caused it to move slower than a snail's pace.

So it isn't just online opinions. The same opinions are being expressed right there in Mesa. Interesting.

IMO

 

[Luvrosco]

Is this a good sign that they're coming back tomorrow? Any thoughts?

 

[AngelWings444]

Each state has their own set of rules and laws regarding jury trials. I don't know how many other states allow jury questions, but I really like it. I agree with retrying the sentencing phase, as you can have a modsnip who refuses to deliberate, like we had in the first sentencing phase. No state is perfect, but I really do like some of the stuff Arizona does. JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry, I have not kept up with this re-trial of the penalty phase but my question is, does this jury have the opportunity to review materials from the trial ?

Yes, everything admitted in the guilt phase will be available to them.

Regarding the periodic secrecy JSS has maintained throughout... The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal court proceedings are open to the public. The open system protects our system of justice from corruption. From my understanding, when a court determines the need to keep certain information secret from the public, the first amendment requires that the closure be no broader than necessary to protect it.

If JSS had minimally excercised the need for secrecy I think there would probably be just cause for closure at times, but I cant help but question if she has overly denied the public's constitutional right of access.

Freedom of the press falls under the first amendment. Denying the media and thereby denying the public of countless closed-door secret proceedings in this case raises red flags to me. Maybe some of our legal eagles will weigh in, but I wonder if any media attorneys have considered making a stink about how JSS has denied access.

Yes, the media made a stink and got the biggest error (letting JA testify in secret) overturned. But I doubt they can afford to pay Dave Bodney $450/hr to address every secret decision JSS makes with the appellate courts!

 

[RadarLuv]

I think after today they might. I hope they do. I know they a lot of cash and powerful attorneys to appeal or do whatever they need to do and I hope that they are working on it as we speak. F'in ridiculous.

Regarding the periodic secrecy JSS has maintained throughout... The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal court proceedings are open to the public. The open system protects our system of justice from corruption. From my understanding, when a court determines the need to keep certain information secret from the public, the first amendment requires that the closure be no broader than necessary to protect it.

If JSS had minimally excercised the need for secrecy I think there would probably be just cause for closure at times, but I cant help but question if she has overly denied the public's constitutional right of access.

Freedom of the press falls under the first amendment. Denying the media and thereby denying the public of countless closed-door secret proceedings in this case raises red flags to me. Maybe some of our legal eagles will weigh in, but I wonder if any media attorneys have considered making a stink about how JSS has denied access.

 

[okiedokietoo]

??? - RBM

* * *

Brooke Powell ‏@nailgirl4u 14m14 minutes ago I'm really bothered that we will have to pay $ in order 2 view this #JodiArias trial in full! #JusticeforTravisAlexander site has the deets.

What? Is that true? I can't afford that! Are we covered under the First Amendment (freedom of the press) ??? We should be able to watch the trial for free, since it would have been streamed for free.

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes I want to know that too. How long can a Jury deliberate?

No limit.

If Arizonians don't like this law then they need to tell the lawmakers to change it. Personally I think this jury heard about more things in this penalty phase than in the last one. Juan seem to get in more and was able to stress certain things that were brushed over in the first trial.

From what I read earlier.... since the law was enacted stating there would be a second sentencing phase if the first jury was hung.... they have been more successful in getting the death penalty than not getting it. I believe I read out of the four cases with second sentencing phases three out of four ended in a death sentence and one wound up to be LWOP.

But I imagine those convicted defendants were males instead of females.

The problem seems to be that when a female commits premeditated murder with cruelty they rarely get the death penalty no matter how evil and depraved their crime is. If JA was a male the verdict of death would have been returned by the first jury last year...which would have been the correct sentence. IMO

I have been listening to one of the online live youtube new sites and some very interesting things were said about JSS. It seems even other Judges and other lawyers from that area frown on how she has conducted this case throughout. Many said they had never seen another Judge try a case there like she has done. One guy said a Judge told him that if he had been the presiding Judge it would have been over last year. They also mentioned the secrecy which none of them have ever seen before.

I got the impression some of her peers don't agree with what she allowed into the trial nor the way she has handled it and caused it to move slower than a snail's pace.

So it isn't just online opinions. The same opinions are being expressed right there in Mesa. Interesting.

IMO

Yeah, you're not going to find a licensed attorney anywhere in the country who thinks the secrecy was OK, IMO. If KN and JW weren't on the case, they wouldn't agree with it either.

BTW the Court is in Phoenix, not Mesa.