Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[Amster]

Well, then it seems to me the juror processed the evidence to the best of her ability. What more can be expected?

According to Beth....no thanks....but, to each his own.

 

[RR0004]

Ok...have to run, but before I go...I sure do hope they find out whether or not this woman lied during voir dire. What would the penalty for lying be- obstruction of justice (too late for that) or perjury? No small things, IMO.

 

[ShadyLady]

I had heard (read) the other jurors wanted to replace 17...not that 17 was the one to ask to be replaced. She supposedly also sent a note to the judge. I'm getting confused with some of the posts.

Ballsy if she did send a note. Just like her buddy.

I am LOVING the 11 jurors that spoke up. I think if they had not [caseyjury], people would have not taken a closer look at #17.

 

[Hez]

Sometimes things need to be done/handled or gone after, not because doing it will change the outcome for this particular situation but to pave the way for situations that come after.

Exactly. If this results in a better vetting system for potential jurors in future cases, then that is a good thing.

 

[Mindmatters]

I remmeber from tweets in voir dire that the potential jurors were asked if to look around and see if they knew any of the attorneys or players in the room and some did. One juror (who made it on) was friends with someone in Jodi's family or something while another knew Jennifer Willmott. #17 can plead ignorance but the question seems pretty clear.

Thanks for the info MeeBee, it is nice to get at least some type of more conclusive confirmation not just what should or typically happens--normally this would be just about all I need but with all the crazy happenings and secrecy in this retrial one never knows.

 

[RR0004]

.. that's right, Baez had it, the state did not .. shall we just be filing all this frustration under Government Department Incompetence?

Pretty much.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Ballsy if she did send a note. Just like her buddy.

I am LOVING the 11 jurors that spoke up. I think if they had not [caseyjury], people would have not taken a closer look at #17.

For sure - all would have been accepted as an honest division.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Y'all, I've said on here, throughout this penalty phase, that I wanted Jodi to get life just so she would go away. I admitted that I couldn't actually vote that way if I was on the jury and was charged to weigh my mitigator against cruelty. So this turned out the way I personally wanted and CMJA will not have a cheering squad the whole time.

But I am po'd that it went down like this. A dirty trick. ugh. Not how I wanted her to go silently away.

I am happy for the other jurors, that they can find some peace of mind knowing they had her number and there was nothing more they could have done. I'm so sad that they were put through this whole trail and will suffer the stress of it from now on for nothing.

Sorry, but if 17 didn't disclose her ties and did what I suspect, plant her closed mind on that jury, I hope she is prosecuted....for something. Poetic justice would have Juan at PT, although I'm sure he can't due to conflict of interest or some such. But I can daydream.

 

[tcrockett]

IMO, it makes no sense that a juror should go along with other jurors just because. It negates the whole meaning of having a jury. #17 heard and saw the same evidence as everyone else and processed it differently. If there was only 1 way to vote, why need the jury at all?

speaking only for myself but my issue is not with her vote. I will defend her right to vote her conscience all day long. I am bothered, though, by the fact that her convictions are strong enough to hang a jury but not strong enough to publicly defend. Stand up. Shout it from the roof tops. Argue. Disagree. Whatever it takes but for Gods sake, explain what it is that caused you to vote the way you did. Without that, she looks bad.

 

[ICit]

Just when you think this whole mess is over......

Lambie, there seems to be more than one UNUSUAL person involved with this case.

(Hope I get a gold star or something for using UNUSUAL instead of saying what I was thinking!)

 

[LambChop]

Yes, according to BK it was. BK also currently believes the abuse is what caused J17 to not budge.

Does BK mention what abuse the juror is referring to? We heard the video of the jurors and I don't remember any one of them describing them being abusive. They tried to ask her to explain and she refused. It sounds as if most of them were frustrated with her because she refused to deliberate. But I don't recall any of the 11 claiming another juror was abusive to J17. The judge told them to go back and deliberate and come to a unanimous decision. That clearly was an instruction from the judge to J17.

 

[josie1986]

Retrial Video release alert by TH @ Fox 10 Phoenix--Tanisha and Steven's Victim Impact Statements @ Retrial

Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MY7f2L_7o&t=26

Mods if this posted in the wrong place please let me know and I will move.

i am in floods of tears after listening to tanisha.

i hope she rips into jodi at sentencing

 

[Frigga]

Doctors, Nurses, Public Officials, Law Enforcement officers, Military personnel, and Attorneys take oaths for a reason... not for superfluous ceremonial purposes.

Scientists and researchers have an ethics committee that monitors them for a reason. These reasons are important.

We know people break these oaths and when they do, if it can be proven, there are consequences- sometimes dire. Again, an important deterrent, if you will.

Maria De La Rosa, while she may be able to skirt around some of the things she has done (under the guise of appealable issues for the defendant) one can look at her behavior and see it as unprofessional, bordering on unethical perhaps, but certainly reprehensible.

When citizens stand by and do nothing... well, that is their right but at what cost, what message and what standard?

I am NOT a citizen of the Great State of Arizona but if I were, I would be on the phone to the mayor, the city council, my state representative- I would find the person that would have the ability to get to the bottom of my concerns in regard to her, if for no other reason than the good of those who come next in line to be affected by her behavior.

 

[daisydomino]

I had heard (read) the other jurors wanted to replace 17...not that 17 was the one to ask to be replaced. She supposedly also sent a note to the judge. I'm getting confused with some of the posts.

The 11 jurors who spoke said that they sent a note to the judge asking that #17 be replaced since they felt that she was not deliberating. They read the note to her, they said, and it was very open—they even asked for her feedback. #17 then sent her own private note to the judge. They did not know what it said.

 

[Hatfield]

Absolutely, Sammie .

I mean, golly gee whiz, what would it all mean if there were no consequences for doing things that are wrong/unlawful, particularly in the pursuit of Justice.

I think this is what bothered me so much about Mark Eiglarsh's all but hysterical response to other commentators suggestions that this Juror may have engaged in deception/misconduct--I mean he totally freaked out and basically accused the public and these other commentators of doing something wrong by questioning her motives, despite that fact that all of the jurors made statements that this juror failed to deliberate and that she even went so far as to introduce information from a Lifetime movie into the deliberations.

It was bizarre and irrational to me and I wondered why a representative of the law would not take a measured approach and work to ensure that something detrimental to justice did not occur.

I saw Dr Drew yesterday when Marc was on and saw that. I dont think Marc knew the extent of what was being alleged at that point. He did go overboard without doing enough research.

I think he assumed people were just in an uproar just because the juror voted differently. But it was much more than that and I dont think he did enough research before the Dr. Drew show.

Hes usually pretty fair and Ive come to like him but yesterday I think he was guilty of not researching enough before the Dr. Drew show. It will be interesting if he changes his tune if he is on tonight.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Are we allowed to mention something that was on the jurors Twitter account last week before she took it down?

:seeya: Considering these recent developments, I hope an "exception" can be allowed so that we can find out more info about what was going on

lease:

She should have NEVER been tweeting while sitting on a jury !

:gaah:

 

[tcrockett]

IMO, it makes no sense that a juror should go along with other jurors just because. It negates the whole meaning of having a jury. #17 heard and saw the same evidence as everyone else and processed it differently. If there was only 1 way to vote, why need the jury at all?

I am not sure that I understand your point. I have not heard anyone say that she should just "get on board". Instead, I hear "please explain your stance to us"

 

[Hatfield]

The 11 jurors who spoke said that they sent a note to the judge asking that #17 be replaced since they felt that she was not deliberating. They read the note to her, they said, and it was very open—they even asked for her feedback. #17 then sent her own private note to the judge. They did not know what it said.

Thats my understanding too after listening to Juror #4 on an interview.

I think JSS errored right at that point.
She should have called each juror individually to speak with each one of them at that point. She owed it to this case to further investigate what they were saying.

Didnt something happen in the 1st trial where she talked with the jurors OR am I imaging that?

Anyway, another nice WS poster said when they were on a case where something like this happened, the judge called each one in to get their story. And then the judge replaced the juror with an alternate and they had to start over with deliberations.

Its really too bad that JSS did not think those notes were important enough to investigate further. Notes are a sign that something is amiss. She owed it to this case to get more information. See what they were all talking about.

It sounds to me that JSS may have misunderstood how serious the situation was.
It sounds like a real judgement error to me. This case was way too important and costly to assume anything when you start getting notes from jurors.

 

[garthmax]

I will be sending CMJA that picture of Tanisha every year on TA Birthday and the day she murdered him. If the members of the family get to address CMJA I certainly would want them to address Nurmi's and Wilmott's slandering.

 

[Boytwnmom]

how she answered. Realistically, a juror won't get charged. Perjury is hard to prove and seldom used. She can say she had forgotten him, didn't know, didn't think it mattered in the way the question was asked, she felt it didn't matter, etc. Obviously, a reasonable person can find all that unlikely is she married the guy simultaneously with his case going on and sentencing where Juan would have been involved and I'm sure she would have been present in court and this sure seems like a "connection" most people would understand needs to be disclosed. Since ole JSS sealed the questionnaire contents this time who the heck knows what was asked.

Depending on how much comes out as true, there MAY be something done at some point, for the integrity and reputation of the system. This was a high profile and extremely expensive case. If an individual acted to subvert the system intentionally I would think they have to act in some way. People need to believe in the system. I'm sure the system would prefer to just ignore this and move on. But it may end up attracting too much attention.

Morally, I won't ask what she's guilty of, but legally, given the confirmation that Juan prosecuted her first husband in 2000, is that perjury?