Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[MeeBee]

One of the things I am mad about is that the previous jury did not come to a final decision. Their default should have been LWOP and at least be a successful ending.

Maybe I am thinking about it wrong but it seems to me the jury should have talked about their impending deadlock and since they were not unanamous for DP, then everyone should have agreed to Life then and at least "make a decision" and have successful ending. Their job was to come to a decision and successful conclusion.

I dont think they thought through this at all. I think some of them did not realize the consequences of them not deciding. I really think some of them thought they were just putting it in the judges hands to decide. I dont think they knew they were just passing the buck to a new jury.

My logic may be twisted but if I was on that jury and we could not all agree on DP, well that means that deciding on LWOP would be a good default sentence to prevent this case going to an entirely new jury that is going to most likely end up with not everyone wanting DP either.

I will be really surprised if a new jury will all agree on DP. If they do, then this will all be worth it. But I suspect it will be similar in that a few jurors will not be able to give DP. I just hope this time if that happens the jury is wise enough to at least have their default be LWOP because that way they can at least make a decision.

It is so important the jury at least makes a decision one way or the other. Dont let the judge get a hold of this case.

The foreman said exactly that: he thought if the jury hung it went straight to the judge and she would just give her life. He didn't realize it would have to be re-tried. I believe because of this and because he was the foreman there was no real effort made to come to a unanimous decision and no real push by the foreman. I think he wanted to mislead the rest of the jurors without realizing he didn't understand any better than they did what would happen if they couldn't decide. If he had known, I'm of the belief they would have tried a little harder. They came back fairly quickly with their first hung jury. The next one came quickly after that. That foreman had no intention of actually deliberating. I believe he steered deliberations. I hope he realizes the debacle he's caused. This could have been over by now if he felt that strongly about life and was successfully able to argue it. Personally, if I was on that jury it wouldn't be impossible to convince me to give her life.

There's no danger in a hung jury this time, though. This is the state's last chance and then it does go to the judge, regardless. I don't see what difference it makes, though. Whether the jury makes the vote for life, or it's hung and it goes to the judge, either way she will be the one deciding between LWOP and LWP and I honestly think there's nothing to worry about here. I really don't think she'd give Jodi LWP. Just can't see that happening. The only way the decision between parole and no parole will not be left up to the judge will, of course, be if the jury gives her death. And I think that's kind of a long shot.

However, I don't think their decisions should have rested on the logic that they should just get it all over with and vote for life. That's where jurors tend to go wrong. They should vote for what they feel she deserves, life or death. Some thought she deserved life, some thought death, and they stuck to their guns. There's nothing wrong with that. That's why we have hung juries. The jury doesn't have the duty to end the trial as quickly as possible, it's to uphold justice and the law and do what they feel is right.

 

[grammieto5]

One of the things I am mad about is that the previous jury did not come to a final decision. Their default should have been LWOP and at least be a successful ending.

Maybe I am thinking about it wrong but it seems to me the jury should have talked about their impending deadlock and since they were not unanamous for DP, then everyone should have agreed to Life then and at least "make a decision" and have successful ending. Their job was to come to a decision and successful conclusion.

I dont think they thought through this at all. I think some of them did not realize the consequences of them not deciding. I really think some of them thought they were just putting it in the judges hands to decide. I dont think they knew they were just passing the buck to a new jury.

My logic may be twisted but if I was on that jury and we could not all agree on DP, well that means that deciding on LWOP would be a good default sentence to prevent this case going to an entirely new jury that is going to most likely end up with not everyone wanting DP either.

I will be really surprised if a new jury will all agree on DP. If they do, then this will all be worth it. But I suspect it will be similar in that a few jurors will not be able to give DP. I just hope this time if that happens the jury is wise enough to at least have their default be LWOP because that way they can at least make a decision.

It is so important the jury at least makes a decision one way or the other. Dont let the judge get a hold of this case.

If your logic is twisted than so is mine. I agree 100% with your whole post!

 

[Hatfield]

The foreman said exactly that: he thought if the jury hung it went straight to the judge and she would just give her life. He didn't realize it would have to be re-tried. I believe because of this and because he was the foreman there was no real effort made to come to a unanimous decision and no real push by the foreman. I think he wanted to mislead the rest of the jurors without realizing he didn't understand any better than they did what would happen if they couldn't decide. If he had known, I'm of the belief they would have tried a little harder. They came back fairly quickly with their first hung jury. The next one came quickly after that. That foreman had no intention of actually deliberating. I believe he steered deliberations. I hope he realizes the debacle he's caused. This could have been over by now if he felt that strongly about life and was successfully able to argue it. Personally, if I was on that jury it wouldn't be impossible to convince me to give her life.

There's no danger in a hung jury this time, though. This is the state's last chance and then it does go to the judge, regardless. I don't see what difference it makes, though. Whether the jury makes the vote for life, or it's hung and it goes to the judge, either way she will be the one deciding between LWOP and LWP and I honestly think there's nothing to worry about here. I really don't think she'd give Jodi LWP. Just can't see that happening. The only way the decision between parole and no parole will not be left up to the judge will, of course, be if the jury gives her death. And I think that's kind of a long shot.

However, I don't think their decisions should have rested on the logic that they should just get it all over with and vote for life. That's where jurors tend to go wrong. They should vote for what they feel she deserves, life or death. Some thought she deserved life, some thought death, and they stuck to their guns. There's nothing wrong with that. That's why we have hung juries. The jury doesn't have the duty to end the trial as quickly as possible, it's to uphold justice and the law and do what they feel is right.

I totally agree. I think the jury members trusted the foreman too much right there at the end and they did not question enough the ramifications of what they were about to do.

I am pretty darn sure not a single one of them realized that almost a year later an entirely new jury would have to do their job for them. And this new jury will not have the benefit of hearing everything they heard.

This is a good lesson to all juries. Think for yourselves and ask questions to be sure you know the ramifications of your actions. And just because a foreman is picked, it does not mean you cannot voice your questions or ask your own questions to the judge. And when it gets down to the very end, dont rush things just to get done.
There was some careless actions right there at the end.

 

[MeeBee]

I totally agree. I think the jury members trusted the foreman too much right there at the end and they did not question enough the ramifications of what they were about to do.

I am pretty darn sure not a single one of them realized that almost a year later an entirely new jury would have to do their job for them. And this new jury will not have the benefit of hearing everything they heard.

This is a good lesson to all juries. Think for yourselves and ask questions to be sure you know the ramifications of your actions. And just because a foreman is picked, it does not mean you cannot voice your questions or ask your own questions to the judge. And when it gets down to the very end, dont rush things just to get done.
There was some careless actions right there at the end.

Absolutely. I'm sure the first jury is feeling a lot of regret over what happened. That feeling of not seeing something through to the end....ugh. Torture. I just wish they'd been a little more thoughtful. Although, I do remember them asking the judge what would happen if there were a hung jury, and the judge answered but of course did not tell them what would happen after they were excused. So...I suppose they made an effort to find out. But they definitely should not have assumed. They should have tried a little harder to move toward unanimous than it seems they did. It seemed like they decided it was hung from the moment they walked in and that was it.

 

[rose222]

Is that definite? That it would have to happen prior to this retrial, that is.

Wouldn't they just take care of this one and delay that one?

I do not expect that jury to hang, just asking about why that one would have to go first and this be delayed in the event it is hung.

I don't know. I hope they go ahead with this one. Arias' circus has gone on long enough.

 

[rose222]

I don't think the jury foreman would have agreed to put Arias to death. Even if every other juror agreed for death I don't think he would have budged. He steered deliberations because he already had an agenda. The Judge instructed them to keep their minds open and to form opinions only after discussions. That's not what happened though. Some of them (like the foreman, for example) went into deliberations with stubborn views and didn't see the need for anything beyond a short, superficial discussion.

You could tell from the way that the foreman talked about Travis that he had no respect for him as a human being. And his bizarre theory was that because Travis was Arias' first victim that somehow Travis must be at fault. The victim must have done something to make the criminal do what he did. :scared::thinking:The jury was doomed from the start.

 

[Hope4More]

Absolutely. I'm sure the first jury is feeling a lot of regret over what happened. That feeling of not seeing something through to the end....ugh. Torture. I just wish they'd been a little more thoughtful. Although, I do remember them asking the judge what would happen if there were a hung jury, and the judge answered but of course did not tell them what would happen after they were excused. So...I suppose they made an effort to find out. But they definitely should not have assumed. They should have tried a little harder to move toward unanimous than it seems they did. It seemed like they decided it was hung from the moment they walked in and that was it.

I read and have recently reread all the post-conviction juror interviews. I think they did the very best they could. To a person they all mentioned how agonizing the penalty deliberations were. They weren't rushing to get to the end, unlike a certain FL jury. By the time they began penalty phase deliberations they had been together for months, often for long stretches in the jury room, and they had deliberated and delivered two other verdicts.

The pro-DP jurors and the anti foreman all said, with respect, that each and everyone of the jurors had wrestled with themselves as well as the jury as a whole in trying to reach a decision about penalty. Really, I think they really really tried. It seems they all thought their hanging would result in forcing the judge to decide. I wish they had known their own state's DP trial process better, but IMO they would have hung no matter what.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think the jury foreman would have agreed to put Arias to death. Even if every other juror agreed for death I don't think he would have budged. He steered deliberations because he already had an agenda. The Judge instructed them to keep their minds open and to form opinions only after discussions. That's not what happened though. Some of them (like the foreman, for example) went into deliberations with stubborn views and didn't see the need for anything beyond a short, superficial discussion.

You could tell from the way that the foreman talked about Travis that he had no respect for him as a human being. And his bizarre theory was that because Travis was Arias' first victim that somehow Travis must be at fault. The victim must have done something to make the criminal do what he did. :scared::thinking:The jury was doomed from the start.

I completely agree that Foreman Z would have hung the jury no matter what. He tiptoed all the way up to the line of saying Travis deserved what happened. He said he saw CMJA as a completely normal average gal until she met Travis, that she changed while with him, and that he is convinced T emotionally and "mentally" abused her.

His conclusion: T's abuse didn't justify what she did, but the abuse absolutely had to be considered in deciding her penalty. (And BTW, he blames JM's "aggressive" "bullying" for making HSR look bad on the stand). Yep. Hung jury.

 

[katiecoolady]

It's my understanding, from speaking with some former jurors, that the foreman was the one who said very early on in penalty deliberations that he would not change his mind. I think 3 of the "older" jurors were for the DP but when it became clear they were gonna hang, they went to the side of LWOP with the foreman. As if they wanted to clear their conscience or something. I still find it interesting that the foreman sort of appointed himself to that role and , from what I understand and remember, basically told them right off the bat he wouldn't seriously deliberate as he was firm on not giving her the DP. MOST of the jurors though stood firm, even knowing this, for the DP.
I still find it very curious that Michael Kiefer seemed to know they had hung before they announced. He also knew, and reported, the id of the foreman before it was public knowledge. He slipped on that one and redacted it but it sure makes you wonder.

 

[rose222]

It's my understanding, from speaking with some former jurors, that the foreman was the one who said very early on in penalty deliberations that he would not change his mind. I think 3 of the "older" jurors were for the DP but when it became clear they were gonna hang, they went to the side of LWOP with the foreman. As if they wanted to clear their conscience or something. I still find it interesting that the foreman sort of appointed himself to that role and , from what I understand and remember, basically told them right off the bat he wouldn't seriously deliberate as he was firm on not giving her the DP. MOST of the jurors though stood firm, even knowing this, for the DP.
I still find it very curious that Michael Kiefer seemed to know they had hung before they announced. He also knew, and reported, the id of the foreman before it was public knowledge. He slipped on that one and redacted it but it sure makes you wonder.

That's just wrong on so many levels. As much as I hate JA if I were on the jury (in reality I would never be seated on her jury) then I'd go in with a completely open mind. I'd want to weigh the aggravating versus mitigating factors most carefully. I'd sincerely listen to jurors who believe that life is the appropriate punishment. It takes a lot of time and effort even if all the jurors are on the same page. I'd never be able to sleep at night even if I didn't follow the Judge's instructions.

I'm just glad that those eight jurors stood firm. It sent a clear message to Arias that the majority of people believe she should be put to death for what she did to Travis.

 

[rose222]

I completely agree that Foreman Z would have hung the jury no matter what. He tiptoed all the way up to the line of saying Travis deserved what happened. He said he saw CMJA as a completely normal average gal until she met Travis, that she changed while with him, and that he is convinced T emotionally and "mentally" abused her.

His conclusion: T's abuse didn't justify what she did, but the abuse absolutely had to be considered in deciding her penalty. (And BTW, he blames JM's "aggressive" "bullying" for making HSR look bad on the stand). Yep. Hung jury.

I'm sure he's had a chance to take a look at all the evidence now but I bet he's still making excuses for her. 'Oh, Arias lied when she was a teenager, who doesn't?', 'Her father is a bully--no wonder she turned out this way.', 'She wasn't stalking Travis, she was vulnerable and in love' etc.

 

[gcharlie]

I do think jury selection will be critical.

From the juror questionnaire, counsel should get an idea of each juror's opinion as to when the DP is appropriate. This is a standard question in DP cases.

Typically men are more likely than women to vote for the DP, but I'm not sure if any of the cases studied had a female defendant. This is to me is the unknown. In the first trial, it seemed like women sized up Arias fairly quickly, so if I were counsel, I'd be looking for things that might help my side with men. My gut tells me that men with sons instead of daughters would be more likely to go for the death penalty, because consciously or subconsciously, they would relate more with the victim. Men with daughters might project their role as father onto the defendant and thus be less likely to vote for the death penalty. The closer a juror's children are in age to Travis or Arias, the stronger the likelihood for some kind of emotional connection to the arguments.

I think I would look for indications that showed me how strong individual juror were in their convictions and if they seemed to make decisions emotionally or intellectually. Opinions on expert witnesses, especially mental health experts, is something I would also pay attention to in voir dire.

All indications are that Arias intends to play the DV card again in the retrial. A potential juror working in the field of DV will not be her friend on the jury; Arias should try to strike anyone with this work history. I can't even begin to guess if she knows this or if she is so arrogant as to think she could pull the wool over the eyes of someone in the field.

Other work backgrounds that I think will be against Arias and life:
- law enforcement
-EMTs/paramedics/nurses/doctors and other health care professionals
- lawyers

In the end, way too many variables. My sense is if there is to be a death penalty, follow Florida and have a majority decision, not a unanimous one.

 

[Love Never Fails]

One of the things I am mad about is that the previous jury did not come to a final decision. Their default should have been LWOP and at least be a successful ending.

Maybe I am thinking about it wrong but it seems to me the jury should have talked about their impending deadlock and since they were not unanamous for DP, then everyone should have agreed to Life then and at least "make a decision" and have successful ending. Their job was to come to a decision and successful conclusion.

I dont think they thought through this at all. I think some of them did not realize the consequences of them not deciding. I really think some of them thought they were just putting it in the judges hands to decide. I dont think they knew they were just passing the buck to a new jury.

My logic may be twisted but if I was on that jury and we could not all agree on DP, well that means that deciding on LWOP would be a good default sentence to prevent this case going to an entirely new jury that is going to most likely end up with not everyone wanting DP either.

I will be really surprised if a new jury will all agree on DP. If they do, then this will all be worth it. But I suspect it will be similar in that a few jurors will not be able to give DP. I just hope this time if that happens the jury is wise enough to at least have their default be LWOP because that way they can at least make a decision.

It is so important the jury at least makes a decision one way or the other. Dont let the judge get a hold of this case.

I agree with you pretty much but I wouldn't make a deal if I were on a jury. I would feel I was abdicating my responsibility to vote independently. Therefore, if I thought someone deserved the DP, I would not give in just to be reasonable. I would dig in my heels and try convincing the others to see it my way. And if they said "let's give up", I would remind them the taxpayers and families are counting on us. If I felt the person should get life, I would still dig in my heels. No way would i sit on a jury and listen to that killer go on for 18 days and say "ok. I give up. I will vote with you.". No way.

 

[Love Never Fails]

That's just wrong on so many levels. As much as I hate JA if I were on the jury (in reality I would never be seated on her jury) then I'd go in with a completely open mind. I'd want to weigh the aggravating versus mitigating factors most carefully. I'd sincerely listen to jurors who believe that life is the appropriate punishment. It takes a lot of time and effort even if all the jurors are on the same page. I'd never be able to sleep at night even if I didn't follow the Judge's instructions.

I'm just glad that those eight jurors stood firm. It sent a clear message to Arias that the majority of people believe she should be put to death for what she did to Travis.

Rose, I am also a person that likely wouldn't make it on that jury but I would never give up my vote for the sake of unity. I would have given that foreman a run for his money and we would still be deliberating. I also would have written to the judge that he should be removed as foreman because he let his intentions be known early to a likely very tired and worn jury. Shame on him! It is one thing to say you will vote a certain way up front, but not to say you aren't going to listen to the others jurors. Who made him king of the pack anyway? Sounds like some very weak people were in that jury room.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I completely agree that Foreman Z would have hung the jury no matter what. He tiptoed all the way up to the line of saying Travis deserved what happened. He said he saw CMJA as a completely normal average gal until she met Travis, that she changed while with him, and that he is convinced T emotionally and "mentally" abused her.

His conclusion: T's abuse didn't justify what she did, but the abuse absolutely had to be considered in deciding her penalty. (And BTW, he blames JM's "aggressive" "bullying" for making HSR look bad on the stand). Yep. Hung jury.

Well, IMO, there was no excuse for the foreman even being on that jury. He sure doesn't know a darned thing about women. Gah, what an excuse for a male!

 

[Love Never Fails]

I read and have recently reread all the post-conviction juror interviews. I think they did the very best they could. To a person they all mentioned how agonizing the penalty deliberations were. They weren't rushing to get to the end, unlike a certain FL jury. By the time they began penalty phase deliberations they had been together for months, often for long stretches in the jury room, and they had deliberated and delivered two other verdicts.

The pro-DP jurors and the anti foreman all said, with respect, that each and everyone of the jurors had wrestled with themselves as well as the jury as a whole in trying to reach a decision about penalty. Really, I think they really really tried. It seems they all thought their hanging would result in forcing the judge to decide. I wish they had known their own state's DP trial process better, but IMO they would have hung no matter what.

Is it not the judge's duty to inform a jury of what happens if they hang? AZlawyer? If so, JSS messed up.

 

[MeeBee]

It's my understanding, from speaking with some former jurors, that the foreman was the one who said very early on in penalty deliberations that he would not change his mind. I think 3 of the "older" jurors were for the DP but when it became clear they were gonna hang, they went to the side of LWOP with the foreman. As if they wanted to clear their conscience or something. I still find it interesting that the foreman sort of appointed himself to that role and , from what I understand and remember, basically told them right off the bat he wouldn't seriously deliberate as he was firm on not giving her the DP. MOST of the jurors though stood firm, even knowing this, for the DP.
I still find it very curious that Michael Kiefer seemed to know they had hung before they announced. He also knew, and reported, the id of the foreman before it was public knowledge. He slipped on that one and redacted it but it sure makes you wonder.

That's very interesting. It was my understanding after watching Snapped that it was more than one juror who sided with Jodi at first and had to be convinced. Is it possible when they say, "some of the jurors," they are only saying that to protect the one juror?

 

[MeeBee]

Is it not the judge's duty to inform a jury of what happens if they hang? AZlawyer? If so, JSS messed up.

Well, like I said, they asked her what would happen if they hang and she told them a mistrial would be declared and they'd be excused but didn't tell them that it would be subject to retrial. I don't really know if that was her duty to go into all that or not. But I know she certainly didn't tell them that if there was a mistrial she'd just go ahead give Jodi life.

 

[janx]

Link to some jury questionnaires:

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/sample_juror_questionnair.html

I had no idea they were so lengthy and detailed.

 

[Hope4More]

Well, like I said, they asked her what would happen if they hang and she told them a mistrial would be declared and they'd be excused but didn't tell them that it would be subject to retrial. I don't really know if that was her duty to go into all that or not. But I know she certainly didn't tell them that if there was a mistrial she'd just go ahead give Jodi life.

IMO it was the responsibility of jurors to have asked Stephens exactly what would happen if they hung, including what happened after she declared a mistrial. I'm not sure you would have answered the question, but at least we'd know they thought through the responsibility implications of hanging. Again, I don't think knowing would have changed the outcome, if only because of Foreman Z's obstinancy.

Shame on any jurors who switched their votes after they knew it didn't matter. And I agree- Foreman Z should never have been seated on the jury. Not because he voted against the DP for her, but because of his stated belief after the fact that it wasn't "fair" to ask a jury to decide for or against the DP.