Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[MeeBee]

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.

But, it's hard to know, in hindsight, why they were asking the question, so the judge answered the question the best she could and as thoroughly as she thought it needed to be answered. I really don't know what the judge should have or was allowed to tell them, but I do know the jury should not have made any assumptions about it or let it dictate how they deliberate. They should simply have deliberted as they were told, regardless, IMHO. Though, it kind of sounds like the foreman would have hung the jury anyway.

 

[LambChop]

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.

I do know from my own observations of the videos that she kept making eye contact with someone in the area of the jury box and even commented to JW about it because JW turned and looked over as well. jmo

 

[AZlawyer]

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

I think they might actually have asked her that. Do we have a list of the questions asked during the penalty phase?

I haven't had many hung juries. But my recollection is that "what happens if we can't agree" is not normally answered directly because it's inappropriate for them to consider the answer to that question--they're supposed to consider the evidence and the law only. So the judge will keep encouraging them to agree as long as possible, instead of telling them what happens if they don't.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

After serving on a jury and experiencing the bonding that happens almost immediately, I can imagine how well these jurors knew each other before they ever began deliberating.

And then, going through the guilt and aggravator phase deliberations together, all of them had to have a very strong sense if not flat out awareness of where each stood on giving her the DP.

They weren't offered any new or significant mitigation evidence to consider. Not one witness spoke for her. Both the DT and State essentially summarized what they already knew about her.

What I'm saying is they had lots of time to assess her-includung 18 days on the stand, and little to nothing new to consider from the penalty phase.

I don't think the jury was hasty. I do think they quickly reaffirmed their sense that Foreman Z wasn't going to budge.

 

[MeeBee]

I think they might actually have asked her that. Do we have a list of the questions asked during the penalty phase?

I haven't had many hung juries. But my recollection is that "what happens if we can't agree" is not normally answered directly because it's inappropriate for them to consider the answer to that question--they're supposed to consider the evidence and the law only. So the judge will keep encouraging them to agree as long as possible, instead of telling them what happens if they don't.

They did ask her, I remember it and at that point she gave them the Allen charge.

ETA: so now that you say that I may be mis-remembering her answer to the question. I think she only gave the Allen charge. Considering how some are saying that they should have been told so they could all just agree to life and be done with it, I'd say that's probably the exact reason they don't tell juries anything else. No offense intended to anyone.

 

[Hatfield]

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.

I understand and I think that is the only part the jury failed at. I dont think they fully understood what the result was going to be if they didnt come to a decision. If they had realized that, then I think they would have worked harder at trying to come to a decision. If still a deadlock after all that, that is fine, but it didnt seem they tried hard enough nor understood the impact of what was going to happen. Critical errors to make at that point.

I am all for standing up for what you believe and sticking to it especially during guilt or innocense phase where I would never ever budge if I felt 1 way or the other. However, for this penalty phase I am much more open to hearing other peoples views and once I found out that by not deciding it would throw the case to a totally different and uninformed jury, I would work very hard to try to get the jury members to come to an agreement on the penalty.

The jury has to decide as a group decision what penalty she should get. Sure, everyone brings to the table their arguments and beliefs, since the rules make it to be a group decision then work must be done to try to come to a concensus. It seems they made some critical errors in judgement at the very end thinking that the judge can decide for them. Very critical errors.

Since it is the penalty phase only, i think that allows more leeway in working to bring people to a common ground.
Because it is still a punishment either way. Its just the severity of the punishment they are working with.

For guilt or innocense, it is much harder and there is no way I would just go with the group if I firmly believed the other way. For this phase, I am more open.
As an example, If I was the only one still wanting the DP at that point. As soon as I realized another uninformed jury would get this case if we did not decide, then in this example, I would first try to sway others with my views on DP and after working hard at it, if my efforts failed, then I would most likely be ok to give her LWOP because to me that is still a good punishment.
Not the best, but good enough for me personally. Others may not see it that way and it is good we all are different.

 

[Nali87]

I still don't understand how the foreman believed JA's ******** abuse claims. If only he would've been an alternate!

 

[Nali87]

I understand and I think that is the only part the jury failed at. I dont think they fully understood what the result was going to be if they didnt come to a decision. If they had realized that, then I think they would have worked harder at trying to come to a decision. If still a deadlock after all that, that is fine, but it didnt seem they tried hard enough nor understood the impact of what was going to happen. Critical errors to make at that point.

I am all for standing up for what you believe and sticking to it especially during guilt or innocense phase where I would never ever budge if I felt 1 way or the other. However, for this penalty phase I am much more open to hearing other peoples views and once I found out that by not deciding it would throw the case to a totally different and uninformed jury, I would work very hard to try to get the jury members to come to an agreement on the penalty.

The jury has to decide as a group decision what penalty she should get. Sure, everyone brings to the table their arguments and beliefs, since the rules make it to be a group decision then work must be done to try to come to a concensus. It seems they made some critical errors in judgement at the very end thinking that the judge can decide for them. Very critical errors.

Since it is the penalty phase only, i think that allows more leeway in working to bring people to a common ground.
Because it is still a punishment either way. Its just the severity of the punishment they are working with.

For guilt or innocense, it is much harder and there is no way I would just go with the group if I firmly believed the other way. For this phase, I am more open.

DP was my preference, then hung, then life. I'd rather JM get another shot at the DP, then a jury just settling for a life verdict just to agree on a sentence. I'm actually glad the Pro DP juries didn't settle for life. JA doesn't deserve a chance to grow old in person. She's a horrible human being.

 

[Hatfield]

DP was my preference, then hung, then life. I'd rather JM get another shot at the DP, then a jury just settling for a life verdict just to agree on a sentence. I'm actually glad the Pro DP juries didn't settle for life. JA doesn't deserve a chance to grow old in person. She's a horrible human being.

Right, it is a gamble and that is where we are at. Time will tell if its all worth it. I am of the belief that this new jury will no way be able to hear all the evidence that was presented at the first trial which is why I would have done everything possible to never let it go to another jury. To me, they will be a somewhat uninformed jury.

I think this jury will have similar issues of a few people that just cannot give the DP. I hope I am wrong.

The main thing is I hope the jury decides something. I surely dont want the judge to make this decision.

 

[T-4-2]

I don't have citations unfortunately, but I'm quite certain that the foreman said in at least one tv interview that he disregarded both victim impact statements. He basically said that they were sad but irrelevant, and he really didn't know why the court allowed Samantha and Steven to directly address the jury. I don't remember him saying anything about Jodi's jaw-droppingly absurd allocution. Did he think that was also irrelevant, or did he fall for Little Miss Family Values' meek-as-a-mouse visions of book clubs, Spanish/ASL lessons, and recycling programs? (He certainly fell hard for the whole "little girl" act. Maybe he'll wake up one day and realize it was all just an act and he was played.)

Does anyone know what jurors are told about VIS's and defendant allocutions?

ETA: I think this might be what I'm thinking of, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/william-zervakos-jodi-arias-foreman-unfair_n_3335714.html

"In an interview Friday, jury foreman William Zervakos provided a glimpse into the private deliberations, describing four women and eight men who struggled with the question: How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?

"The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson," Zervakos told The Associated Press.

"It was a brutal no-win situation. ... I think that's kind of unfair," the 69-year-old added. "We're not lawyers. We can't interpret the law. We're mere mortals. And I will tell you I've never felt more mere as a mortal than I felt for the last five months."

Zervakos said the most difficult time of the entire trial was hearing directly from victim Travis Alexander's family as his brother and sister tearfully explained how his killing has shattered their lives.

"There was no sound in that jury room for a long time after that because you hurt so bad for these people," he said. "But that wasn't evidence. That's what made it so hard. ... This wasn't about them. This was a decision whether we're going to tell somebody they were going to be put to death or spend the rest of their life in prison."

---
So... does he think other juries are made up of lawyers? Does he think Samantha and Steven were allowed to speak just for the hell of it? And what about Jodi's decision to commit a capital offense? Yes, it would be hard to vote for the death penalty, I get that. BUT Martinez really did connect all the dots for them. In the end, was there really much for them to interpret? Seems to me they only had to acknowledge the truth of JM's closing statement. What are the DP criteria in Arizona? Did Jodi's actions meet these criteria? Yes, of course they did.

 

[Nali87]

Right, it is a gamble and that is where we are at. Time will tell if its all worth it. I am of the belief that this new jury will no way be able to hear all the evidence that was presented at the first trial which is why I would have done everything possible to never let it go to another jury. To me, they will be a somewhat uninformed jury.

I think this jury will have similar issues of a few people that just cannot give the DP. I hope I am wrong.

The main thing is I hope the jury decides something. I surely dont want the judge to make this decision.

I think JM can play video of his highlights and so can the defense. I don't mind if they don't hear all the evidence, as long as they hear the good parts. (Walmart lie) And Jodi not getting to out her act on the stands, might work in the prosecution's favor as well. No "bonding" with jurors like she did the foreman. To me personally, the strongest part of the trial was JM's closing statement. He didn't even need all his witnesses (of course he did so for legal purposes lol); the way he told us how Travis had died and how she planned it was brilliant.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I understand and I think that is the only part the jury failed at. I dont think they fully understood what the result was going to be if they didnt come to a decision. If they had realized that, then I think they would have worked harder at trying to come to a decision. If still a deadlock after all that, that is fine, but it didnt seem they tried hard enough nor understood the impact of what was going to happen. Critical errors to make at that point.

I am all for standing up for what you believe and sticking to it especially during guilt or innocense phase where I would never ever budge if I felt 1 way or the other. However, for this penalty phase I am much more open to hearing other peoples views and once I found out that by not deciding it would throw the case to a totally different and uninformed jury, I would work very hard to try to get the jury members to come to an agreement on the penalty.

The jury has to decide as a group decision what penalty she should get. Sure, everyone brings to the table their arguments and beliefs, since the rules make it to be a group decision then work must be done to try to come to a concensus. It seems they made some critical errors in judgement at the very end thinking that the judge can decide for them. Very critical errors.

Since it is the penalty phase only, i think that allows more leeway in working to bring people to a common ground.
Because it is still a punishment either way. Its just the severity of the punishment they are working with.

For guilt or innocense, it is much harder and there is no way I would just go with the group if I firmly believed the other way. For this phase, I am more open.
As an example, If I was the only one still wanting the DP at that point. As soon as I realized another uninformed jury would get this case if we did not decide, then in this example, I would first try to sway others with my views on DP and after working hard at it, if my efforts failed, then I would most likely be ok to give her LWOP because to me that is still a good punishment.
Not the best, but good enough for me personally. Others may not see it that way and it is good we all are different.

I agree with you Hatfield. I have been thinking...The Arias case brings out the worst in me. She wasn't just non repentant for what she did, she actually enjoyed seeing Travis suffer. And she enjoyed seeing his family suffer, especially writing that letter to his grandmother. JA despises anyone who is even halfway decent because she doesn't know what it is like to be that way herself. And if she gets LWOP I won't be that disappointed because I want her to be locked away. I was just on the Hulsey thread and I haven't even followed that trial but the jury's out right now. And I got to thinking that maybe juries are getting "soft" regarding death penalty verdicts. It must be pretty awful to look at someone and tell them you just voted to put them to death. Is it any excuse that he was on drugs? No. But it makes JA look all the worse because she has not one mitigating factor.

i guess I have to say if I was on a jury with you all, maybe I wouldn't be so inclined to dig in my heels after all. Cause you sure make me think. And KCL's experience with appeals after a DP verdict is a great cause for concern about our system.

 

[Hatfield]

It would be great to be a fly on the wall as JA prepares her defense. I can just imagine some of the crazy things she has discussed already.

Juan's job may be real easy if JA miserably fails as I am expecting her to.

 

[janx]

I think JM can play video of his highlights and so can the defense. I don't mind if they don't hear all the evidence, as long as they hear the good parts. (Walmart lie) And Jodi not getting to out her act on the stands, might work in the prosecution's favor as well. No "bonding" with jurors like she did the foreman. To me personally, the strongest part of the trial was JM's closing statement. He didn't even need all his witnesses (of course he did so for legal purposes lol); the way he told us how Travis had died and how she planned it was brilliant.

So much of the guilt phase consisted of Nurmi questioning JA endlessly about her childhood and how things made her "feel." It went on and on and on. At first I thought the next jury wouldn't be subjected to that again since Nurmi is not representing her, but I'm now convinced she will find an alternative way to do it. Ugh! I don't know how those jurors stayed awake on those days.

 

[MeeBee]

I agree with you Hatfield. I have been thinking...The Arias case brings out the worst in me. She wasn't just non repentant for what she did, she actually enjoyed seeing Travis suffer. And she enjoyed seeing his family suffer, especially writing that letter to his grandmother. JA despises anyone who is even halfway decent because she doesn't know what it is like to be that way herself. And if she gets LWOP I won't be that disappointed because I want her to be locked away. I was just on the Hulsey thread and I haven't even followed that trial but the jury's out right now. And I got to thinking that maybe juries are getting "soft" regarding death penalty verdicts. It must be pretty awful to look at someone and tell them you just voted to put them to death. Is it any excuse that he was on drugs? No. But it makes JA look all the worse because she has not be mitigating factor.

i guess I have to say if I was on a jury with you all, maybe I wouldn't be so inclined to dig in my heels after all. Cause you sure make me think. And KCL's experience with appeals after a DP verdict is a great cause for concern about our system.

Yes, I was thinking about this and I've thought about this bedore. I think it's easy to say you would give someone the DP but another when you are in that room and you hold this life in your hands. They have seen this person everyday, living and breathing and you have to decide their death. Having something like that on your hands is haunting. I've been watching the Hulsey trial and I would have voted for the death penalty at first, but after the penalty phase...I don't know what I'd do. We are not psychopaths. We are capable of sympathy and compassion. Sometimes certain things get to us.

When it comes to Jodi...I would want the death penalty for her. It wouldn't be impossible to convince me otherwise. But she is so cold and unfeeling that I just feel strongly about what she deserves. LWOP certainly wouldn't be the worst outcome though. It's probably better anyway, since she won't have as good a chance of getting her sentence overturned.

 

[MeeBee]

OT: David Barajas was found not guilty!

 

[Love Never Fails]

OT: David Barajas was found not guilty!

What did he do?

 

[LinTX]

Was just watching some clips of the earlier trial, and realized something important that this new jury probably won't see. JM impeached JA's direct testimony several times during the first trial, but is there any way for this new jury to know that? I'm sure her lies to LE during the investigation, etc. will be covered, but it had to make an impact on the first jury that she actually lied on the stand, right to their face. She's not bound to make the same mistakes twice, nor will she be on the stand for 18 days contradicting herself. I just wonder how much difference this is going to make in terms of them actually understanding her 'act' and trusting witnesses/evidence she presents. Evidence, btw, that is not subject to the same rules that most probably kept some of her fairy tales in check during the first trial...what are we in for? :gaah:

 

[rose222]

I read somewhere that Judge Stephens forgot to read some of the jury instructions during the penalty phase. I don't remember that. Perhaps that would have been grounds for appeal?

I also vaguely remember Juan talking to the jury about Arias getting out of prison one day if she gets life. I remember some trial watchers saying that he wasn't supposed to do that and that it would be grounds for appeal.

I didn't pay attention to much of what the foreman said post-trial but if he did wonder why Travis' family gave victim impact statements then.... :gaah: That would be most shocking and disturbing. I think he's pro-life. I remember reading somewhere that he wanted to be famous (perhaps his son said this--I don't remember). He wanted to 'save' Arias from the death penalty. And then interview her and be her hero of sorts. There isn't any other explanation (well maybe he was enamoured by her) for his callousness towards Travis and his family (I think he referred to Travis as 'the dead guy') and his devotion towards Jodi Arias.

 

[gcharlie]

Was just watching some clips of the earlier trial, and realized something important that this new jury probably won't see. JM impeached JA's direct testimony several times during the first trial, but is there any way for this new jury to know that? I'm sure her lies to LE during the investigation, etc. will be covered, but it had to make an impact on the first jury that she actually lied on the stand, right to their face. She's not bound to make the same mistakes twice, nor will she be on the stand for 18 days contradicting herself. I just wonder how much difference this is going to make in terms of them actually understanding her 'act' and trusting witnesses/evidence she presents. Evidence, btw, that is not subject to the same rules that most probably kept some of her fairy tales in check during the first trial...what are we in for? :gaah:

I think that Martinez will probably find a way to get this in through the testimony of Drs. Karp and Hayes, because it is a notable quality in her and he is going to want to draw attention to the fact that nothing she says can be trusted. She even lied to a jury and she's probably lied to you too in her allocution.