AZL Question if she is still here:
I think I understand why the foreman said jury directions/voire dire should change. BOTH the previous foreman and #12 who was just kicked shared "death penalty reserved for serial killers" (#12 shared in voire dire, previous foreman perhaps shared in voire dire but DID share in interview)
Considering that as a fact (I may be incorrect)... but then AZL, if the law doesn't screen them out, but only screens out those that could consider death.... and they know that Jodi isn't a serial killer... is there no alternative except to seat those without an automatic kick as to qualifying to be seated?
I guess this is a loophole?
Your thoughts AZL? TIA
Either he said something less absolute than that, or upon further questioning he agreed that he would follow the instructions regardless of his preexisting thoughts on the subject.
Surely to all that is sacred JSS is not going to grant her the request to allocute in secret--AZL can JSS do this after both the COA and ASC said no?
So, what happens should JSS deny her request to send public and media to overflow room? Does she still have the option to allocute or not? If she decides not to, what legal problems exist then, if any?
I think JSS has learned at this point that she can't conduct the proceedings in secret. It would be completely appropriate, however, for JSS to kick everyone to the overflow room. No constitutional problem with that.
Yes, Jodi would still have the option to allocute if JSS refused to send everyone to the overflow room. If Jodi decided not to allocute at that point, of course it would be brought up on appeal as not being a voluntary choice. Which is why JSS needs to grant that request--it takes care of an appeal issue without stepping on the rights of the media or public.
Is it common to lose jurors during deliberations?
In high profile cases it's been known to happen. In regular cases no not at all.
It's less common to lose jurors during deliberations because once they are allowed to talk to each other, that removes the one rule they are most likely to break.
But if deliberations go on for very long, you always have the chance of a juror getting sick, having a family emergency, etc.
All we have right now are rumors: No witnesses. Allocution. Closing arguments.
Maybe the defense will bring a couple of people to testify. Or maybe JM will allow one more Alexander family member to give a statement. Then maybe Jodi will give an allocution. Who knows?
I would pay to be up front and personal with Jodi while she gives that allocution. What can she say that wouldn't make someone sneer and snicker and laugh? Uhm, "he made me kill him?". Or, "he looked at porn". Or how about how he deserved what he got. I bet she wears a purple sweater to boot. She doesn't cry well and she doesn't know how to feel remorse. I mean, put it all out there Jodi. So what? It will never help me understand why. That's all I want know is...WHY? She is evil. Period.
BBM
Victim impact statements are done at the beginning, so there will be no more of those.
What do you think about the judge allowing affidavits from witnesses who probably never planned to testify? Thank you.
It should have never been allowed. It was pure insanity.
ETA: that was one of her decisions that had me scratching my head.
The judge has to allow hearsay in this phase as long as it is "reliable." I personally can't understand how hearsay is ever reliable, but that's the rule. And since the rule is so nonsensical, the best policy to avoid being overturned on appeal is to let it in unless it seems to be a forgery (like the pedo letters).