SIDEBAR #6- Arias/Alexander forum

[RadarLuv]

Also, I am completely convinced Bill Z would have gone for manslaughter had he been able to get his way. Seems he put all the mitigating fault on Travis.

I'll bet he was the tattler on the "laughing juror". He has had an anti-death agenda from the get go, in my opinion.

 

[Garlandy]

Even if he was honest and believed he could.... When he realized he couldn't because of his own personal reasons...he can be excused.
That's what alternates are for, but his ego or ignorance wouldn't allow it. IMO

I could understand something believing they could at the start, then when the time came being overwhelmed and realizing they can't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree. I haven't listened to all the interviews with the foreman, I had to stop, it was really upsetting. He should have excused himself if he couldn't carry out his responsibilities properly. I did hear him say it shouldn't be up to them to decide if someone lives or ides or something to that affect, he should never have been on this jury if he feels like that. If he didn't feel like that at the beginning then once he was on that page he should have left or someone should have told JSS. This is terrible for us, can you imagine how heart wrenching it must be for the Alexander's to hear this foreman?

 

[Pink Panther]

I hope that #5 shares her perspective with us soon...

 

[Angelina Frost]

I can't find his exact words but the foreman did indicate that there was some confusion regarding their question.

Had this foreman known that there would be a trial he would have tried harder to come to a verdict of life. I think he wanted life real bad. He thought a hung jury = life.

At this point if the family wants LWOP I'd be ok with it too although I prefer a retrial and death.

BBM

As long as it is natural life with all appeals waived, that makes sense.

ITA regarding the foreman. I laughed out loud when he said he wouldn't divulge his vote, comparing it to that of a vote in a Presidential election. If he doesn't think his stance isn't glaringly obvious without actually being told, he's seriously slow on the uptake.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I totally agree. I haven't listened to all the interviews with the foreman, I had to stop, it was really upsetting. He should have excused himself if he couldn't carry out his responsibilities properly. I did hear him say it shouldn't be up to them to decide if someone lives or ides or something to that affect, he should never have been on this jury if he feels like that. If he didn't feel like that at the beginning then once he was on that page he should have left or someone should have told JSS. This is terrible for us, can you imagine how heart wrenching it must be for the Alexander's to hear this foreman?

I hope the Alexander's aren't listening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sleuth5]

Maybe when she's not busy growing hair, teaching sign language or bagging up plastic CMJA can write new thesaurus entries. Or maybe she could do it contemporaneously!

Whilst teaching Spanish and/or English. :floorlaugh:

 

[Martha Morris]

Although his statements about CPreMMja disturb me...I keep going back to that ONE sentence of his "We didn't know..."

I agree with most of you that they should have asked about it a 2nd time, but honestly when the jury asked the question at the 2 hour mark...JS did not clearly answer it. She gave suggestions for them to try....i.e:
Q - "What if we are unable to come to a unanimous decision?" Remember... it appeared JS "interpreted" the question as a statement (paraphrasing) "I have been told that you are unable to come up with a unanimous verdict. Here are some suggestions to try."

If the jury went back to try the suggestions without a real answer to their question (if this mistake was truly made), then maybe it's not too farfetched to accept that they tried JS suggestions, they didn't work, so they agreed to submit the no unanimous verdict...(with no other knowledge or written information about what the possible outcome would be) and perhaps thinking the judge would then decide.

Now what if the question had been read correctly? i.e:
Q - "What if we are unable to come to a unanimous verdict?" And, JS answered with something like: "If no unanimous verdict is reached, a mistrial will be declared for this portion of the trial, and a new jury will be empaneled to decide this phase. If the new jury is also unable to reach a unanimous verdict...the decision would defer to me and the defendant could be sentenced to either LWP or LWOP." She could still offer the "suggestions" but this would have truly answered their question.

I searched for the jury instructions in the penalty phase to see if all the "what ifs" were listed for the jury, but could not find it. (If this has been made public and someone has a link to the jury instructions for this phase that would clear up my assumptions above.)

I also searched for a copy of the jury "question" page and the jury "verdict" page, to see what was explained on those.

Would really like to hear your opinions on this

Now that completely makes sense to me!

I watched right back through the jury instructions she read to them, and I couldn't find anywhere where she specifically said that an inability to reach a consensus would result in a mistrial, and trust me, I listened to it all this morning again!

I think your theory is bang on the money. The judge got hold of the wrong of the stick and instead of answering them by explaining the consequences of what would happen if they couldn't agree (i.e. mistrial declared, retrial of the penalty phase with a new jury), she gave them suggestions regarding a renewal of their efforts to reach a consensus and sent them back.

Agreed, they should have asked again if they weren't happy with the answer - although do we yet know what that second (sealed) question was?

 

[Garlandy]

I can't find his exact words but the foreman did indicate that there was some confusion regarding their question.

Had this foreman known that there would be a trial he would have tried harder to come to a verdict of life. I think he wanted life real bad. He thought a hung jury = life.

At this point if the family wants LWOP I'd be ok with it too although I prefer a retrial and death.

After being there for 5 months if there was some confusion why wouldn't he have asked for clarification. I don't think there is anything this foreman could say now that would make me have any sort of respect for him. With all due respect he seems to be a very arrogant person imho. And I agree with your last sentence...whatever the family wants.

 

[Emmi]

Exactly. They were under no obligation to come to the conclusion that someone desired, especially not random members of the public. You shouldn't call something a failure of the justice system when in reality you're just disappointed.

It's honestly incredibly concerning to me how several people here seem to just immediately jump from "Oh this jury is so thorough" to "let's bad mouth the jury foreman (of all people!) because we don't like the outcome". It's despicable, IMO.

Well said. A public mood of disappointment does not equal a miscarriage of justice.

It IS despicable. It's also possibly creating a climate of fear for potential future jurors.

 

[Sleuth5]

I'll bet he was the tattler on the "laughing juror". He has had an anti-death agenda from the get go, in my opinion.

i agree that he likely made up his mind very early. Not taking notes was a good way to make sure he wouldn't later prove himself wrong.

 

[ElleElle]

As far as Juror #18, that's fine. Let him speak.

From their perspective, i've mentioned it originally when I joined WS.

They can't be too emotionally attached to the players in this case... it's hard, but really they should look at the facts.

Was Travis abusive? Doubt it. Did he live a double life? Yes. imo.

 

[Whack A Mole]

You may like to imagine that they held hands and sang Kumbaya, but that doesn't answer my question.

Seems to me that no oath was broken. They deliberated, they asked questions, they voted. They did not make an oath, when they were chosen as jurors, to sentence Arias to death. In the end, most of them voted for that, but a few didn't. According to jury instructions, they were under no obligation to change their votes for the majority. The judge herself made this clear.

I most humbly disagree. They were a death qualified jury. Now suddenly they question if death is an appropriate penalty for the crime they convicted her of and the fact that the crime was cruel. The foreman used the word "trajectory", which was the word chosen by the defense. What changed the trajectory of Jodi's life they asked? That wasn't a question they were asked to answer. Their finale question was does the crime she committed warrant a sentence of death. Suddenly they seem to finally notice that this was something they would have to deal with. Why did they think they were a death penalty qualified jury if they didn't believe that some crimes were worthy of death? If this was a 27 year old male who'd committed this crime, I don't think they'd have the same problems they faced with an attractive 27 year old killer at the time of the murder. Her age or lack of criminal conviction shouldn't enter into the deliberation of the death penalty in my view. The Boston bombers were young and one had no criminal history. Does that factor mitigate that many died and many lost legs? No.... You should not be seated on a death panel jury unless you believe that death is the penalty for murder...committed by anyone of any age. This was a poorly picked jury in my opinion and I hope next time that they take more care in selection. JMHO

 

[Maryann123]

Lots of us caught it and discussed it...It just doesn't make sense. She also referred to "we" when she talked about her trip from Redding to Monterey. There is a lot of information that we don't know and probably never will...

moo

I must have been absent that day! I gotta take a few days off and re-listen to her testimony.

 

[elementary]

The ultimate irony imo is that the horrific nature of the crime is apparently mitigating, at least to Mr. Foreman who wonders why such a "normal" 27 yo law abiding young woman could possibly commit such a brutal murder. He contends her "life trajectory" abruptly changed when she met TA. I'd like to know why anyone, given the particular facts in this case, could possibly think another 12 jurors would unamimously give JA the death penalty, because I'm convinced there's no chance no matter what JM does next time.

I have a few words for you: 9mm gun, box of 9mm bullets, 2 knives, hidden, getaway rental car.

 

[ElleElle]

BBM~ I am very concerned over this. Maybe Nurmi is right with regards to the witch trials. :facepalm:

Well said. A public mood of disappointment does not equal a miscarriage of justice.

It IS despicable. It's also possibly creating a climate of fear for potential future jurors.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Now that completely makes sense to me!

I watched right back through the jury instructions she read to them, and I couldn't find anywhere where she specifically said that an inability to reach a consensus would result in a mistrial, and trust me, I listened to it all this morning again!

I think your theory is bang on the money. The judge got hold of the wrong of the stick and instead of answering them by explaining the consequences of what would happen if they couldn't agree (i.e. mistrial declared, retrial of the penalty phase with a new jury), she gave them suggestions regarding a renewal of their efforts to reach a consensus and sent them back.

Agreed, they should have asked again if they weren't happy with the answer - although do we yet know what that second (sealed) question was?

She didn't instruct them on what would happen because it shouldn't matter if they're doing their job. What would happen should be of no concern to them. They have a single goal.... Try to reach a verdict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steely Dan]

It's interesting to me that in the murder verdict the decision on the mitigating factors was split 7-5. I'm guessing that the pro death people managed to convince one juror to come to their side.

 

[aa9511]

I wonder if the "heated and emotional" part didn't refer to the original verdict of Murder 1, or extreme cruelty, as opposed to the DP or Life. I'd love to know how the vote went for the first 2 things. I can hear them talking about extreme cruelty, and telling the others, they could find her guilty of that and still not vote for the DP. If it hadn't been for the fact that they did not have to come to an agreement in the last phase, I don't know what would have happened. I think our foreman would have voted Murder 2, if giving Murder 1 would have been an automatic DP. He was never going to do give her death. My opinion!

I firmly believe Foreman was one who had to be convinced to vote for M!. I believe he was maybe the only one who wanted to give M2, and so he had to come around in order for it not to be hung in that phase. And he didn't want that, so he came around. What leads me to believe that are his comments as a whole, and in particular the part where he said coming into the courtroom after deciding their guilt M1 verdict, he told himself he was not going to look at JA, but then when the verdict was read, he couldn't help himself and he did, and it was something he'll always remember. WTF????? I mean, he's acting like that was a huge, big deal, when in reality it is THE LEAST of what she deserved for what she did. I MEAN, SHEESH, SHE HAD ALREADY ADMITTED TO THE KILLING. What was the big deal?? I don't get that part, makes me think he thought they should have given her M2 or even less.

I believe now that the pro-defense questions were from him.

 

[rose222]

After being there for 5 months if there was some confusion why wouldn't he have asked for clarification. I don't think there is anything this foreman could say now that would make me have any sort of respect for him. With all due respect he seems to be a very arrogant person imho. And I agree with your last sentence...whatever the family wants.

After reading KCL's posts about her poor sister's murderers I think LWOP wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm glad this jury is out. With a foreman like that even if they had somehow all voted for death I can imagine the kinds of things he would have said/done post DP verdict. I can also imagine appeal after appeal based on his agenda.

I think this Judge will give LWOP. I'm not afraid of being lenient.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

While I am furious with him... I am equally furious at the other 11 sheep!

I am thankful for the M1 w/ aggravatior but I'm still furious not a single one understood their job


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was going to post about this a while ago when Nurmi was certain that (some) jurors had seen media coverage and/or discussing the case. On one of the juries that I was seated (7-member panel for civil case), four out of the seven of us WERE talking about the case in the jury room. While they weren't discussing evidence or testimony, they had plenty to say about the Judge, the attorneys, paralegals, the plaintiff, the defendant, and witnesses. I usually read a book or magazine when we were in the jury room and never talked about any aspect of the case or the players. Likewise, an older gentleman read his newspaper and an older woman brought knitting; neither said anything about the case.

On the fourth day into the trial, the mouthy guy (probably about my age) who was obviously jockeying for the foreman position had the audacity to ask me, "Why don't you ever want to talk about the case?" I looked around the table and then said directly to him, "The Judge has instructed us to not discuss the case." There was dead silence in the room until the older gentleman spoke up and said, "She's right, you know. You shouldn't be talking about the case."

Needless to say, no one talked about any aspect of the case after the "bookworm" spoke up and let the "talkers" know that they were not following the Judge's instructions. The foreman in the JA case probably would have rubbed me the wrong way, and I would have had some choice and direct words for him. :angel: