SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[LambChop]

Certainly the very last person who should have accepted the role as foreman would be one that would later state that they were not attorneys in terms of understanding their instructions.

 

[rose222]

Just read the foreman's son message. I can't decide which is worse. Father's message or son's message. He says his father is suffering. Well, boo hoo. That's the problem with people. You have a young man who was mercilessly butchered and almost beheaded with photos to prove it. You have his family devastated and heart-broken. Yet others want to use this opportunity to throw themselves a pity party. 'I'm suffering, I'm crucified' The only person who was crucified here was Travis. His family SUFFERS.

Don't come and tell me a foreman who has a gu$$er mouth is suffering and then expect me to cry him a river.

 

[TXProfessional]

Patti went on to tell the media that she would not testify due to conflicting emotions about who JA was when she knew her and how she feels about JA committing such a brutal murder. Regardless of trying to hide her past, which I do understand, and pleading the 5th to Juan. So, she could not testify. Seems both Patti and exBF DB excused themselves due to the past and present via television.

21merc, for me this seems like an important issue if the new jurors will be told that PW did not testify due to being threatened, imho this could ellicit protectiveness in jurors.

So to my way of thinking this information should be presented to discredit what inmate arias told the juror's about PW during her allocution. Among many, many other things but thats for another discussion.

I do not know what the new jury will hear or not hear but if they get to hear the inmate's allocution...IDK

 

[KandyKane]

There is a lot of confusion about what the procedures for retrial of the penalty phase and how jurors get brought up to speed on the facts of the case.

AZ Lawyer has posted in the legal questions thread and it appears that guilt phase witnesses can be brought back to testify, with transcripts from the original testimony used to assist in cross.

It is my understanding that nothing new can be presented in the presentation of the guilt or aggravation phase of the trial.

Speaking for myself, I really would appreciate clarification as to how things go in a retrial of the penalty phase. I am at a loss here.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9113341
Former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley has said the case could drag on for several more months as the new jury reviews evidence and hears opening statements, closing arguments and witness testimony in a "Cliffs Notes" version of the trial.

That "Cliff Notes" version of witness testimony is the testimony that they already gave. How can witnesses possibly be allowed to re-testify when they aren't retrying the CASE, but just the penalty phase? Witness testimony has already been given. By allowing defense witnesses to come back and re-testify they'd be retrying the CASE, and of course those witnesses will re-testify in a way that they come off as credible which they didn't do during the trial. I can see some prosecution witnesses being allowed to come back and re-testify in order that the new jury can understand technicalities, but that's it. A jury already determined that the defense witnesses were not credible, which is why they voted Jodi was guilty of murder 1. How can those same defense witnesses be allowed to come back and re-testify when they aren't retrying the case, and they were already determined to be not credible by the first jury?

If AZlawyer said that some witnesses can come back and re-testify then he/she must have meant prosecution witnesses could retestify solely to explain technicalities such as the medical examiner findings, blood and fingerprint findings, etc. The defense can't be allowed to re-try the CASE with their witnesses. That has already been decided by the first jury and were considered by that jury to be not credible.

 

[21merc7]

I agree, to a point. When the GMA interview came out and he was being bashed, I stuck up for him. I thought all he said in THAT interview could be explained/understandable. But then he went and proved me wrong with the things he said in further interviews.
I agree it is far easier to say you would give the DP than to actually do it. I don't know if I actually could, even if I knew it was deserved, because of some conflicts inside of myself. Therefore, I would TELL THEM THAT in questioning to avoid putting myself (or the jury at whole) in that position.

Another good point. Some follow the crowd and appraisal. I've had to live on my own so long, I would just yell at the Judge and the attorneys during the questioning with the hypothesis they give, and let them know I cannot and will not give DP, granted they could hold me in contempt. A lot of people cannot do that. Standing up for your beliefs in a conflicted world is a difficult thing to do.

 

[MeeBee]

What juror # was Tara Kelley? Is she ponytail?

 

[kpm]

Bella, thanks for this. I was wondering about that, i.e., whether or not the jurors would have seen her during jury selection. So I have the same question but more specifically did the JF form his impression at that time.

IMO, there are some people who will never budge no matter what is presented to them.
I would not budge from guilty M1 with DP for this case and I imagine someone opposing me has just as strong convictions.
But they better be more compelling than I think the liar was verbally abused, that does not fly in this case!

 

[outofstatelawyer]

For those of you interested in how a juror could go visit a murderer after the trial, Google "Robert Durst".

Short version: Durst is a member of an enormously wealthy NYC family. His wife, a medical student, "disappeared" and was never found. He also had a friendship with a woman whose Daddy was in the mob. She continued this friendship with Durst for decades. One New Year's Day, she was slaughtered in her LA home. The cops wanted to question Durst, but he disappeared.

It turned out he was living in Galveston, TX, where he dressed and lived as a woman. He got into a fight with a neighbor, shot the guy in the head, then dismembered the body and threw the parts into trash bags, which he then dumped into Galveston Bay. The problem was, the bags started to wash ashore. The only body part not found was the victim's head.

Durst was tried for murder, and was represented by Dick DeGuerin, one of the hot shot defense lawyers in the country. Durst claimed self defense, and took the stand. He gave his version of the story. The jury decided to acquit, since the head was not found and the State could not determine the trajectory of the bullet to contradict Durst's story! Not only that, because he stayed in jail for a while for some other charges, multiple jurors used to go visit him!!! I have no idea where he is now, but he's walking the streets somewhere.

 

[AZWatcher]

I'm following juror 17's tweets although I don't have an account myself. She says some tried really hard during deliberations. Of course. Imagine 8 jurors who would not back down. Poor Nancy.

I have no doubt most tried. I get the impression that the foreman ... upon realizing that everyone in the room did not agree with him (by a wide margin) decided instantaneously that there was no point in deliberating ... because he knew there was nothing anyone could say to change his mind. I do think the jurors who were NOT willing to concede to life... even with the cost being a non-verdict... will play an important role in the decision of how the state proceeds going forward.

 

[rose222]

What juror # was Tara Kelley? Is she ponytail?

Juror 17. Love that ponytail girl!

 

[TigerBalm]

What juror # was Tara Kelley? Is she ponytail?

Alt juror #17

 

[Dana]

yes, thanks. You don't happen to know whether she was to be called as an expert, document custodian or lay witness, do ya?

Good question. All I've found is that she's a Fraud Investigator/Corporate Security at JPMorgan Chase Manhattan Bank.

 

[21merc7]

21merc, for me this seems like an important issue if the new jurors will be told that PW did not testify due to being threatened, imho this could ellicit protectiveness in jurors.

So to my way of thinking this information should be presented to discredit what inmate arias told the juror's about PW during her allocution. Among many, many other things but thats for another discussion.

I do not know what the new jury will hear or not hear but if they get to hear the inmate's allocution...IDK

No, they were *volunteer* witnesses. Not subpoenaed by the Court to testify. They could choose as they wish. It has nothing to do with JA's sentencing, or trial. Who knows though. Arizona has a different system than what I am aware of.

 

[rose222]

I have no doubt most tried. I get the impression that the foreman ... upon realizing that everyone in the room did not agree with him (by a wide margin) decided instantaneously that there was no point in deliberating ... because he knew there was nothing anyone could say to change his mind. I do think the jurors who were NOT willing to concede to life... even with the cost being a non-verdict... will play an important role in the decision of how the state proceeds going forward.

Why bother deliberating when 8 jurors want death and a hung jury = life for JA, right? Glad the foreman didn't know any better. We would still have a hung jury but had he known about the mistrial but he would have gone on and on deliberating for a few more days. I bet he would have tried coercing then!

 

[kscornfed]

I honestly am shocked that he did vote M1 after listening to him. Thank goodness !

well, the premeditation was the most solid evidence you'll ever see. i never thought any of them could even argue it wasn't premeditated, even if they wanted to. you simply can't explain away the theft of the same caliber gun days before the murder, renting that car 90 miles from home, cellphone silence the whole time she's in AZ, and....

THE GAS CANS!!!!!

it simply can't be done.

 

[kpm]

Another good point. Some follow the crowd and appraisal. I've had to live on my own so long, I would just yell at the Judge and the attorneys during the questioning with the hypothesis they give, and let them know I cannot and will not give DP, granted they could hold me in contempt. A lot of people cannot do that. Standing up for your beliefs in a conflicted world is a difficult thing to do.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post....

 

[bettybaby00]

The woman from the bank's name is Suzie Dittman. Is that who you're inquiring about?

That's her name! Thank you!!!

Love when I know I'm not hallucinating

 

[Curious Me]

It's interesting that new technology is now used in jury selection. Run a search and you'll
find all kinds of new apps and ways for jury selection to make it easier to find the "right"
jurors.

Here's some random ones I found:

Tech tool streamlines jury-selection process
http://www.lawjournalbuffalo.com/news/article/current/2010/07/05/102410/tech-tool-
streamlines-jury-selection-process

Litigator Technology Launches JuryStar 2.0 And JuryStar Law Student Jury Selection iPad Apps
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/9/24/234975/Litigator-Technology-Launches-JuryStar.aspx

Like or unlike: Facebook profiles used for jury screening
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/or-unlike-facebook-profiles-used-jury-screening-125671

 

[kpm]

well, the premeditation was the most solid evidence you'll ever see. i never thought any of them could even argue it wasn't premeditated, even if they wanted to. you simply can't explain away the theft of the same caliber gun days before the murder, renting that car 90 miles from home, cellphone silence the whole time she's in AZ, and....

THE GAS CANS!!!!!

it simply can't be done.

ITA, maybe he thought he could save her from DP if nothing else.

 

[MidwestMama]

True, but you get to question the jurors much more in depth in a DP case. Imagine how JM feels right now?

That is what I meant. Juan must be SO frustrated!
Bad enough to get the hung jury after so much work,
but then to hear the foreman's "reasoning".
ARGH!