long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why wouldn't the judge have already done that if she felt there was misconduct?????

Yes, it was obviously discussed at the hearing last week, so it couldn't have amounted to much.
 
Knowing Nurmi's track record of embellishing I don't think it is nearly as drastic as he makes it out to be.

She will probably dismiss this juror who seems to be against the defense arguments. While she may have been vocal imo he needs to worry about every juror on there. I don't think there is one of them that is buying what they are trying to sell. She may have complained about how long it is taking the DT to put on their case. It could be that simple.

IMO

Nurmi has no credibility and short on integrity.
 
If they took the jurors back individually for questioning after the concocted "JM is a Rockstar Whinefest Extravaganzapalooza" produced by the DT, then the jurors would be in the room together and taken out one by one for questioning by the judge. If... IF... while the other 17 were waiting for someone to come back from questioning, #5 said something to the group...

- something snarky about the juror out of the room being questioned
- something cranky about how slow the proceedings are
- something observant catty about the defendant or a witness...

a 'stickler' juror may (rightly) have mentioned this to the judge. Or if #5 came back from her own session and told the others what they were investigating, same thing.

:banghead: But this is why we have alternates. Take heart, peeps!

I don't think they would have let them go back with those not questioned yet.
 
I'm thinking this juror stated to another that she thinks she's guilty!

Nope I don't think so.

I think this paragraph is the key to their Motion.

"However, given the facts that came forward on March 28,2013, Ms. Arias asserts that she can meet this burden as prejudice can be presumed when it is known that there has, been "any private communication, contact or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about a matter pending before the jury" Reemer v. Untied States, 347 U.S. 227,229 (1954)."'

I'm pulling Reemer to see what's up with that case ....
 
The way this thing is playing out is making my hinky meter go off the charts. It started as prosecutorial misconduct and now it's about a juror misconduct. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....methinks I smell a rat.

I just see a lot of the morning being used up with most likely a closed hearing. If it's televised I'd be shocked. At this point I'm not surprised one of the jurors has said "I'm done and ready to hang the bleep". I would assume as she is one of the key note takers that she is really kicking herself for her slip.:furious:
 
I'm thinking this juror stated to another that she thinks she's guilty!


I know they aren't suppose to say anything like that before they begin deliberations but... if this juror #5 thinks that now, most likely it isn't going to change, so what the heck is the difference. She most likely would be a whole lot more vocal once they enter deliberations. If a judge honestly thinks these jurors aren't already leaning in certain directions then she wasn't paying attention to the jurors questions. So send her home and be done with it, that's why there are alternates.
 
Everyone was there when the questioning took place including the defendant. It's her right to be at all hearings. Including in-chambers.

That was the first time when she interviewed them. But, on Thursday after court was dismissed she individually interviewed them and Jodi was not there. I am not sure about the attorneys. jmo
 
Does anyone know, if this juror is dismissed, will she be allowed to talk to the media or will she have to adhere to the admonitions until the end of the trial?
 
Here it is... lovely. Good luck with that ;)

Anyone know what this means?

3/31/2013 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/1/2013
NOTE: MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: JUROR MISCONDUCT
3/31/2013 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 4/1/2013
NOTE: DEDEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO ELICITING TESTIMONY OR MAKING ARGUMENT RELATED TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH PROBABLE CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

Means there's a typo in the title of the second filing? ;)
 
It also doesn't help there are "people" out there who want nothing more than a mistrial and are probably making it their life's work to watch for any type of "misconduct" real or imagined.

I would have been kicked off the jury eons ago for eye rolling, coughing inappropriately, and giving the stink eye.

Just as *we* are trying to read the jury everybody else is too and no doubt Tri-color is believed to be a threat to the DT. Maybe they feel that this juror is somebody who has the personality of a leader and would be a person to sway the others to a guilty verdict. Who knows. Until that motion is unsealed we may never know. If this juror was somebody that the DT felt was sympathetic to JA or they felt was leaning to the not-guilty verdict they would want to keep her. For all we know Juror #5 was not the DT's pick during jury selection and could be the one they have worried about from day one.
 
Here's the motion the DT filed about juror 5:

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/AriasJuror.pdf

Given the evidence that came forward on March 28, 2013, it is beyond legitimate dispute that Juror # 5 is not fair and impartial making her unfit to continue as a juror.
The question for legitimate dispute can be raised centers around whether her misconduct warrants a mistrial because of the effect that this misconduct necessitates that this court declares a mistrial.

This is a snippet, and the fact that the sentences don't make sense goes to Nurmi. lol
Is there any gossip about what juror #5 allegedly did?
 
Because the State gets a chance to respond to the motion before she makes a ruling.

But did she need to either side to file a Motion? She is the judge and if she felt there was any misconduct in any way (good lord, the judge was right there with counsel and heard for herself what was said) she could have dismissed the juror right there and then, couldn't she?
 
Knowing Nurmi's track record of embellishing I don't think it is nearly as drastic as he makes it out to be.

She will probably dismiss this juror who seems to be against the defense arguments. While she may have been vocal imo he needs to worry about every juror on there. I don't think there is one of them that is buying what they are trying to sell. She may have complained about how long it is taking the DT to put on their case. It could be that simple.

IMO

I agree. In a previous post I also indicated that it's possible much like Nurmi misstates, manipulates and twists testimony to further their own agenda and strategy I would not be surprised at all if this did not rise to the level of jury misconduct.

But having said that, the Motion they filed does not give us context. The only thing that concerns me is if whatever Nurmi is alleging she said to the entire jury. I don't want him to have an opportunity to argue that the entire jury or a portion of the jury is "tainted" by whatever this juror allegedly said in this sealed meeting.

Basically we know nothing except that the DT doesn't want Tri-color on the jury, like at all. It could also be not so much what she said but how she reacted to being so close to Jodi that the DT didn't like and are seeking to twist words the juror said to get her kicked off.

It's anyones guess at the moment. I just hope the Judge doesn't toss the whole trial. It's getting expensive for the AZ taxpayers.
 
Why wouldn't the judge have already done that if she felt there was misconduct?????

That's a good point, why wouldn't the judge have dismissed the juror if she found a reason to - unless maybe it has to be requested by the attorneys? Otherwise, it's probably not misconduct, just an attempt to try to get rid of a juror they see is paying attention.
Fortunately, it seems as if they're all attentive - you've got to admire them for that.
 
I expect a flurry of whining...errr..motions from the defense. The end is near. They have a bad client, bad facts, loser of a case. But it is DP and they are going to go to the mat no matter how annoying it is. That's how it rolls, unfortunately.

:floorlaugh: I wish I had a buck for every motion for mistrial Nurmi has filled, not to mention his two sorry #*$ motions for prosecutorial misconduct. You'd think he'd get tired of hearing "motion denied".
 
But did she need to either side to file a Motion? She is the judge and if she felt there was any misconduct in any way (good lord, the judge was right there with counsel and heard for herself what was said) she could have dismissed the juror right there and then, couldn't she?

Maybe a motion is needed?
 
Does anyone know, if this juror is dismissed, will she be allowed to talk to the media or will she have to adhere to the admonitions until the end of the trial?

Yes. Remember the Scott Peterson trial? A juror was dismissed and talked to anyone who would listen to him. Dismissed means they no longer have anything to do with the case!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,349
Total visitors
2,471

Forum statistics

Threads
589,997
Messages
17,928,864
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top