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.
Why wouldn't the judge have already done that if she felt there was misconduct?????
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
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
- somethingobservantcatty 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'm thinking this juror stated to another that she thinks she's guilty!
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'm thinking this juror stated to another that she thinks she's guilty!
Everyone was there when the questioning took place including the defendant. It's her right to be at all hearings. Including in-chambers.
Why wouldn't the judge have already done that if she felt there was misconduct?????
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: DEDEFENDANTS 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
Is there any gossip about what juror #5 allegedly did?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
Because the State gets a chance to respond to the motion before she makes a ruling.
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
Why wouldn't the judge have already done that if she felt there was misconduct?????
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.
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?
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?