Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[cady]

If that's true, then why the first statement about it being his own fault if JM didn't know? Those two statements don't make a lot of sense alongside each other...

Both sides knew that 1st husband had a past, but neither bothered to find out who prosecuted it and the juror obviously did not tell them because no one asked, OR< she did not know who the prosecutor was. JMO

 

[TexMex]

^^ this is the piece of info that I think should have been easy to discover .. all anyone had to do was check his court records .. I mean they're already right there, like at the courthouse and stuff .. and they must have known it was in the same county .. I mean ..

Yep. Juan has been in the Maricopa County Atty office since 1988. If it was required to disclose where the ex was convicted then chances were high Juan might be involved

 

[HarvestMoon]

^^ this is the piece of info that I think should have been easy to discover .. all anyone had to do was check his court records .. I mean they're already right there, like at the courthouse and stuff .. and they must have known it was in the same county .. I mean ..

And don't you think they would?

 

[RickshawFan]

OK so they only knew about the 1st husband's past but not the connection with Juan? Doesn't make sense to me

And not the second husband's past either?

 

[LambChop]

Didn't JA want the names of the juror's so her PI could do a "background" check?

 

[garthmax]

I understand, Wizzy. CA result left me shell shocked too. I think, though, right now very few here are expressing disappointment at the verdict. I, for one, am fine with LWOP, but not fine with a possibly dishonest juror, especially if anyone else was involved. Time will tell.

I agree. I would have liked DP and would fully accept LWOP, because that is what she will be getting. However, to have a juror who basically said ** to the judicial system really pi$$es off. What will happen if MDLR , Willmott, and Nurmi if they knew that this juror knew JM pros her husband and didn't inform the judge? Can't start the trial over. Would the Alexanders be able to file a lawsuit against them?

 

[turaj]

Troy Hayden &#8207;@troyhaydenfox10 13m13 minutes ago#jodiarias def atty Jennifer Willmott told me she did not know #juror17's husband was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. #Fox10PhoenixTroy Hayden &#8207;@troyhaydenfox10 27m27 minutes ago#jodiarias atty Jennifer Willmott, "We all knew (#Juror17's) 1st husband had a past. If Juan didn't check it out, that's his fault."---------------I'm confused.

The defense and state probably knew during voir dire about this but not about that past involving JM.

 

[steelman]

I think there may have been the chance that Juan DID try to get this juror excluded, but due to all the secrecy in the JSS courtroom, who would really know ?

 

[LinTX]

Both sides knew that 1st husband had a past, but neither bothered to find out who prosecuted it and the juror obviously did not tell them because no one asked, OR< she did not know who the prosecutor was. JMO

Yeah, I get the words, but if she didn't know either, then I think it's kind of odd for her to throw it into Juan's lap for not knowing. One statement or the other would make sense as a response to the question, but not both. IMO

 

[bettybaby00]

Not I, but maybe if JM hadn't had to spend all waking hours outside the courtroom addressing their 8,700+ worthless motions, he might have had time for that kind of stuff.

Seriously, especially the ones concerning tampering of evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct.

I have no idea how the system works, but are we really at a point that once jurors are selected they need to be investigated to ensure their are no conflicts or hidden agendas???

What a sad state of affairs.

ETA: well I guess the $3.7 mil was well spent wasn't it? SMH

This is why I said earlier "I hate this winning at all costs" mentality typically employed by defense teams, especially when the defendent is clearly guilty!!!!

 

[MeeBee]

All I know is some lowly paralegal is going to lose their job over this.

No. It is not part of Juan's job to go through and find tiny little details about each potential juror because there is an expectation that they have been honest. It never crossed his mind or anyone else's that he should check that he didn't prosecute her ex husband. And how could have successfully done that when he doesn't have his name and she doesn't share his last name either? She was open about his past which probably signaled to him that she wasn't hiding anything and being open. It's not his fault. It is hers and hers alone.

 

[TexMex]

Didn't JA want the names of the juror's so her PI could do a "background" check?

The PI that suddenly died during penalty phase?

 

[sammie]

WOW-Whee!!! There you have it! DT is always smarter then rest of the world!! (I'm being sarcastic)

Of course they are...CMJA's *Einstein level IQ has obviously rubbed off on her attorneys*. LOL...snark by me. :laughing:

 

[krkrjx]

Have the backgrounds of ALL the jurors been audited and every skeleton exposed or just juror #17? This juror is NOT the one who violently murdered Travis Alexander. She did not deem that it met the criteria to warrant a DP for Jodi Arias.

Why is juror #17 being crucified for this?

Juror is not being crucified. She's being criticized, but not because of her opinion that the case did not meet criteria for death.

She's being criticized for having an agenda that flies in the face of current laws in Arizona. She doesn't like DP; fine, many people don't like DP. But if you are not totally honest during voir dire and thus get yourself on a jury, you need to follow the laws and the jury instructions, regardless of your personal beliefs. THAT's why she's being criticized, and rightfully so, IMO.

With that said, I am not unhappy with the outcome.

I am saddened that it took so long and so much effort to get to this point because given the brutality of the crime and complete lack of remorse from the killer, this whole thing really was a no-brainer. I regret that our laws allow citizens to be maligned and basically crucified, if you will, after death in a court of law of all places! I find it unfortunate that people with an agenda think it is acceptable to willfully circumvent justice in order to make their point rather than put forth some effort to get laws changed.

Jodi Arias is going to prison. She is not getting out. Had she receive the Death Penalty I think her case would be given extra attention with the possibility of her eventually getting a do-over of sorts. That is so much more unlikely to happen now, and there is a lot to be said for that, IMO.

Still, none of that excuses a juror for refusing to participate in a task that they indicated they could and would participate in. I consider that juror a coward. It is unfortunate there cannot be legal ramifications for citizens who lie during voir dire or who refuse to follow instructions given by the court.

Rant over.

 

[Jmoose]

WOW-Whee!!! There you have it! DT is always smarter then rest of the world!! (I'm being sarcastic)

They are smarter, by virtue of the fact that they have more money to spend on researchers, paralegals, etc.

 

[josie1986]

troy needs to keep digging with this.

out of all the reporters that have covered this,to me he is by far the most thorough.

can't believe the cheek of willmott,its always someone elses fault.
remind us of anyone?

 

[ShadyLady]

Didn't JA want the names of the juror's so her PI could do a "background" check?

Was it the PI? I remember something like that. That could have been an avenue of contact. Did something happen to PI, I can't remember.

 

[Luvrosco]

As upset as I was yesterday, I felt so much better after listening to the comments of the 11 jurors. So Jodi,Maria and the DT you lucked out. In reality the rest of the jury wanted death for your client. They saw through all your shenanigans and dirty tricks. I wouldn't be patting myself on the back if I were you. Special snowflake was still convicted of first degree premeditated murder.

 

[~Lyric~]

If they knew, could they have made in roads to this juror? Just wondering.

I could only speculate, because after all, we don't have all the facts, just bits n pieces. However, I said this before and I will say it again, the DT investigated all these jurors. Did they approach her, that would be to dang obvious....I do think tho, that Nurmi was speaking to her "Vote your beliefs, don't let anyone persuade you. Vote what you think is right..Don't let anyone talk you out of it."

When there was a confusion about juror #17, we found out it was #17 from previous jury that was going to be on Dr. Drew. This #17 from penalty phase was brought into chambers, and then she survived. Seems they got her # (who she was, type of person she was) from this meeting.

When it came to something that "might" pertain to a juror, we were all on pins and needles. #17 survived another day.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Whoa!! Kinda true though. Love Juan, but it was his job to make sure there were no jurors there who'd be biased towards the defense, would it be his paralegals who were supposed to check into jurors up for selection, does anyone know how all that works?

I'm not 100% sure here (paging our legal eagles, please!!!!!)...but I'm also under the impression that if the defense is aware of it, they don't have to turn that info over, that the prosecution is responsible for vetting, as well.

Anyone know for sure?

But Jen sure could have been professional about it. And.......she wasn't. Imagine that.