Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[Mrs G Norris]

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.

Isn't he given the op to exclude certain jurors, isn't that the point of jury selection .. wouldn't that info have been useful? I bet they do it from now on.

 

[JudyBolton]

Yep. I agree with all you said. You said it much nicer.

Not sure how well the "attempt to shame fellow WSers is gonna work". Nor trying to take some higher moral ground. Doesn't make for honest debate, imo.

So glad jurors spoke up! It was so frustrating with the Casey Anthony trial. And I am glad some of the jurors from the first JA spoke up. Thank god it is their right to speak in this country! Freedom to speak and all.

I say it's not going to work at all - it's been going on and on and on and I think everyone has been quite decent about it. This is much, much worse than just some juror who has a different opinion than the remaining 11 - to try to frame it in those terms is being dismissive of proven facts and disparages those of us who have spent years following this trial. I personally do not appreciate the accusations.

 

[ICit]

Here are some MSM links with info regarding Juror #17:


From AZ Central:

We do know, according longtime court reporter Beth Karas, the juror is a Hispanic woman in her 20s. She saw domestic violence growing up, she was in an abusive relationship with her ex-husband. She told the court she sought counseling for her two daughters.

12 News has discovered court records revealing her current husband is a convicted felon.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ews-jodi-arias-juror-jury-death-row/24482501/


Jurors said the holdout kept using the word "revenge" in relation to the death penalty. They asked if there was a circumstance in which she felt like she could agree to sentence someone to death; she was unable to provide such a scenario, they said.

Jurors said the holdout had told them she had watched at least parts of a made-for-TV-movie about the case; they said they believe she had formulated an opinion before deliberations began.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/03/05/jodi-arias-jury-holdout-failed/24445427/


The jurors said they sensed a potential bias coming from the holdout juror and at one point they asked for an alternative juror:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...2-news-arias-jurors-holdout-verdict/24459779/


From KPHO

CBS 5 News spoke with the husband of the 12th juror, the one holdout against the death penalty for Jodi Arias.

The husband of the juror who wanted life in prison for Arias asked that his identity not be released since he says his family is already receiving threats.

Argos: Did she tell you what the feeling was like inside of that jury room?
Husband: Yeah, she said she felt like she was being assaulted by all the other jurors ... trying to get her to go the other way. She held strong to her beliefs and I'm proud of her for that.

http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/jurors-husband-she-felt-like-she-was-being-assaulted

Does anyone know what time KPHO spoke to her husband? If it was before her name was outed on the Internet then how did they know where to go? Did they follow her home or did the husband contact them?
GOSSIP: unconfirmed gossip was that he was trying to sell her interview on line. UNCONFIRMED! Does anyone know?

 

[ShadyLady]

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!!!!

Defense was all about projection. Nurmi even had the gall to say Travis gutted JA. Despicable. How can those words come out of his mouth, iirc, imo. Mudslinging.

 

[turaj]

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.

would really help to see the voir dire...I assume if this was on her questionaire they would have asked her...she told them ex husband back in 2000 and they ask if that would in any way affect her ability to be fair and impartial and she says no and it goes on.....I don't know about the current husband his legal problems.

 

[Nosey Parker]

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

or did JSS err in not asking the apparently standard question about 'knowing' any of the attorneys?

 

[garthmax]

Hypothetical question: If there was jury tampering on the defense side would double jeopardy still apply?

 

[Shelby1]

Troy Hayden &#8207;@troyhaydenfox10 4m4 minutes ago
To clarify: Willmott said both sides knew #juror17's 1st husband had "a past." But says she did not know Juan Martinez prosecuted case.

 

[Hez]

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 ?

The only ones that have acted with complete transparency were the 11 jurors. They revealed exactly what happened in the deliberation room, and the contents of the note they sent to the judge about Juror 17 bringing in outside evidence (Lifetime movie) and refusing to deliberate. Juror 17 sends a note to the judge and it gets sealed. Maybe if that note wasn't sealed, we would know more about Juror 17's position, but thanks to the judge, we won't know that and are forced to speculate.

 

[MissHaley]

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.

Sounds like Troy is trying to cover for her until what comes out in the investigation. Because first she says she knew about ex's past, & too bad, so sad for Juan. But, she should have reported it to the court. Now, they're backing, maybe?

 

[sammie]

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

A total guess on my part, but if Troy was interviewing her, he may have asked her 2 separate questions. The first one, she acted all smug in answering, of course we knew, if Juan didn't, too bad. But then he lowered the boom and asked the next part of the question....but Jen, did you ALSO know that Juan Martinez was one who prosecuted and convicted her ex-husband in 2000. The flabbergasted, more humble Jen then replies, well no, I didn't know Juan prosecuted her ex-husband. heheh

 

[ShadyLady]

The PI that suddenly died during penalty phase?

OMG...that's RIGHT. The PI that JA put in charge of investigating the jurors was given the list!! Who gave them a copy. Might also be how JAII website got it.

 

[MissHaley]

Troy Hayden &#8207;@troyhaydenfox10 4m4 minutes ago
To clarify: Willmott said both sides knew #juror17's 1st husband had "a past." But says she did not know Juan Martinez prosecuted case.

See what Troy's doing here...

 

[sammie]

Hypothetical question: If there was jury tampering on the defense side would double jeopardy still apply?

I don't have the link but Yes or NO posted in the sidebar thread about this issue. There is a precedent for double jeopardy not applying under a similar circumstance. So sorry I don't have the link handy.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Does anyone know what time KPHO spoke to her husband? If it was before her name was outed on the Internet then how did they know where to go? Did they follow her home or did the husband contact them?
GOSSIP: unconfirmed gossip was that he was trying to sell her interview on line. UNCONFIRMED! Does anyone know?

The interview was posted online by them at 5.33pm yesterday. No idea how they got their names....

 

[Soulsad]

Go to the top of the page and click on 'settings'. It will take you to a new page. Look on the left of the new page and click on 'EDIT IGNORE LIST'. You type in the user name of those you wish to ignore and be sure you confirm. You will no longer get the posts from the ignored poster(s). Instead you will see something similar to - You cannot see this post because said poster is on your ignore list. You will also see 'remove poster from ignore list' so you don't have to block them forever.

I've had to use this feature myself since the verdict just to preserve my own sanity.
Hugs

I know I have seen this discussed but I cannot find it or figure it out...how do you block someone?

NVM...found it. thanks

 

[TexMex]

Troy

ALERT: J. Martinez prosecuted ex-husband of holdout juror 17. They married day before his 2000 sentencing. #jodiarias pic.twitter.com/ZuR5wELH27

 

[steelman]

What we really need in here is a verified attorney to explain what might happen if this juror lied her way onto the jury, was planted there by unknown means, or a combination of the two. What would the legal avenues be ?

I'm not an attorney, but I'll be happy to play one if you guys want to throw questions at me that you want answered. Before you accept my advice and opinions though, I suggest that you consult with a real-life attorney in order to keep yourself out of hot water.

 

[turaj]

The only ones that have acted with complete transparency were the 11 jurors. They revealed exactly what happened in the deliberation room, and the contents of the note they sent to the judge about Juror 17 bringing in outside evidence (Lifetime movie) and refusing to deliberate. Juror 17 sends a note to the judge and it gets sealed. Maybe if that note wasn't sealed, we would know more about Juror 17's position, but thanks to the judge, we won't know that and are forced to speculate.

Those jurors were organized and had a message they wanted to get out...even the alternates...I don't ever recall all of the jurors being willing to talk after a verdict or being hung....never all of them...that says alot about them really thinking this was a big problem with juror 17. They said they liked JSS but I guess I would have been pretty frustrated that she could not or would not deal with the situation...it seems that if she tried to "dynamite" them again some were going to leave...must have been awful...I am a bit surprised that no media noticed this juror who I assume must have left alone most often as it sounds like this started right on first day of deliberations.

 

[jojo87]

Have we read this yet? From 2006 regarding jury selection and background checks etc. Very interesting.
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/rogue_jurors