Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[elementary]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 2h2 hours 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.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

BBM. And yes, we should care about our judicial process. Whether J-17 did her duty or whether she walked in with a preconceived verdict really doesn't matter now. What does matter (IMO) is: Did she lie to get on the jury?

I know no amount of investigation will prove she lied. But IMO, it's entirely fair that to look at what she stated, under oath, and scrutinize it. IMO, doing so will not have a chilling effect on future jurors; but it might have a "chilling effect" on any prospective jurors who are not completely truthful and transparent during jury selection. All my opinion, of course!

Exactly my point. An effort should be made to deter this in the future. Just shrugging at this and going "oh well, move along. nothing to see here" invites more of the same later on.

IF there was juror misconduct here and if it can be proven, then this high-profile case is an opportunity to illustrate what will not be tolerated by future jurors.

 

[turaj]

They knew that the juror's husband was connected with Juan and yet they didn't bring that to the attention of the judge?????? And this is okay????? They knew throughout the entire trial?

It surely sounds like the DT also took advantage of it, in ways we may not possibly know. Geez.

i just don't see where anyone here knows that..Jw said they (both sides) knew her ex husband had a criminal past...I don't think it went any further...they felt is was not a problem...could have been a day where they had one hardship case after another...maybe a few non english speakers etc. and she stayed in the process.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If it is what's out on there on twitter, same guy who has been posting documents and been right all along. Mods can ShadyLady or someone post the transcript of Juror #17s voir dire?

I don't know about posting stuff here that's meant to be behind a paywall though?

 

[LinTX]

If it is what's out on there on twitter, same guy who has been posting documents and been right all along. Mods can ShadyLady or someone post the transcript of Juror #17s voir dire?

I have seen BK's entry for #17 posted on twitter - she did juror notes on several of them and that is one.

 

[turaj]

If it is what's out on there on twitter, same guy who has been posting documents and been right all along. Mods can ShadyLady or someone post the transcript of Juror #17s voir dire?

really like to see it

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Sorry-she married her first felon the day before or the day after he was sentenced. Don't you think their reception was an "I hate Juan Martinez" party? She knew who prosecuted him-I'd bet money on it. Unless she never talked to her husband about anything, and never went to his trial

I'm of the thought that if my hubby was to be sentenced the day after I got married, I would show up to court.
Can we prove it at this point? Probably not, but I would think odds are considerably better that she WAS in attendance, versus not being there in the courtroom. If she WAS there, again...what are the odds she didn't recognize Juan's name, physical characteristics or LOL, court demeanor

At this point, it takes MORE effort to think of reasons for her to NOT have recognized Juan, than common sense to believe that she knew and stayed silent.

JMO, of course.

 

[sammie]

I don't know about posting stuff here that's meant to be behind a paywall though?

If it's what I'm seeing he thanks Beth and others that have given them their notes, and it's completely free to see on Twitter. Credit is given along with thanks, so Im assuming he had permission to post it to the twitterverse, but obviously the mods get to make the call.

 

[Tillicum]

I can't help but wonder if #17's connection to JA is a "womanizer" in her past rather than DV. During the trial I wasn't concerned about a juror relating to JA's accusations of DV because most DV victims could see through it. My concern was for a juror who had been involved with a true "womanizer" because some women can't seem to be able to get over their anger and move on.

 

[Greater Than]

Troy Hayden ‏@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.

She's back pedaling. IMO she knew. And I think when the DT found out, they were keeping it as their trump card in the event the jury came back with the DP. Perfect grounds for appeal. MOO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You're Welcome!!! The latest update from Fox10 (http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/2...-husband-has-ties-to-prosecutor-juan-martinez) indicates county officials are actively investigating this, and "they" aren't commenting, ... which is (IMO) a good thing. No need to compromise an ongoing investigation.

Now, the Super Secret Courtroom of Judge Stephens? THAT's another story.

If she married her ex the day before he was sentenced its a sure bet she was in court the day he was sentenced and Juan would be there also. So she knew. You don't forget someone like Juan. She wouldn't forget the Prosecutor that put her new hubby away.

If this woman has committed perjury she really needs to be charged with it. The DA must send a strong message to the community that this kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated by anyone who becomes a juror. If it is proven she perjured herself.... then because of this the state paid all of these millions for nothing when in truth if she wasn't on there ..........the just and right punishment would have been rendered yesterday. Not one of the other jurors... not even alternates would have voted for life.

Imo, she was a biased stealth juror right from the start. The others weren't in sync either with only 5 wanting death early on but the other 6 undecided were willing to discuss/deliberate and hear everyone's side (including #17s side) and finally came to be in agreement with the other five. That shows the other 6 kept an open mind knowing they were undecided at the first. Juror #17 wouldn't budge, wouldn't even discuss with why and when she felt death was appropriate but instead tried to shame them all when she told them the death penalty was about 'revenge.' And she knew beforehand she wasn't there to decide another defendant's fate. She signed on to the JA DP case and it was her sentence she knew from the get go was the issue at hand.

It is just common sense that the one who is the lone holdout should be the one explaining their position and why.... yet she refused. She was iron clad anti-death penalty going in, imo.

I noticed that her ex was first accused of murder. FGS what kind of men does this woman hang around and doesn't she have children and isn't she married to an ex-felon now?

I think her vote was nothing more than to get back at the system that had put her first husband away and convicted her present husband as well. If anyone would hate the criminal justice system it would be this woman.

I have a feeling that she was yapping to her husband the entire time she was on the case too and it wouldn't be surprising if he told her to holdout. Maybe he thought if she was the only holdout there would be money to be made somewhere. I did see on here today I believe where he said yesterday that she will tell her story for money.

Maybe she relates to criminals more than upstanding citizens like Travis and his family.

She may want to get a lawyer instead.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

This has probably been posted before, but it is interesting. Lone holdout juror "could" be in some serious legal trouble if what we have heard pans out.

Snipped from article:

"They are fairly standard jury selection questions: Do you know any of the defendants? Do you know the defendant’s wife? Have you, a close relative or friend been the victim of, witness to or charged with a crime in the last 10 years?

Jovanda Blackson, a prospective juror in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, answered no to each of those questions during voir dire last year, ensuring her place on the panel that would decide the fate of two men charged with murder.

Trouble is, Blackson did know one of the defendants. She did know his wife. And, while this mother of three had no criminal record, a couple of her relatives—including her brother—did.

Unfortunately, the judge and prosecutors didn’t know that until after Blackson succeeded in hanging the jury, prompting a mistrial for both defendants. Only later, thanks to a tip from a jailhouse informant, were suspicions from her fellow jurors confirmed and the truth emerged.





http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/rogue_jurors

 

[sammie]

Well I will throw out one glaring discrepancy , and I'm fairly new at the sleuthing game. But Juror #17 (in her voir dire) claims her then husband didn't enter prison until "they were separated", yet Troy Hayden says he was sentenced the day after they married. For a violent crime, don't they usually go straight to Prison, do not pass go and collect $200?

How could YOU NOT remember he was sentenced and went to jail the day after your wedding?


Also, the initial charge he faced was 1st degree murder, and it was later reduced, to aggravated assault. Just wow. And she was dating him for awhile before he was charged.

I haven't read everything in it's entirety, but so far the "abuse" she claims she suffered was not all that severe, at least in my book.

 

[concernedmother]

I think that her and hubby thought if she held out there would be alot of money to be made if she was "The Lone Juror." jmo I sure hope someone gets to the bottom of this. It wont change things for Jodi but this kind of stuff needs to be dealt with and a stern message sent so it doesn't happen again.

 

[Greater Than]

I think it's great that media people are getting involved. But we shouldn't be hearing what's happening through them. The folks who are looking into this should come out and state what they're doing. No more behind the scenes secret cr*p. It takes a lot to get me angry, but after hearing all the stuff that's been coming out today, I'm pi$$ed beyond belief. I want to hear from the people in the know. Did this juror lie on her questionnaire??!! Yes or no. Was she asked if she had any connection to any of those involved in the case (we know this question was asked!!)? Yes or no. We've heard about the tweets, we've heard about the postings, we've heard enough about the juror to warrant us finding out from the people in charge (the courts and the county attorney) what the he$$ is going on!! IMPO, the public has a right to know...once and for all, stop the cr*p and lets have some transparency here.
Thanks for letting me vent.

Let's add the the subject of that secret meeting with #17 and the attorneys in JSS's chambers shortly after trial started to your list.

 

[turaj]

I can't help but wonder if #17's connection to JA is a "womanizer" in her past rather than DV. During the trial I wasn't concerned about a juror relating to JA's accusations of DV because most DV victims could see through it. My concern was for a juror who had been involved with a true "womanizer" because some women can't seem to be able to get over their anger and move on.

out of curiosity I went to Jen wood's twitter page and she has the questions and answers for juror 17...she was pretty upfront with them about her past including some serious abuse of relatives and she herself in previous marriage...I mean as she describes it sounds just like JA describing Travis...she also told them about the criminal pasts of both husbands...so that is the self reporting on the questionaire....now they had to have delved further into some of this during the interview...if i had been Juan with her description of the abuse and relationship she would have been gone...I'm not understanding this. She did say she could consider DP but admitted really never thinking about it. I do believe some people say I "could" do it but until faced with it then find out they can't.

 

[RickshawFan]

For those that subscribe to Beth Karas' site- another forum has posted the voir dire on 17- c&p from her site.

That's unethical, IMO Folks have access to BK's site via a fee. The site comes about from her hard work and because she has paid for documents.

 

[QueenD]

I don't know about posting stuff here that's meant to be behind a paywall though?

What's a paywall?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[concernedmother]

I'm of the thought that if my hubby was to be sentenced the day after I got married, I would show up to court.
Can we prove it at this point? Probably not, but I would think odds are considerably better that she WAS in attendance, versus not being there in the courtroom. If she WAS there, again...what are the odds she didn't recognize Juan's name, physical characteristics or LOL, court demeanor

At this point, it takes MORE effort to think of reasons for her to NOT have recognized Juan, than common sense to believe that she knew and stayed silent.

JMO, of course.

JM is a tiger of the fiercest kind. I cant imagine anyone being in a court room with this man not remembering him. And if he is prosecuting you or a family member no way in hell are you gonna forget this man. jmo

 

[Hat]

#17 make a great cellie for Jodi.
They could do time together.