Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[katiecoolady]

bad in so many ways that it ends up being the perfect bad example you need to affect change. And it continues. Now you have this additional facet. The lying juror with an agenda. The JSS who wouldn't listen to the 11. The result being the waste of the millions of dollars spent, primarily by the slimy defense, on this trial. I still think they may uncover actual wrongdoing by someone associated with the defense. The secrecy of this trial which may have worked in favor the agenda of that juror. The inability of JSS to manage the proceedings, to keep to a schedule, to appropriately limit evidence, to freaking follow the constitution. You've got a beauty of a case here to work with. It's just so sad it ended up with creating more victims in the 11 jurors and continuing the victimization of the family. This trial should horrify anyone. Seven years and millions of dollars should not have been needed to put this clearly guilty killer away forever. She still hasn't been sentenced....

Pardon me while I stand up and applaud!!!

 

[krkrjx]

I don't know why this kind of disgusting behavior still shocks me, but it does. However, even though I know JA is not tweeting and these may not be her words, all of the tweets post retrial display a lot of anger. This tells me that JA and her camp aren't happy at all with this outcome. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise. Maybe JA wanted the DP so that she could have unlimited appeals because she sure believes she is going to have a successful appeal.

With life, I know she gets one appeal, at least. What happens after that? Can she pay for more herself or ??? I've tried to find this answer on my own and have been unsuccessful.

I would not be surprised if they expected and maybe even hoped it would be a death verdict. That way, she gets a lot of sympathy and attention. They could stomp their feet a lot louder about "the injustice of it all" and how "the death penalty is all about revenge" and so on.

They can't do so much of that now...ha ha.

 

[steelman]

At first I thought this juror was paid off. Now we know what happen. I think there is more to come. HELLO PANDORA.

It's possible she WAS paid off, promised something, coerced or influenced by others. The investigation continues......it's just barely getting started at this point. I'm more concerned about evidence being destroyed than anything.

 

[AZWatcher]

Lots of accusations flying around.....want to back them up? Veiled threats? Who?
I don't need to take a deep breath! I need to see a wrong righted. And, it's absolutely true....I could NEVER put myself in J17's place. I'm not a liar with an agenda to place myself on a jury to "save" a killer.

It's entirely possible the accusations being leveled against #17 are true. Unfortunately, we will never know for sure what drove her to her decision unless she talks. I should have clarified better. My comments were mainly concerning other Internet blogs I read elsewhere.

 

[katiecoolady]

I'm sorry you chose to take my comments personally. My intention was not to disqualify your status as a family member of a murder victim. I was simply pointing to the fact that this juror chose NOT to speak out on her feelings, which are hers and hers alone. I think it unreasonable for strangers to "warn" her and ascribe implications that may not apply to her. No offense intended.

Edited to address katiecoolday

No worries AZWatcher. I wasn't sure if you were referring to my blog when you mentioned blogs as I am directly addressing juror 17 and if you weren't, which I'm still unclear but that's cool, then moot point! I agree, I don't think she should be threatened in any form. I was simply going on some of the jurors statements (some now made to me privately) and I believe them. The other stuff will remain to be seen. It doesn't look good for her at all though and I do think a legal consequence NEEDS to be made for stealth jurors so that doesn't set yet another ugly precedence in this trial.

Peace!

 

[Madeleine74]

Along with investigating Juror 17 to see how she got on the panel, I do hope the prosecutor's office will also take a look at how this went down in voir dire from their side. Before you all shoot me (dons Kevlar vest), I've said this before, but jury selection is the most important point in a trial. Cases are won and lost right there. Even though that doesn't seem fair, that's just how it is.

Look at high profile cases in which jury consultants were employed. A lot of $$$$, even more than expert witnesses, are spent right at that point. Why? Because every attorney knows with certainty that the makeup of the jury will affect and sometimes outright determine the end result. OJ Simpson case? Lost at the point the trial was moved 'downtown LA' and at the point the last juror was selected. Then the judge helped too, with his ridiculous rulings.

Casey Anthony case? Lost at the point of jury selection. Remember how Blowhard Perry insisted a juror be included, a juror who outright said "I don't believe it's right for me to judge anyone?" I mean, c'mon!

There were potential red flags with this juror just with her background and the things she did disclose. Yet both sides said 'ok' with putting her on the jury. Maybe the state didn't have a choice if they used up all their challenges, but still. She was not excused for cause and now there appears to perhaps have been cause.

 

[steelman]

Unless the juror's names have been released we are not going to put them up here. Especially, J17, unless her name is released by the media or LE.

Can we come up with some "pet" names for her as long as there isn't any profanity involved ?

 

[katiecoolady]

It's entirely possible the accusations being leveled against #17 are true. Unfortunately, we will never know for sure what drove her to her decision unless she talks. I should have clarified better. My comments were mainly concerning other Internet blogs I read elsewhere.

I'm less concerned with what drove her decision as her behavior described by her 11 fellow jurors. She simply did not follow the law and this concerns me greatly esp in this case.

 

[katiecoolady]

Along with investigating Juror 17 to see how she got on the panel, I do hope the prosecutor's office will also take a look at how this went down in voir dire from their side. Before you all shoot me (dons Kevlar vest), I've said this before, but jury selection is the most important point in a trial. Cases are won and lost right there. Even though that doesn't seem fair, that's just how it is.

Look at high profile cases in which jury consultants were employed. A lot of $$$$, even more than expert witnesses, are spent right at that point. Why? Because every attorney knows with certainty that the makeup of the jury will affect and sometimes outright determine the end result. OJ Simpson case? Lost at the point the trial was moved 'downtown LA' and at the point the last juror was selected. Then the judge helped too, with his ridiculous rulings.

There were potential red flags with this juror just with her background and the things she did disclose. Yet both sides said 'ok' with putting her on the jury. Maybe the state didn't have a choice if they used up all their challenges, but still. She was not excused for cause and now there appears to perhaps have been cause.

And....another round of applause.

View attachment 70713

 

[ICit]

QUESTION FOR ANY ATTORNEY:

NURMI used delays all through this trial, sometimes getting weeks long delays. When it was all coming to an end he stood before the judge and said they needed yet another delay he claimed that the computer expert could not come for week or more and that Fonseca and Geffner could not come until much later, the judge finally called him on it by getting the computer expert on speaker phone in the court. Turns out he could be there much sooner than Nurmi said. She then said they would contact Geffner and Fonseca. It turned out Geffner could be there sooner too and then Nurmi did not call Fonseca to the stand.

Can Nurmi get into trouble for lying to the Judge? If so, what would be the consequences? Can Juan file a complaint with the bar? What would the possible outcomes if he did?

I believe Nurmi lied to the judge over and over again during this trial and caused the delays so he could continue billing without actually working.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I pray that no one pays Juror 17 and/or her husband for an interview. I think they are hoping that's what is going to happen. It may have even been a plan once she was on the jury and saw where everyone else was headed. Who knows, but this whole thing is appalling and I also find it appalling that there are some who think she did nothing wrong but vote her conscious and that she is being "attacked".

 

[Greater Than]

JAII has removed the 11 jurors' names.

Someone must be feeling some heat.

 

[krkrjx]

I believe that you may be mis-interpreting the outrage. Juror 17, would certainly be entitled to her opinion. That is not the issue. The fact that she evidently didn't want to deliberate, review evidence, explain to her fellow jurors her point of view...etc. is a big problem. When you swear to uphold the law and deliberate in good faith it means just that. Our entire judicial system depends on people being honest. If you have bias' or preconceived notions that are unshakeable, then be honest and state that when you are being vetted. It remains to be seen, but at this point it appears that #17 had issues and other perhaps questionable contacts that would have disqualified her. The perversion of the system is a big deal. All that being said no one is threatening #17 just wanting the truth and wanting a system we can trust. JMO

It is such a big deal that there should be consequences for those who do it. People commit perjury in courts all across the country on probably a daily basis--very little happens as a result.

If this county has to have death penalty then we need to fix some things, and fast. I have no problem with starting with consequences for jurors who knowingly and willfully do the wrong thing. I would never want this case (and many others for that matter) to go as far as being thrown out and Arias have to be retried all over again but I would have no problems with the problem juror being made to answer for her actions.

 

[SuzDuJour]

JAII has removed the 11 jurors' names.

Someone must be feeling some heat.

It isn't enough that they just removed the names. Someone needs to be prosecuted for putting them up in the first place.

 

[LambChop]

Can we come up with some "pet" names for her as long as there isn't any profanity involved ?

J17 as the juror's have identified her. For now, that is it. No name calling, for sure.

 

[garthmax]

BBM- yes, some have posted that they read on his FB (before he took it down) that he posted that his wife will take interviews "for the right price" & he was calling media for her. That's probably how the media shown up but when they wouldn't pay, she wouldn't come out. IMO

Do you suppose CMJA's tracings "were the right price"?

 

[cady]

Agree, the only thing I think people are perceiving as a "threat" is that she be investigated & charged for juror misconduct/perjury?

An investigation is appropriate and frightening if a person is innocent, but on the surface something is strange about this and needs to be looked into. I am not sure that it is a fact that she LIED, or a fact that she had an agenda to "save" a killer. When those things are PROVEN to be factual, we will be able to link to the facts and her name will be published. Like most, I strongly suspect, but I do not know FACTUAL truth yet. JMO

 

[Amster]

I pray that no one pays Juror 17 and/or her husband for an interview. I think they are hoping that's what is going to happen. It may have even been a plan once she was on the jury and saw where everyone else was headed. Who knows, but this whole thing is appalling and I also find it appalling that there are some who think she did nothing wrong but vote her conscious and that she is being "attacked".

Does "DR." Drew pay for interviews? If so, I expect to see them there.....

 

[AZWatcher]

No worries AZWatcher. I wasn't sure if you were referring to my blog when you mentioned blogs as I am directly addressing juror 17 and if you weren't, which I'm still unclear but that's cool, then moot point! I agree, I don't think she should be threatened in any form. I was simply going on some of the jurors statements (some now made to me privately) and I believe them. The other stuff will remain to be seen. It doesn't look good for her at all though and I do think a legal consequence NEEDS to be made for stealth jurors so that doesn't set yet another ugly precedence in this trial.

Peace!

I hadn't read your blog yet ! I just did and your thoughts were so articulate and hopefully will be shared with and bring comfort to TA's family. You are in a very unique, albeit unfortunate position to know just how torturous and unrelenting the death row process is for families to endure. I agree with you wholeheartedly that while this non-verdict feels like a blow, it may be easier in the long run in regards to Travis' family being able to move forward and heal. I wish you all the best, Katie!

 

[deedee21]

JSS had the chance to do the right thing. She blew it. She must know whats going on by now. It will be interesting to see how this plays out on April 13th. I wonder how much Jodi knows? Is someone getting the word out to her?