Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[smeck]

IT is true. There have been sentences overturned because of this exact thing. Even if the Judges send them back with the Allen charge it has been used to appeal. I don't remember who I was watching but she was quoting cases in which because the Judge sent them back or removed jurors that the sentencing was appealed and they won.

It is touchy. I know I have gone back and forth a billion times. After listening to the jurors and sitting down and going through the photos, I think they were right. She deserved death. She really is something. But in the end it is LWOP and I think that will work better on this case in the long run. It takes her out of the limelight and sends her to a shed to live out her life.

Thank you Scarlett----I love reading your posts----they make so much sense! We both agree that LWOP is the best sentence. I just hope JSS will agree.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

What makes you say this?

Process of elimination + her connection to the site.

 

[Boytwnmom]

for the Judge to impose the DP. At least in some other states, the jury imposes DP by something less than unanimity. This is an unfortunate poster case for why that is a bad thing. One person should not be able to derail a proceeding, especially when judges refuse to act when notified by 11 jurors that the 12th is refusing to deliberate. A perfect storm of bad. Kind of par for the course for this trial. As I think I said in another post to KCL, at least we can take good advantage of having such a good bad poster case to attract attention. The millions wasted, the bad judicial oversight, the dishonest juror, the failure to intervene when the jury cries out for help, it's all so bad it may end up doing good.

I would also note that I think only about 3 states permit less than majority and I think that a move to majority came after the same Ring v AZ case that found the Judge decision unconstitutional. Two states have simple majority and one has super majority 10-2. I think maybe simple majority too subject to criticism but some kind of super majority seems constitutionally fair.

KCL you bring up an interesting point: If judges impose sentence it is more likely to fit the crime.

We are entitled in this country to a jury of our peers but that was never meant to mean for sentencing.

I think the jury should be totally removed from the penalty phase of trials in this country--in all states.

Another rant, sorry. (At least it was short this time.)

 

[Ruby]

But she did not disclose the violent crime he was prosecute for, apparently, only the non violent burglary. At that time Juan was prosecuting homicides so it would reasonably never cross his or anyone's mind that he prosecuted a burglary in the mid 2000s when he was not prosecuting those kinds of crimes.

We do not know if the question had a time frame associated with it - In the past 10 years .....?

I still would like to see the questions asked - I've seen the answers and she may think she was being smart by not including ALL of ex's past,
but that has surely bit her on the backside.

The state should get some interns to go over jurors and check to make sure they are legit.
The lawyers are busy enough and law students could use the experience.
Just an opinion.

 

[MissHaley]

What truly boggles the rational mind is-during all this, MLDR keeps tweeting & also the Killer's tweets. Not just tweets, but still vile, insulting messages to the world, Travis' family, name calling against the 11, etc. One would think, it's time to shut up. KWIM? They can't stop their evil self's, ever? Why do they keep fighting? It's over.

 

[kolokolo]

way behind here but WOW.

did she think no one would find all this? :facepalm:

JMHO .... Juror #17 is now being squeezed by LE as there is now an investigation, and the criminal element that put her up to hanging the verdict.

Those blogs/facebook and such may not have even been done by her, but the criminal element put those up for their security to keep her from talking.

If it is found that she did indeed lie to get on the jury panel she will be prosecuted, jail time most likely. If it is found that she was put up to it by the criminal element and she talks well who knows what may happen.

 

[MeeBee]

We do not know if the question had a time frame associated with it - In the past 10 years .....?

I still would like to see the questions asked - I've seen the answers and she may think she was being smart by not including ALL of ex's past,
but that has surely bit her on the backside.

The state should get some interns to go over jurors and check to make sure they are legit.
The lawyers are busy enough and law students could use the experience.
Just an opinion.

I doubt that. They ask those questions to gauge the person's feelings on how they feel about the legal process overall. For instance if a potential juror had a family member who killed someone when they were younger tbeyd want to know about that as feelings are not likely to change just because it was longer than 10 years ago. They want to know about it all in voir dire. Jurors are also asked if they know anyone from the trial. Not just from the last 10 years. And she did not reveal that she knew Juan Martinez.

 

[cady]

What truly boggles the rational mind is-during all this, MLDR keeps tweeting & also the Killer's tweets. Not just tweets, but still vile, insulting messages to the world, Travis' family, name calling against the 11, etc. One would think, it's time to shut up. KWIM? They can't stop their evil self's, ever? Why do they keep fighting? It's over.

Let her DO it! She is cooking her own goose! JMO

 

[RR0004]

Not in my opinion. She did not even mention the 2000 case involving her ex during voir dire. When asked about his crime, she only mentions his 2008 Verizon robbery.

The 2000 crime was initially charged as 1st degree murder, and pled down to aggravated assault.


She intentionally didn't mention the 2000 conviction because that is the one Juan prosecuted. I think they can charge her on that basis alone.

If she failed to admit to that- and there is record of it- she would be wise to keep her mouth shut and hire an attorney...'cause IMO, she'll need one.

 

[arkansas mom]

I am fine with LWOP as she will mainly be forgotten. She will be removed from the death penalty special action and not much chance if any to have her conviction overturned and no chance to have it reduced once imposed. I am, however, deeply disturbed as to how the juror's names were leaked and concerned about J17. If she withheld the 2000 conviction of her ex and the connection with the prosecutor knowingly, brought information into deliberations that was not evidence for consideration and had an anti death penalty agenda, then she was not qualified to sit on this jury and I hope it is proven and that she is prosecuted.

 

[garthmax]

My next postcard to CMJA: CMJA, The 11 members of the jury really liked Dr. DeMarte.
Followed by another postcard: CMJA, You sure have aged. What no make-up in prison?
Another: CMJA, The money from your tracings will go the the Alexanders'.
Another: CMJA, Dr. DeMarte has a brain, beauty, and really liked. What do you have?
Another: CMJA, All your commissary money will go to the Alexanders'.

I know this is really "teenage" but I have a smile on my face.

 

[daisydomino]

way behind here but WOW.

did she think no one would find all this? :facepalm:

It's weird that she left this up, but it's obviously class work. Hasn't anyone else ever had to write a persuasive speech or essay on a topic that is assigned and not chosen? I've had to do several where the object of the exercise was to write from a viewpoint that is opposite my own.

 

[Shadowboy]

I doubt that. They ask those questions to gauge the person's feelings on how they feel about the legal process overall. For instance if a potential juror had a family member who killed someone when they were younger tbeyd want to know about that as feelings are not likely to change just because it was longer than 10 years ago. They want to know about it all in voir dire. Jurors are also asked if they know anyone from the trial. Not just from the last 10 years. And she did not reveal that she knew Juan Martinez.

ABA Journal article about rogue jurors and achieving honesty during voir dire; talks about the use of background checks, too: http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/rogue_jurors

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am happy with LWOP and I agree that it may have been the best outcome but saying it "could" have been appealed if she removed the juror doesn't sit right with me. You still have to follow the rules and let the appeal court do their job.

It may not sit right but that is the way it works out. It looks then like the Judge is trying to manipulate the outcome and so it is appealed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My next postcard to CMJA: CMJA, The 11 members of the jury really liked Dr. DeMarte.
Followed by another postcard: CMJA, You sure have aged. What no make-up in prison?
Another: CMJA, The money from your tracings will go the the Alexanders'.
Another: CMJA, Dr. DeMarte has a brain, beauty, and really liked. What do you have?
Another: CMJA, All your commissary money will go to the Alexanders'.

I know this is really "teenage" but I have a smile on my face.

To me this serves no purpose. Any attention to her is good attention. Silence and loneliness will hurt her the worst.

 

[garthmax]

Let her DO it! She is cooking her own goose! JMO

What is so scary about MDLR is how CMJA has totally manipulated her. Or is it two peas in a pod?

 

[MeeBee]

ABA Journal article about rogue jurors and achieving honesty during voir dire; talks about the use of background checks, too: http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/rogue_jurors

Well slap me hard.

 

[turaj]

It's weird that she left this up, but it's obviously class work. Hasn't anyone else ever had to write a persuasive speech or essay on a topic that is assigned and not chosen? I've had to do several where the object of the exercise was to write from a viewpoint that is opposite my own.

court chatter has taken this down now as it simply is not confirmed that it is her...it may be but really needs to be vetted .

 

[Wizzy]

ABC15 Arizona ‏@abc15 3h3 hours ago Exclusive VIDEO: Jodi Arias jurors weigh in on sentencing http://on.abc15.com/1DVAiNV #abc15

I was slightly troubled by watching this interview. It must have been very intense in the deliberation room. The lady juror said she had to apologize, so there is one of the reasons #17 probably wrote to JSS, she felt aggression. This was most likely a big reason why JSS couldn't release #17. By this time JSS could most likely figured out there was 1 lone juror for life. So now I have to believe that JSS had to give the instruction to try to come to a verdict and at the same time she stated in her words that if you believed your verdict/opinion you didn't have to change your mind. Better to have a mistrial than have a DP verdict overturned by an appeal. JMOO

 

[Shadowboy]

Court Chatter has removed the article about the Prezi presentation due to lack of proof for authorship.

(Well I tried to delete this when I saw turaj's post above ... but it's still here. Sorry for the repeat info!)