Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Had the issue of perjury of the jury been discovered after deliberations started - could the judge have removed the juror and placed an alternate? Or if any anti- death penalty documents (that might or might not exist) or communications by a sitting juror been revealed -- would this still have resulted in a mistrial?
 
unfortunately this is gonna die pretty fast unless AZ does some fast investigation and goes after this juror...in general the country as a whole does not even remember Jodi Arias and I don't think national media is going to take this very far...a few interviews with the jurors and it will be history. Only place to get info is here or similar sites. I don't know one person that cares about this case. Thanks to all here for keeping this alive and all the links etc.
 
Yes, but this juror speaking up had to be stuck in the deliberation room with Juror 17 and try to work with her on deliberating. She saw with her own eyes and heard with her own ears something that now can be explained as maybe a bias or agenda. What she is now finding out about #17 is making sense to her. She isn't saying she's shocked or doubting #17 may have had an ulterior motive. Seems like those 11 jurors experienced Juror 17 as having a stubborn agenda all along. The juror speaking out sounded very upset, if this is true about #17, especially over the Alexanders being cheated out of true Justice for Travis.

Prayers for the Alexander family and loved ones. :eek:fftobed:

ITA...but I was mainly referring to her comment of now knowing Juror 17's agenda was that she was anti-JM. I don't think that crossed her mind while deliberating...but maybe it did?
 
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.

I am "deeply disturbed as to how the juror's names were leaked" too, but I am "Concerned" about all the juror's. There are many out there who would harm a person whom is willing to vote for death. Silent 17 is no more at risk for being on this trial than any other juror unless her own actions land her in pink with Sheriff Joe.
 
Why is the civil case that JA is involved in also being kept from Internet public records?
CV2014-008356
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.go...caseSearch.asp
Surprised that no reporters or bloggers have gotten the records on that one as well.

I can't pull this up...says down for maintenance on Sunday. haha isn't it Saturday?

I do believe they will hold Juror 17 accountable if someone actually investigates.
 
I hope the Alexander family realizes that there are many more people that are disturbed by what happened than the few who throw up their hands and give up. The constant "nothing can be done!" mantra is so defeatist. A round about way to defend Sherry....and Lord knows she has plenty of those. If a juror does something illegal, should they not be held accountable? If not, why not? Too much trouble? Might make Sherry look bad? Anti DP proponents got what they wanted so just ignore it? What???

Some talking head on TV gives an opinion and it's gospel? Or, my favorite, it's Juans fault. Really? A person lies to get on a jury, refuses to deliberate, and it's JM's fault!? Now, the 11 are being accused of "assaulting" the <unusual person> because things got heated in the jury room......it's called frustration because they figured out they just wasted 5 months of their lives because of a stealth juror....and got NO help from the judge because she is quivering in fear over appeal issues. I hate all of this. It will keep happening because enough people refuse to demand that it stop.
 
A logical and immediate remedy to this particular situation would be to switch to a majority vote for determining sentence. It is in place in at least one other jurisdiction and apparently hasn't been successfully challenged. This would be a first step to introducing fairness into the DP, but it leaves the reality of the DP as a contradiction in terms untouched, as well as its many other contradictions, but it is a correct and reasonable first step, imo.
Time for people to work to change the laws in Arizona then. The rules are based on the laws. So if one dislikes the rules, then change the underlying law. This will require a change to the Arizona Constitution through the state legislature. It will take time and money and effort, but if people are really serious and really sick of the system, then this is how to do it.

People love to complain but when it comes right down to it, not that many will actually step up and take action. Most are happy to let someone else do the work and figure it all out. Complacency is its own punishment.
 
Not AZLawyer and not nearly as awesome as AZLawyer, Monica Lindstrom wrote an interesting article addressing this question, among others: http://ktar.com/305/1813602/Legally...strial-raises-questions-but-system-not-broken

Sometimes I really don't follow Monica's logic. Or maybe I'm reading this wrong.

She says the system isn't broken because there is recourse against stealth jurors. But then, doesn't she say how wrong it would be to prosecute a stealth juror?
 
I can't tell if there are any legal repercussions if it turns out Juror 17 lied herself onto that jury. I do know, if she were to be charged with anything, her defence lawyer would say, 'my client suffers with PTSD and BPD, and the trauma of being called up for such a high profile trial scrambled her brain.'
LOL! or what was the other- 'she was unable to deal with the tumultuous relationship after 5 months leaving her unable to deliberate.'
 
Let's not forget that Michael Kiefer knew the identity of the foreperson in the last jury and PUBLISHED it ...right up until the moment i started flitting around that hallway asking all the other media and PIO just how he would know this info while they were still deliberating, then he redacted his online article and took it down. This is one of many reasons I find his behavior completely suspect if not downright nefarious during this trial. And I KNOW his agenda, first hand, I know it. He is against the DP and he despises Juan Martinez, just for starters. He referred to Travis Alexander as a "scum bag", multiple times, to my face and in writing and to other people in the courtroom. Very early on in the trial he said this, like the first week. He is disgusting.
I served on a Grand Jury in Baltimore for four months several years ago. I remember that they told us that we had investigative powers and could open investigations - does this happen in Arizona as well?
 
Another injustice in the quest for justice for Travis Alexander is not surprising. The injustice now is that a juror with an agenda may have lied either directly or by omission to get seated on this jury. This particular flavor of injustice has happened in the US court system more often than I am comfortable with but so far no one has come up with a foolproof method for avoiding it.

Regarding the actual sentence of natural life in prison which I expect to be imposed on Killer Arias--that is not an injustice in my view. I know people like Jodi (ok, maybe not anyone close to her level of psychopathy, but you get the gist) and believe me, life behind bars is not a cake walk for such individuals. Yes, she will grin in that stupid-faced way she has and she will tweet, or have it done on her behalf, that she is all settled in and getting along well as she waits for vindication via the appeals that either have been or will be filed that demand she be set free.

Don't believe her. She lies to the nth degree, as we all know; that she will lie about her content existence behind the walls of a maximum security prison is to be expected. Don't believe the tweets, regardless of who tweets them, as they will be sent for the sole purpose of getting everyone riled up. I, for one, will not fall for it.

I am relieved that Jodi will be locked up for life and am pleased that it comes via hung jury. Had it been a verdict of death, this killer would be in the public's face for decades to come and no doubt a pita do-gooder or two would have stepped in to get her sentence commuted at some point. Who needs it! Not me. Not the family and friends of the murdered man. Not the citizens of Arizona.

Had there been a verdict of life in prison, the killer would still be going away for life but the jury making that decision would have vindicated the defense team in their vilification of murder victim Travis Alexander. I am pleased that this vindication has not and never will come to pass.

Looking at this mess of a trial as a whole and especially at the disgusting behavior the jurors are reporting about one of their own, I am on an even keel with the non-verdict here. It sends the killer away without fanfare, it vindicates the murder victim, and it shouts loud and clear that even though Arias avoided the death penalty the jury had her number all along! I am good with that.

Very well said :)
 
I can't pull this up...says down for maintenance on Sunday. haha isn't it Saturday?

I do believe they will hold Juror 17 accountable if someone actually investigates.

If you try this link and put in her name you can see the case number but when you click on it it tells you that not all case information is filed online or some such thing so you have to personally request the case info at the courthouse I assume?

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp
 
ITA...but I was mainly referring to her comment of now knowing Juror 17's agenda was that she was anti-JM. I don't think that crossed her mind while deliberating...but maybe it did?

I've seen that speculated a lot here on WS, that she had some vendetta against JM. Can you point me to where this has been proven as fact?
 
Sometimes I really don't follow Monica's logic. Or maybe I'm reading this wrong.

She says the system isn't broken because there is recourse against stealth jurors. But then, doesn't she say how wrong it would be to prosecute a stealth juror?
no, it's not you. She is pro-def & a ja lover. I thought she was 'off' listening to her on the 1st trial. Never, ever saying anything negative about ja or defense. When I heard her on air, after the guilty verdict say, "I wonder how Jodi is feeling, hope she's ok", I lost my lunch, then stopped paying attention to her.
 
What I saw from Joey Jackson is that it does not matter at this point. It only works the other way. I don't know how anyone is going to prove what someone thinks. I think this is a moot issue and dead in the water.

No he said that as far as it changing the outcome of the hung jury. Yes the juror can be charged and that's why the County Attorneys office says they are investigating. Links were put up yesterday with AZ statutes, she could be charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, or even jury tampering depending on what they find.
 
I don't know if I would trust that blogger. I was reading some of the other posts there and the blogger says he/she is Mormon/LDS and some of the statements about the religion are just not true. I am not accusing the blogger of lying, but I don't know where he/she got some of these ideas:

" 1. You can't get married at the temple if you've had sex before marriage. Both male and female must be virgins to be married at any temple.

6. You take an oath during your baptism to follow certain things the Church goes by...No sex out of wedlock."

These statement are just not true and if the blogger does not know his/her religion, I cannot trust that person to know anything about people involved in the JA that he/she does not know personally. MOO

http://aboutjodiariasandhersupporte.../ja-and-her-knowing-nothing-about-church.html

Oh thanks, I didn't know all that .. So maybe we need some other proof that MDLR was attached to the JAII website .. we know she has posted there. The other connection to that site is Jodi's own family of course, who could also have got their hands on the list or jurors, but then again I'd think MDLR would be the most likely person to let that get into their hands.
 
Quote Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
I don't buy into the belief it is better to have a mistrial than a DP sentence overturned on appeal. It is not fair to the victims. With everything that has come out after the verdict, I do not believe that replacing this juror would win a successful appeal. Keeping the juror on knowing the concerns of the 11 jurors ended the right for the Alexander's to seek justice. It is just wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem that she got life instead of DP. I don't think she will survive in general population. I just believe that it was wrong to keep this juror on knowing she was not going to deliberate, tried to bring in outside information that was not allowed, admitted she watched news coverage during the trial. The judge knew all this, and prevented the justice the Alexander's rightfully deserve. Add t this everything that has come out since.
Let's be serious. Who believes that with the one fact that we know for sure (Juan was the prosecutor on her ex husbands felony case, and they wed a day before sentencing) that an appeal on this issue would be successful?


As far as deliberating goes, juror #17 wanted to look at the journals, which they did. Legally that is deliberating.
At the time none of the agenda stuff was known and still hasn't been proven. If it is proven then #17 should be punished. I don't believe that is going to happen though. jmoo. We don't like it but the defendants legal rights come before the victims family. This whole trial has been a big heartache. jmoo

Your Message
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
796
Total visitors
886

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,755
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top