Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #1

[Frigga]

that juror? I'm baffled here. Also attending mtgs so have one ear on phone and reading here & twitter. But I'm again appalled by the fact this juror wasn't removed based on what I'm hearing.

Now I feel bad for these jurors. AWG-freaking Jodi ruins everyone and everything!

I agree Boytwnmom... but not for long she doesn't. Her time is almost up and her ability to manipulate her fellow inmates doesn't bother me. She despises other women and finds them either unworthy or rivals. This.is.her.worse.nightmare. in my opinion only. The guards have been made aware to steer clear and watch out for her manipulations. Someone said earlier she is the type to have sex with a guard and then yell rape and attempt to sue. Her life is OVER with LWOP. She is NO celebrity, her funds will dry up, and only her looney relatives or minions will continue to visit her. She has no long list of lawyers willing to fight her cause and no 'innocence project' backing her up. She is gone, gone, gone from the Alexander Families lives. Good riddance. Buh- bye loser.

 

[Madeleine74]

So what I'm getting from this jury debacle today is that...IF this scenario were to ever play out again its best for one of the DP Jurors to get into a fist fight with the Hold out so they both can be kicked off and the alternates allowed in.. This would have been best IMO ..its kinda like taking one for the rest right...

Not how it works. Would have been declared a mistrial.

 

[Ricki]

I missed this tweet. Would love to know what is on his mind.

They asked what their message is to CMJA. The male juror kind of laughed and said "I don't dare".

 

[ZsaZsa]

So, if she didn't deliberate, what did she do in that room all day?

Refused to listen....

 

[sammie]

Of course he did. He gets 10 strikes. There's no reason to believe he didn't use them.

Well if he did, then my bad. Bottom line is it sucks she was allowed on the jury!

 

[Dogface]

I like you a lot LinaSK, but I don't understand you determination not to find fault with JSS at all. Like not even one fault. She's not Jesus Christ. The woman has faults and she has failed in this trial. You won't even admit to even one failure. You're very much our own stealth juror.

I think the fact that 11 of the jurors reached the decision they did shows no gross fault of the trial process. I think her failure to take action on what the jury was stating about the other juror is a huge issue though.

 

[Wynegyrl]

I just speed-read this thread so I'm sure I missed some things. My thoughts:

1. Regarding juror #17 "not deliberating": I know jurors are saying #17 "wouldn't deliberate," but then they describe what she said during deliberations--that she wanted to focus on the journals, that she thought the DP would be revenge, etc. If JSS was told this juror was "not deliberating" and then questioned #17 and/or the other jurors and got this information, she COULD NOT legally have removed her from the jury. Steadfastly refusing to change your mind from day 1 is not the same as refusing to deliberate and is specifically permitted by the jury instructions.

2. Regarding juror #17 having prior knowledge of the case: Prior knowledge of the case is fine as long as you answer truthfully about it in voir dire. I don't know if this juror did answer truthfully, although I'm 100% sure I saw a tweet about a juror who had seen the Lifetime movie. It would have been improper, of course, for juror #17 to have brought up extraneous information in deliberations. Do we know whether the jurors actually mentioned this to the judge? I didn't see anything about them telling JSS about the Lifetime movie, etc. If they had told JSS, the appropriate way for JSS to handle this (assuming the juror had not lied in voir dire) would have been for her to instruct the jury not to consider any information other than that presented in the trial. She COULD NOT legally have removed the juror for mentioning these things in deliberation unless the juror insisted, after instruction, on considering the previously heard information.

3. Regarding juror #17's feelings on the death penalty: Again, I don't know what she said in voir dire. But it sounds like what she said in deliberations was that she "absolutely" believed in the death penalty but couldn't say under what circumstances it should be applied. This information WOULD NOT disqualify her from a death case and it would have been improper for JSS to disqualify her for not being able to specify under what circumstances she would vote for death. As to her statement that the DP was just "revenge"--in light of the other statement that she "absolutely" believed in the DP, I wonder if she said that IN THIS CASE she believes the DP would be revenge. If so, JSS COULD NOT legally have removed her as being disqualified to impose death.

How do you think the judge will rule?

 

[LinasK]

So, if she didn't deliberate, what did she do in that room all day?

Examine Jodi's phony re-written journals.

 

[Nali87]

I just speed-read this thread so I'm sure I missed some things. My thoughts:

1. Regarding juror #17 "not deliberating": I know jurors are saying #17 "wouldn't deliberate," but then they describe what she said during deliberations--that she wanted to focus on the journals, that she thought the DP would be revenge, etc. If JSS was told this juror was "not deliberating" and then questioned #17 and/or the other jurors and got this information, she COULD NOT legally have removed her from the jury. Steadfastly refusing to change your mind from day 1 is not the same as refusing to deliberate and is specifically permitted by the jury instructions.

2. Regarding juror #17 having prior knowledge of the case: Prior knowledge of the case is fine as long as you answer truthfully about it in voir dire. I don't know if this juror did answer truthfully, although I'm 100% sure I saw a tweet about a juror who had seen the Lifetime movie. It would have been improper, of course, for juror #17 to have brought up extraneous information in deliberations. Do we know whether the jurors actually mentioned this to the judge? I didn't see anything about them telling JSS about the Lifetime movie, etc. If they had told JSS, the appropriate way for JSS to handle this (assuming the juror had not lied in voir dire) would have been for her to instruct the jury not to consider any information other than that presented in the trial. She COULD NOT legally have removed the juror for mentioning these things in deliberation unless the juror insisted, after instruction, on considering the previously heard information.

3. Regarding juror #17's feelings on the death penalty: Again, I don't know what she said in voir dire. But it sounds like what she said in deliberations was that she "absolutely" believed in the death penalty but couldn't say under what circumstances it should be applied. This information WOULD NOT disqualify her from a death case and it would have been improper for JSS to disqualify her for not being able to specify under what circumstances she would vote for death. As to her statement that the DP was just "revenge"--in light of the other statement that she "absolutely" believed in the DP, I wonder if she said that IN THIS CASE she believes the DP would be revenge. If so, JSS COULD NOT legally have removed her as being disqualified to impose death.

I don't understand that part.
Could JSS have legally asked to speak to the jurors?
If she found out one was not deliberating - could she had then removed that person?

 

[rose222]

Fox10 is going to play some of the highlights soon.

 

[Hope4More]

Suggestion (assuming this is OK to post):

Write the Alexander family to provide them support. I did yesterday. They need the support, and it’s a constructive, healing action to take.
The family’s public address is on this website:

http://www.travisalexanderjustice.com/support

 

[hambirg]

So, if she didn't deliberate, what did she do in that room all day?

Apparently, she sat in a room all day, not deliberating.


to deliberate: engage in long and careful consideration.

 

[fifteen89]

Well folks, time to change the laws in Arizona!

Those of you who are citizens of that sunny state need to work together and get bifurcated penalty sentences done away with! One penalty phase only, immediately after verdict, by the same jury, and IF a jury hangs then that's it, no more. It's insane that a 2nd attempt is allowed for death. "One and Done" is the best way to proceed on that, IMO.

I don't live in AZ but imo there's nothing insane with their laws. Just the lone juror that should have been removed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree, this has nothing to do with the Hughes' because it sounds like nobody on the jury really believed anything presented by the defense team. It all came down to a stealth juror, that stupid Lifetime movie and the modsnippety Law of Attraction!

I don't believe the law of attraction thing. How would anyone know their name if they are confidential??

But we can blame this on one juror who lied and conspired. I wish there was some kind of charge for that.

 

[Love Never Fails]

No she doesn't, that's not fair. I am very critical of how she handled her courtroom, the trial, the schedule...but she has done NOTHING to show she isn't tough on crime. Check out her record. She will sentence Jodi to LWOP.

I don't have to defend my thoughts to you. JSS has waffled, closed courtroom number of times, Held secret in chambers meetings, allowed secret testimony and ignored jurors who let her know that one would not deliberate.
Someone up thread asked what is the penalty for a juror who made decisions based on a lifetime movie. I want to know what is the penalty for the lying defense attorneys who trashed a good man to win at all costs and the judge who caved for the murderer. Seems to me there is blame to go around.
And what is LWOP really? Jodi has already approached max row prisoners and made friends and has lots of money in her account. She will be BFF with lots of them and can sing them to sleep. What exactly is her punishment if she gets LWOP? Are we to be upset because oohhh, she sleeps on a three inch thick plastic mattress with no air conditioning? Are we supposed to be good with that? JSS will likely make sure her sentencing hearing is closed to the public. That's the way she works. I have no apologies to make.

 

[katydid23]

I don't understand the anger at someone who voted their conviction and based on what they saw.

The hold out was asked what 'evidence' she wanted to go over, and she wanted to focus on the JOURNAL. Also, she refused to actually discuss or deliberate anything. That is where my anger comes from. JMO

 

[Nali87]

I think the fact that 11 of the jurors reached the decision they did shows no gross fault of the trial process. I think her failure to take action on what the jury was stating about the other juror is a huge issue though.

I think she got lucky!!
I see your point, but just because her actions didn't lead to all 12 willing to vote life, don't make them right.

 

[LinasK]

I like you a lot LinaSK, but I don't understand you determination not to find fault with JSS at all. Like not even one fault. She's not Jesus Christ. The woman has faults and she has failed in this trial. You won't even admit to even one failure. You're very much our own stealth juror.

No, what has me really shaken today, beyond the verdict and the split, is finding out that the stealth juror watched the Lifetime movie and nothing was done about that. I still believe she will ream Jodi out and give her LWOP. I have no reason to doubt that.

 

[NashBridges2]

I like you a lot LinaSK, but I don't understand you determination not to find fault with JSS at all. Like not even one fault. She's not Jesus Christ. The woman has faults and she has failed in this trial. You won't even admit to even one failure. You're very much our own stealth juror.

What's a poor judge to do? It's not her fault you know. It's not the judges fault a juror refused to deliberate or that same juror said DP is like revenge. It's not the judges fault at all. It's not the judges fault that she didn't take 11 jurors word seriously on day 2 when they voiced concerned. It's just not her fault. Eye roll.

 

[RR0004]

T,he judge should have bloody removed her as soon as she admitted in deliberations she watched the movie. And that she believed the DP is just a form of revenge. The jury sent this info to the judge.

For all we know, she watched this movie when they re-ran it. Did the Judge even ask when she saw the movie?? If it was during the trial, she lied when questioned by the Judge (admonishments).