Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Mindmatters]

Was it Juan or JSS that wanted it on the record? Can't remember. Janet should not have been put in charge of 2nd jury if JSS was prudent. Why would Jennifer have any reason to lie.

From what I can discern Shady, it was originally brought to JSS' attention back during the original trial but Juan, as to not "embarass" anyone, and with at least KN present as well, had a meeting about what happened. However, during the retrial Juan made reference to this occurrence in one of his written responses to a DT motion (as best as I can tell) during the retrial. When a sealed hearing was conducted regarding multiple motions JSS addressed the issue openly and it went on record during this hearing in October 2014; also JSS stated that Janet "adamantly denied" these allegations.

 

[TexMex]

I just watched the 3 excerpts here http://www.azcentral.com/search/juror 17/ and it's sticking out like a sore thumb to me. Was it her likes on facebook that included Nancy Grace and HLN? She admits she watched 'bits and pieces' of the lifetime movie while she dusted her house -- but the other jurors said she commented how after seeing those bits and pieces she expected a monster but didn't see one in court.

Now she mentions watching a true crime show that had Martinez in it. BUT.....she says she didn't pay attention to the Jodi trial because she 'didn't want to get sucked in'.

I find all of that really hard to believe. Someone who 'likes' NG, watches true crime shows AND lives in Phoenix wasn't already sucked in to this trial????? Jodi did so many shows/interviews, her ridiculous smirking mug shot, her infamous 'no jury will ever convict me' line and her odd behavior in the interrogation room -- all of that alone had us all sucked in before we even knew all the horrific details of the crime.

I'm not buying it J17.

And no way she remembers JM from a true crime show but not from her husbands case. She remembers the show was about a woman who stabbed her husband in his sleep but she doesn't remember JM from her own husbands case? Really???? His hair might be grayer now but he's still JM.

Nope. Not buying a word of it.

And she recalls she saw the Lifetime movie "while vacuuming". Just the kind of extra detail Jodi puts into her lies because the thinks it makes them more believable.


And yeah! Nancy G's show was all Arias for what...a year and a half?

 

[AZlawyer]

We don't know what happened during the proceeding where Juan could use his 10 strikes....

Because. It. Is. Secret!

The free strikes are not done in any proceeding. The lawyers just take turns crossing out juror names, with no participation from the judge. Then the judge reads the juror numbers who are not crossed out in open court and asks if she got the list right. The lawyers say yes and on you go. The only time there is a proceeding about juror strikes is if there's an objection that, e.g., the prosecutor is striking only Hispanic people or only women.

Obviously JM didn't use one of his strikes on this juror or she wouldn't have been on the jury.

When choosing a jury for a DP case, if the prospective juror states they are against the DP no matter what the crime, aren't they released right away?

Yes.

 

[Hope4More]

I've been out of the country for a week and trying to catch up. Shady Lady gave me a quick update (THANK YOU! ), and I listened to 3 parts of an interview with Juror 17 (it felt like it ended abruptly, so maybe I missed some parts) as well as JM's voir dire of her. I didn't listen to JM's attempt to strike her as the headline said he asked to strike for DV bias. Based on her voir dire, I assume JSS appropriately denied that request, unless she openly confessed some bias in her written responses that JM referenced during that argument. What I can't understand is why JM didn't use one of his "free" strikes on this lady if he was so concerned about her. Normally your first "free" strikes are used on anyone you unsuccessfully asked to strike for cause.

From JM's voir dire of juror 17 relating to her husbands' criminal histories, I couldn't tell what it was that she said that was false or misleading. Can anyone fill me in on that?

Factually, or based on assumptions?



1. Assumption- She lied when she didn’t raise her hand and say she knew JM.

She had to have known JM because JM prosecuted her husband for 1st degree murder in 2000. Either she was in court with her groom-to-be and saw JM, and couldn’t forget him because he is JM, or her felon husband mentioned his name numerous times and she wouldn’t be able to forget it.

2. She mentioned her ex’s 2nd degree burglary conviction to JM, but did not volunteer that her ex had been charged with 1st degree murder and aggravated assault OR that JM had prosecuted her ex.

Therefore she lied by omission (severity of a separate crime) and directly (by not acknowledging she knew JM).

Factually (draw your own inferences).

1. JM did not ask her about crimes her 2 husbands were charged with. What she was asked in her questionnaire on this and how she replied are unknown. She obviously mentioned her ex’s conviction for burglary on the questionnaire.

2. JM was not her ex’s original prosecutor (see timeline up-thread). IMO there is a great big piece missing as to why JM offered the ex the plea he did, after months of continuances and only one day of trial.

The ex was 17 years old when he was committed a 2nd degree burglary, and 18 years old when he allegedly committed 1st degree murder, a drive by shooting, and aggravated assault.
JM allowed him to plea on the 2nd degree charges, and dropped everything else. Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me. Something is missing, and maybe that something has something to do with why 17 answered as she did. Or not.

3. She said she was separated from her husband at the time he went to prison. From what I’ve read, that is untrue, if she meant the term he served for that burglary. She married him on May 29, 2000, BEFORE he went to prison on that charge. Unless she married him and then separated by the end of the same year.

4. She married him May 29, AFTER his plea deal. Does that mean she must have gone to court at least a few times and met JM there and therefore lied about knowing him? Or not.

5. She said she met her second husband, also a felon, online and after he’s been out of prison for 3-4 years. I think many have said that’s a lie, but couldn’t figure out the basis for that and won’t be trying to to either.

6. Many here seem to think she isn’t really a DV victim. JM thought she was. That’s why he tried to remove her for cause. I think so too. Haven’t seen any hospital records or police reports though—maybe she’ll provide them in another interview?



Saw your post when I went to edit my upstream post. Reply to you= edit. Take care

 

[ShadyLady]

ok....for AZL, where JSS puts on record issue of judicial assistant:

1:02:50
http://bluesharp1911.wix.com/courtchatter#!jodi-arias-pretrial-hearing-101614/ccm

Tara Kelley ‏@tarakelley320 22h22 hours ago

@JMartinezUpdate @starknightz @BeBeSXM interesting thing is she was kicked off the case during deliberations last time.

Tara Kelley ‏@tarakelley320 16h16 hours ago

@JMartinezUpdate @word_34 @starknightz @BeBeSXM her whole staff was fired and Janet was let back on! Absolutely ludicrous!
0 retweets 5 favorites
Tara Kelley ‏@tarakelley320 16h16 hours ago

@word_34 @JMartinezUpdate @starknightz @BeBeSXM nope and I'm friends with the bailiff that got fired and she doesn't know either

 

[WhoaIsMe]

It was a red flag to Juan for reasons only Juan can properly explain. It's all in the video of that voir dire of juror 138.

He told the judge he saw the potential juror tearing-up and that it appeared to him, even with her year of therapy about the DV she experienced, she still wasn't dealing with it (I'm paraphrasing). That was the motion he made to JSS and it was that issue (DV and her current reactions when talking about it) that JSS inquired more about, with Juan still wanting to strike this juror.

Also, JSS kept her behind for questioning by her (requested by Juan) about the tearing up and J17 said it was because she was embarrassed at having been in that situation because she thinks of herself as a smart person. Effectively explaining away her emotional state.

eta TO ME this seemed to indicate that if she had admitted to still being bothered by her experience with DV she would have been let go

 

[tlckgram]

I also found it interesting that it states 'A record of the proceeding is made by CD/videotape in lieu of a court reporter.'

Is it possible to view the videotape of that proceeding? It would be interesting to see if J17 is there to support her ex. And by the way, I feel HORRIBLE because when all this info started coming out about J17 I was one of them saying Juan dropped the ball. OMG, I am sorry I ever let that cross my mind.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Just found this, ignore if it's been posted before (stop me if you've heard this one!) Good article, I just posted a little bit. They're in Florida, so I don't know if every state is allowed to research while trying to vet jurors.


http://trialtheater.com/trial-skills/jury-selection/are-potential-jurors-lying-to-you-in-voir-dire/


"In the five cases I recently tried, every juror on every panel was asked whether they had ever been charged with a crime.
But here’s the interesting twist: I wasn’t trying to discover whether or not they’d ever been charged with a crime — I wanted to determine who would be honest about it. I already knew what their answers should be.

In our jurisdiction, we have access to a statewide criminal history program, and run a criminal history check on every potential juror. In addition, I have a computer in the courtroom, and can pull up more detailed information from the clerk’s office or the case management system.

Every juror on every panel was asked whether they had ever been charged with a crime, and in almost every single case, at least one of them lied."

I know j17 didn't have a criminal record, but once she disclosed that her husbands did, Det. Flores (or an asst) could run that right away and have concrete evidence to back up a request for dismissal.

 

[Amster]

Memo to Juan....your reason for wanting to strike J17 is not permissible!

Can't believe he didn't know that.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Welcome back AZL - we sure missed you; personally and professionally.

 

[Madeleine74]

Factually, or based on assumptions?

Factually (draw your own inferences).

1. JM did not ask her about crimes her 2 husbands were charged with. What she was asked in her questionnaire on this and how she replied are unknown. She obviously mentioned her ex’s conviction for burglary on the questionnaire.

Excellent list Hope4More!

On Point #1, JM did ask about the crimes the 2 husbands were charged with during voir dire, as I had just listened to it yesterday. She was also asked how she felt about the husbands being convicted and if she blamed the state or prosecution for that. She answered no she did not blame the state or prosecution. Then she went on to talk about ex-husband "the idiot" and how he should have known better... etc, etc.

 

[ShadyLady]

The free strikes are not done in any proceeding. The lawyers just take turns crossing out juror names, with no participation from the judge. Then the judge reads the juror numbers who are not crossed out in open court and asks if she got the list right. The lawyers say yes and on you go. The only time there is a proceeding about juror strikes is if there's an objection that, e.g., the prosecutor is striking only Hispanic people or only women.

Obviously JM didn't use one of his strikes on this juror or she wouldn't have been on the jury.



Yes.

This is the part I don't understand. Juan requested a strike for cause, but JSS denied it. Could he then have used a strike just "because" that he did not need a "cause", part of the 10?

ADDED>>>NEVER MIND, I read up and now I understand. Juan had "free" strikes, and that would not be subject to review by JSS.

 

[Mindmatters]

And she recalls she saw the Lifetime movie "while vacuuming". Just the kind of extra detail Jodi puts into her lies because the thinks it makes them more believable.


And yeah! Nancy G's show was all Arias for what...a year and a half?

Not only TMI but she clearly minimizes her prior knowledge, i.e., saw "bits and pieces" of DLS, recognized JM from "some" tv show where a women stabbed her husband in his sleep, and knew "a little" about the trial because she lives in AZ after all and it was all over the news but didn't really pay attention and didn't want to get "sucked in".

 

[audreyparker]

<modsnip> can mitigate till the cows come home...but she's not going to be able to make ja's attempts at corrupting a couple of 15 yo kids look pretty.

This will all be brought up at sentancing on the 13th, right?

 

[Amster]

The free strikes are not done in any proceeding. The lawyers just take turns crossing out juror names, with no participation from the judge. Then the judge reads the juror numbers who are not crossed out in open court and asks if she got the list right. The lawyers say yes and on you go. The only time there is a proceeding about juror strikes is if there's an objection that, e.g., the prosecutor is striking only Hispanic people or only women.

Obviously JM didn't use one of his strikes on this juror or she wouldn't have been on the jury.



Yes.

So, we still don't know if Juan did try to strike her. Not obvious to me that Nurmi or JW didn't object!

 

[MaLou]

And she recalls she saw the Lifetime movie "while vacuuming". Just the kind of extra detail Jodi puts into her lies because the thinks it makes them more believable.


And yeah! Nancy G's show was all Arias for what...a year and a half?

Yeah, and she felt it necessary to add that her house it two stories. Nothing to do with what she's talking about, just another embellishment.

 

[Gin]

This will all be brought up at sentancing on the 13th, right?

I would certainly hope so.

 

[ButForFortune]

FWIW I don't see a big payday for Juror 17 re interviews, a book, etc. I could only make myself watch part one of her interview and that was enough! She was not eloquent, had poor grammar, rambled, repeated herself, took a very long time to say very little, and it was all about self-justification and patting herself on the back. No true insight as to the horror of the death of Travis, the horror of this trial, the pain of Travis's family, or the mitigating factors vs. the aggravating factors.

Add to that her history with various people with criminal backgrounds - I see very little to endear her to the mainstream public.

 

[east2west]

IOW, no tough questions, no pushing for answers, no challenge questions to obvious lies/omissions.

Maybe #J17 couldn't "fully actualize her" interview. She was "not able to fully communicate what she wants to say." "She feels it will impact her ability to say what she really needs--state her needs" during the interview. "The reasons for that is she feels it will affect her ability to " interview properly, without the low lighting. The "nervousness factor. Looking out into the crowd."

She apparently is a victim as well. #mija

ETA: all quotes are from Jen-Jen during the October 30,2014 closed door brouhaha.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

T. Kelley said Janet W. had a hand in getting jurors kicked off....

So, then would it be safe to presume that she also has a hand in keeping jurors from being kicked off??!!