Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Nancy_Drew]

Juror 17 said she met her newest hubby online, possibly here. No hard facts, just a thought.



http://www.writeaprisoner.com/inmate-profiles/DisplayState.aspx?sState=AZ

I keep wondering the SAME thing!!

 

[TorisMom003]

If one has to lie to get on a jury then one has an agenda for wanting to be on that jury. Juror 17 was not honest when asked about her first husbands crimes/legal problems. Juror 17 was not honest when asked if she knew anyone involved in the case. Juror 17 had an agenda and wanted to get on that jury. I do not for one second believe that she really deliberated in the jury room and just could not vote for death. I believe that she knew from the beginning, when she found out that THIS was the case she was going to possibly be on, that she was going to not vote for death come hell or high water.

MOO

 

[Val1]

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

BBM - Is that like being mortified....

 

[ElleElle]

Anyone curious why JM didn't use one of his 10 free-for-all strikes on Juror 138/17 when he had the opportunity to do so, and with no permission from JSS needed for doing that? I'm curious. I'd love to know his reasoning and what the factors were.

Occam's Razor. Juan wanted this trial over with. Also, was she the only Hispanic female on the jury?

 

[TorisMom003]

Here's what I don't understand, Juror 17 was talking about the crimes (that she admitted to) that her first husband committed when questioned about them. Yet when talking about her second husband she said that she checked out his crimes herself because she didn't want her children around someone that would be a bad influence (paraphrase). But didn't both of them commit similar crimes (that she admitted to)?!? So why was it not ok with the first husband, after all she did divorce him, but ok with the second husband?

 

[atthelake]

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?

I remember where i was and exactly what I was doing 1) at the moment when the challenger exploded 2) when the news came out that jfk was shot 3) when the twin towers were attacked.

Otherwise there is nothing in my life, that comes to mind right now at this moment,that did not concern me in a very strong way, such as a death of a friend or family member, those little details that I remember... for instance if i was vacuuming when i saw a television program that had nothing to do with me.

:facepalm:

ETA: thinking more i remember exactly what i was doing when the FCA verdict came in ...I was onthelake

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

If one has to lie to get on a jury then one has an agenda for wanting to be on that jury. Juror 17 was not honest when asked about her first husbands crimes/legal problems. Juror 17 was not honest when asked if she knew anyone involved in the case. Juror 17 had an agenda and wanted to get on that jury. I do not for one second believe that she really deliberated in the jury room and just could not vote for death. I believe that she knew from the beginning, when she found out that THIS was the case she was going to possibly be on, that she was going to not vote for death come hell or high water.

MOO

No reputable media source is calling her a liar. In the court interview she did talk about the shooting. I suppose it's a matter of opinion if you think she's lying about not recognizing JM. Surely if Juror 17 (a girl at the time) should have recognized JM then JM should have recognized her. If you believe she didn't deliberate then at least two jurors were lying.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Here's what I don't understand, Juror 17 was talking about the crimes (that she admitted to) that her first husband committed when questioned about them. Yet when talking about her second husband she said that she checked out his crimes herself because she didn't want her children around someone that would be a bad influence (paraphrase). But didn't both of them commit similar crimes (that she admitted to)?!? So why was it not ok with the first husband, after all she did divorce him, but ok with the second husband?

See this to me does not matter, What ever she was doing to check out her dh or whatever her personal life issues are don't matter to me. It seems to me that she was clear about the DV issues and her dh being arrested and convicted and she was honest. What about the other jurors that voted for death. Are they all clean of dv issues and relatives that have been arrested?

I don't think if you are trying to be stealth you admit to all the things she did, And if you are being stealth, I think you are less obvious about it.
AT best I think this was someone who wanted on the jury maybe for not so great reasons and in the end could not vote death for whatever reason but the more time that passes, I just have to wonder if this is not just one of the less bright bulbs in the world. Someone who could not put two and two together in this case and was indeed swayed by the defense?

 

[TorisMom003]

AZL, Juror 17 stated that she was in an 11 year relationship with her first husband which began when she was 16. I believe that they are the same age so that would mean that when he committed his crime in 1998 that she did in fact know about it.

 

[TorisMom003]

No reputable media source is calling her a liar. In the court interview she did talk about the shooting. I suppose it's a matter of opinion if you think she's lying about not recognizing JM. Surely if Juror 17 (a girl at the time) should have recognized JM then JM should have recognized her. If you believe she didn't deliberate then at least two jurors were lying.

Juror 17 did NOT talk to the court (Juan, JSS, the defense) about her ex husbands first crime that occurred in 1998. The shooting she spoke of was connected to the later one in which he and his brother stole display phones from a Verizon store. That second occurred in 2008. Juan was not a part of the 1998 case until sometime in 2000. At that time she was not a "girl" and if anyone considered her to be a "girl" then why did she marry him the day before he was sentenced?

 

[Hope4More]

I don't see how JSS could possibly have granted that motion.



Thank you!

It looks like SA was only 16 when the offenses were committed in August 1998 (involving alleged murder 1, etc.), not 18. His birthday is in Oct. 1981. Although juvenile records are supposed to be confidential, they show up on the Maricopa County Superior Court website anyway if you know the juvenile's name. You can tell he was a minor, though, because the case shows up as "Minor Minor" for the name in the search results. Frankly, I think this is a glitch in the system, but everyone seems to know about it and no one seems to care.

I don't know if juror #17 had met him yet or was his girlfriend yet, or whether she knew what the charges were. SA's attorney arranged a plea agreement after JM took over that was accepted by the court in May 2000, at which point it does appear SA was living with juror #17. Normally, the family and girlfriend-type people are quite grateful when a murder 1 charge results in a plea down to attempted burglary, probation and 4 mos. in prison. I doubt they saw the situation as SA being "prosecuted" by JM, who would have been telling the judge, together with SA's counsel, that it was appropriate for the court to accept the plea agreement.

More than likely, the "easy" plea was offered due to lack of evidence, to answer your question about that. JM probably felt he could not get a conviction but didn't want this kid to "skate" and maybe think he was invulnerable to the law.

JM was no longer personally involved in the case after that day in May 2000, although his name was left on some of the court records. The first (maybe only) time juror #17 appeared in court to speak on SA's behalf was November 2002, when he was being accused (by a different prosecutor) of violating probation.

If you know people in the right circles, you will know that it is not unusual to be separated 6 mos. after getting married. Or even to get married while not "together," for purposes such as (1) getting military benefits, (2) looking good for sentencing or probation reports, (3) immigration issues, (4) etc. etc.

From her interview, I do think she minimized how much she knew about the JA case, though.

Thanks for corrections, and to Madeline. I expect they're more to be made,and if so, sorry. Neither my heart or mind has been very amenable to this research and it shows. Sorry again.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

Well, if they had objected to his use of his "free strikes," there would have been a (no doubt sealed) proceeding to discuss that, which I suppose would be in the batch of released videos now. I don't think it happened, though.

SBBM

Could you answer a question which we have been unable to find an answer to?

During jury selection how common is it for lawyers to look up a juror to see if there might be a connection to themselves from an old case, like would it be common for Juan, upon hearing her ex-husband was a felon, and tried in the same county, to have a bit of a look and see if he was connected, or if there might be any cause for concern in regards to this juror?

That would not be normal. It's a big county with lots of prosecutors.

RSBM

I read all the court minutes on the ex's cases, so I think I can clarify some of this.

2. On 10/21/98 he was arrested for 1st degree murder/drive by shooting/aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The crimes occurred on 8/30/98. He was placed in custody with no bond. On 11/2/98 he was indicted for the above crimes.

On 2/2/99 he was indicted for attempted burglary. The crime occurred on 7/16/98. This has a separate case number and is specifically listed as a separate but related case to the one above.

He was 17 when he committed all of these crimes. He turned 18 five days after he was arrested. After many months of several continuances, the judge denied JM's final motion to continue on 5/2/2000 and set trial to begin the next day, 5/3/2000.

The only conclusion I can draw is that JM was not prepared to begin trial the next day (lack of evidence?), so he offered the ex a plea agreement. On 5/3/2000 he presented the plea agreement to the court and the ex plead guilty to the attempted burglary charge. The 1st degree murder/drive by shooting/aggravated assault charges were dropped.

3. The burglary charge and subsequent imprisionment that #17 discussed during jury selection was the 2008 case, not the case(s) mentioned above. She excluded the above case(s), the one(s) that JM prosecuted, altogether as if they never occurred. She told how he had stolen cell phones from Verizon and shot at police. That was the 2008 case. What she failed to disclose about that one though was that he was not merely charged with burglary, he was charged and convicted of burglary, 3 counts of aggravated assault, and misconduct involving weapons. That case did not go to trial - he pled guilty and was sentenced to 30 years.

She claimed they were separated when he was sent to prison, but in the court minutes for the sentencing hearing on 6/27/08, it states she made a statement to the court on his behalf. The only conclusion I can draw from that is they were not, in fact, separated. IMO after he was sentenced to 30 years WOP, she decided to leave him.

4. Yes. She was definitely in court on 5/3/2000 when JM presented the plea agreement because one of the conditions of the agreement was that the ex would reside with #17. As for the ex's other appearances in court with JM prior to the plea agreement, I think as a couple in love enough to marry prior to sentencing, she was present in court. He was in custody. IMO she would be there to see him and show her support. There is nothing that will convince me she didn't know who JM was.

OK, I'm confused. I haven't read everything on his cases like you have, though--just skimmed through. I do think he was 16 when he committed the July/Aug. 1998 crimes, not 17, because his birthday shows as Oct. 1981 most of the time (Oct. 1980 once that I saw). Either way, I wonder if juror #17 thought she shouldn't disclose juvenile information or that it didn't count for whatever question she was asked in the questionnaire. The jury questionnaire should be available from the court clerk if anyone's communicating with any reporters, by the way.

There is no indication in the minutes that juror #17 was present at the 5/3/00 hearing, although as you said it was approved for SA to live with her as part of the plea deal, so I would think she would have been there to pick him up.

Although SA was sentenced on 6/27/08 for the later crimes, he got a presentence incarceration credit of 146 days, so if we're trying to figure out if juror #17 was truthful when she said they were separated when he went to prison, perhaps we should be looking at Jan. 2008 rather than June 2008 as the separation date.

ETA: Or 2/1/08, the date of the offense.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL, Juror 17 stated that she was in an 11 year relationship with her first husband which began when she was 16. I believe that they are the same age so that would mean that when he committed his crime in 1998 that she did in fact know about it.

He was 16 and 10 months old at the time of the 1998 offenses, and I don't know her birth date, so I'm just saying it's unclear. She certainly was living with him by May 2000, likely knew that he was on probation at that time, and must have been aware that he went to jail for 4 months beginning Nov. 2000.

 

[Val1]

No reputable media source is calling her a liar. In the court interview she did talk about the shooting. I suppose it's a matter of opinion if you think she's lying about not recognizing JM. Surely if Juror 17 (a girl at the time) should have recognized JM then JM should have recognized her. If you believe she didn't deliberate then at least two jurors were lying.

Iirc she was talking about the shooting where her first hb got convicted in 2008( http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052008/m3180122.pdf ) and not the first time that he got the plea agreement for with JM.

As for JM recognizing her, not only was she going by her new married name but she was 15 years older... most women's looks change over the course of 15 yrs, especially from teens to mid 30's women with 3 children, whereas men may get a little grayer but once adults their looks really don't change much so I would expect her to recognize him(if only from the crime show she did eventually admit to recognizing him from) much more than for JM to recognize the young teen wife of someone with a different surname that he did a plea agreement for 15 years ago.

As for the deliberations, I would have to replay the audio on that but, iirc they said she had finally started to communicate after her threat to go to the bailiff on that Tuesday morning after which they had finally gone to JSS, ie she started to talk about herself and participated by writing items on the board, whether that constitutes actually deliberating I will leave up to those that were and felt she wasn't, other than to say that she apparently didn't even try to illustrate with the evidence why she held to Life, something I would think anyone that felt that strongly about would be doing in an attempt to win a unanimous verdict for that in the hope that it would convince the judge to downgrade it to LWP.:moo:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He was 16 and 10 months old at the time of the 1998 offenses, and I don't know her birth date, so I'm just saying it's unclear. She certainly was living with him by May 2000, likely knew that he was on probation at that time, and must have been aware that he went to jail for 4 months beginning Nov. 2000.

Thanks for keeping us on our legal toes and making sense of this case for us. I really believe at this point none of this matters and nothing will come of it. I think sometimes this is the way the ball bounces. She is in prison for ever.. That is a good thing and a win for justice.

 

[lonetraveler]

Took a much needed break from this case but just checking in today. Could someone help me find the interview of juror no. 17? I would like to hear it. Please. Thank you in advance.

 

[Val1]

He was 16 and 10 months old at the time of the 1998 offenses, and I don't know her birth date, so I'm just saying it's unclear. She certainly was living with him by May 2000, likely knew that he was on probation at that time, and must have been aware that he went to jail for 4 months beginning Nov. 2000.

BBM - I agree.
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052000/m0139919.pdf
"SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
05/03/2000"

"PLEA AGREEMENT/CHANGE OF PLEA
10:55 a.m. State is represented by Juan M. Martinez"

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant shall reside with"...her maiden name was still on the court documents...

 

[ohreally]

Clearly JSS didn't have all of the information (nor did anyone but J17). I feel confident that if JSS KNEW that Juan Martinez had prosecuted her former husband who went to prison, she'd have struck her then and there. Just like the Judge did to me for a weekend remodeling a bathroom with the prosecutor as part of a completely neutral team experience (a far cry from a court of law where my husband was being prosecuted).

A few more interesting docs...

She/they bought house in 2010, only she is on title (totally understandable if husband has bad credit, etc.. but again, another piece of circumstantial evidence b/c current husband is a felon and b/c we are trying to find a motive behind all this)

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20100970374.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20100970375.pdf


The documents below pertain to ex husband and current husband's restitution

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20140307688.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/19990215317.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/19970542475.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20110164275.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20031424942.pdf

http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs2/pdf/20031580591.pdf


I added this only b/c being that her husband is a felon I'm wondering if he has something up his sleeve, like wanting to creating a reason to refinance her house and add him to the title... Again, I'm just speculating, trying to figure out what their/his motives could be in all of this... "just been busy sleuthing again" - Nancy Drew ;0)

Arizona is one of the nine community property states in the United States. Community property is a principal of Spanish law and the states that are community property states were part of the old Spanish empire.

Community property law means that the marriage is in essence a community that anything earned (or debt incurred) during the marriage is to be divided fifty-fifty. Of course there are exceptions. Property that was earned prior to the marriage or gifted or inherited by one spouse is considered “separate property” and should remain solely the asset of that person.

Arizona is a “non-fault” or “no-fault” state. This means that the court will not consider the conduct of spouses when dividing property. Of course there are exceptions. There is a concept of community waste, meaning that if a spouse spent money on a gambling habit or any other activity that was not for the benefit of the community the innocent spouse should not be liable for those expenses and be reimbursed for any waste.

Because it is not easy to establish community waste it is best for the innocent spouse to file for divorce quickly thus minimizing their responsibility for the debts incurred by the other spouse. Under Arizona law, filing and serving the other party with the divorce action will sever the financial community and debts incurred thereafter will be those of the spouse that incurred them.

The house purchase is interesting to me. Is this the same house that she owned at the time of her marriage? Was it after her divorce from her first husband was finalized, which was also in 2010. When Juan questions her she says that they were dating for two years then quickly changes it to four months. Then something about looking at a house to buy. Then in the next statement she says that they didn't marry until after the baby was born. Hmm only dated four months but had a baby (nine months) before they got married. What am I missing?
Why lie about how long she was dating her second husband?

 

[Nosey Parker]

For your evening's amusement, while we wait for the news bombshell that we will all love, but is being held back for Sweeps Week, whatever that is:

There is video on the State vs Arias Facebook page from just before Arias' taking the stand in secret. She was determined to 'walk' to the witness box like all the other witnesses - no way was she going to be treated as a common defendant - entitlement much? JSS was concerned that her restraints would be apparent to the jury, so she had Arias rehearse her 'walk'. In the end, after looking up the case Juan cited, JSS had to concede that he was correct after all - it was a possible appellant issue should the jury notice her 'equipment'. Enjoy!

 

[ladonna]

12 News ‏@12News 2m2 minutes ago

#Juror17 says the #JodiArias jury was not instructed to stay off social media. She talks about her choice tonight https://t.co/F8zRInMNh3
— 12 News (@12News) March 16, 2015​

#Juror17 says the #JodiArias jury was not instructed to stay off social media. She talks about her choice tonight