SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[21merc7]

Because age/gender affect trial strategy. Different strokes for different folks.

It should not. But it probably does. I can tell you of a lawyer that will not choose female jurors b/c of his own bias. He never wins a case though.

Jurors *should* simply look at the evidence and facts before them. But, I have been called to jury duty many times since I have a driver's license. I never sit because of my job, nor do I wish to. I have seen and heard what will be and I cannot agree with the mindsets. Hours waiting to be called up just for Voir Dire. I would flip out an go JA having to try to make lifetimes of knowledge understandable to some. Gender doesn't play into it.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

Why does it matter what gender the jurors were? This type of speculation just causes devisiveness between the genders.

Because JM has to pick a new jury real soon. Apparently older men are disposed to feel sorry for JA. I've said before, most trial experts will tell you that cases are usually won or lost during jury selection.

 

[DebinGA]

Did Nancy know who who voted what way before anyone else?

Nancy the juror, not NG.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Verdict is in! GUILTY of MURDER ONE - Hung Jury On Penalty Phase

 

[Lilly12]

So sorry you experienced that horror, TXP. The 8-4 split has convinced me that a death verdict outcome in a Round 2 is futile pursuit, given the facts of this case. The delay will only give JA a reprieve from what awaits her at Perryville, cost AZ taxpayers another million, and put a gazillion more pennies in the DT's kettles. If I believed there was a realistic hope of a different outcome, I'd be all for it.

I venture to say the split in my humble opinion is 3/12. As I believe the forman, juror #18 is/was a stealth juror, given what he said in one of his many interviews. my opinion only.

 

[Hope4More]

All theories are plausible, including this one. The worthless point for the prosecution during trial is that no one could tell the jurors what the argument was about. That part was on the prosecution to find out, and they did not give any reason, so I can see jurors not knowing all that we do, seeing that as an abusive man.

Guess the ones that thought that now know differently, but still, even we do not know why the argument email.

Sky and Chris Hughes have said they read every single email, text, chat, and IM between Travis and his killer, and even after that did not know the answer. As I recall, Chris thought it probably was about the tape being held over T's head, but it was just a guess.

 

[Jane Jetson]

DebinGA, I live in TX so it may be different, but my husband, son and I were the victims of an Armed Home Invasion with a shooting, and while it was not totally our decision on charging and plea deals, we were very heavily consulted throughout the process.

I'm so sorry to hear that. I don't even know what to say - that must have been so traumatic. God bless you and yours!

 

[RR0004]

Definitely something shady....Juan wanted a FRAUD expert to testify....had to be significant. And of course he wasn't allowed to get her on the stand :stormingmad::stormingmad:

He had something on her big time.

Didn't that have to do with the 3 gas transactions...the reason why she had to finally go inside to pay for the last one? The multiple transactions triggered an alert of some kind, IMO. It could have been from the cc company or the gas company. Again, JMO.

 

[LindaFaye]

If she does not get the DP I want her to get LWOP I was thinking this morning if she gets LWOP she would not get to drive go to stores out to eat ect. She would be in a cell almost the time in her life not in contact with anyone else maybe after 3 years the guy over the Perryville Prison said if she was good and didn't start trouble she would be moved where she would be in contact with other prisoners but only after 3 years.

 

[Angelina Frost]

Did he really say he JM was talking down to the jury? I find that so odd considering that Juan was so "gentle" in his approach to the jury at the end. I missed his opening (and if anyone can find Day 1 on video, please share!) statement, but when he addressed the jury in the end, I didn't sense he was talking down to anyone. What the heck was this guy talking about?

I don't have the exact snippet from him, RR, but it was something to the effect of (paraphrasing)- "Juan Martinez is relentless and I don't like being talked to like I'm stupid, which I think happened a few times during proceedings."

My :twocents: is that in Mr. Foreman's mind it was Alpha Dog meets Alpha Dog and once that gauntlet was thrown, it became some odd war of attrition to him. His interviews were strange, like he was gleaning satisfaction out of being a deliberate contrarian to the State's sentencing position.

 

[bobloblaw]

Because age/gender affect trial strategy. Different strokes for different folks.

Only if you believe all men are the same, all women are the same, all black people are the same, all short people are the same etc etc...

 

[Jane Jetson]

So, silly question perhaps, but how on earth did he know she was being crucified in the court of public opinion? Was he referring to the 24 hours (or less) that he was able to read newspapers and watch news of the case? Because surely, he abided by the judge's admonition, right?

He just knew, RR! Just like he knew that CKJA was totally normal before bumping into Travis. :floorlaugh:

 

[KandyKane]

First the Alexander family has to agree to any kind of plea and not going on for DP.

Most likely if a plea is offered it is life, no parole, no appeals. (And the inmate and her attorneys must agree with an offer.) But the Alexander family must be consulted first.

If the Alexander family chooses to go forward for DP, then forward it is.

The family doesn't make the decision. JM represents the state, not the family. Surely their desires would be taken under consideration, but it isn't the family's decision to make. I don't even think it's JM's decision to make either but whoever his superior is. His superior (can't remember his name or title) has already stated that they will being moving forward with a new jury and won't accept a plea at this time.

The prosecution really has no reason to accept a plea since even if they were to lose with the new jury, Jodi would still be getting life anyway. The only plea that can be made is taking death off the table, and the judge is who determines if it is life with or without parole.

 

[21merc7]

Only if you believe all men are the same, all women are the same, all black people are the same, all short people are the same etc etc...

:tyou:

 

[21merc7]

The family doesn't make the decision. JM represents the state, not the family. Surely their desires would be taken under consideration, but it isn't the family's decision to make. I don't even think it's JM's decision to make either but whoever his superior is. His superior (can't remember his name or title) has already stated that they will being moving forward with a new jury and won't accept a plea at this time.

The prosecution really has no reason to accept a plea since even if they were to lose with the new jury, Jodi would still be getting life anyway. The only plea that can be made is taking death off the table, and the judge is who determines if it is life with or without parole.

I looked up AZlawyer's answer and corrected the post for Arizona laws.

 

[RR0004]

RR0004, makes a person go hmmmm. All I know is if he didn't heed the admonition he needs to keep it to himself or I will positively anic:anic:anic:

I know that this case was in the news prior to jury selection, hard for anyone to say they had no knowledge of it. But, if this person said that regardless of what he heard/read he could still remain impartial, clearly that wasn't the truth. Saying someone had been crucified definitely shows bias. I know that this phase is over, but IMHO, this person has earned himself a conversation with LE.

 

[bobloblaw]

Because JM has to pick a new jury real soon. Apparently older men are disposed to feel sorry for JA. I've said before, most trial experts will tell you that cases are usually won or lost during jury selection.

Thats quite a generalization there... Considering I'm older and would give her the DP in a heart beat. I'm truly disgusted to think there are people who assume they can profile others based on gender etc..pure poppycock...

 

[TXProfessional]

I'm so sorry to hear that. I don't even know what to say - that must have been so traumatic. God bless you and yours!

Just hitting the thanks button was not enough. You and others on this board never cease to amaze with your kindness and caring. This is a topic I rarely discuss even after 4 years, but with all due respect I feel that the Life, Life Without Parole or Death Penalty discussion/decision is one for the District Attorney, Prosecutor and the Family jmho. And I will respect whatever decision they reach.

 

[kpm]

Correct me please if I am wrong but given the fact that 18 said they never tried to change anyone's opinion and the final vote was 8-4,we will never know if the three could have been persuaded differently because 18 threw the towel in and the judge called it instead of sending them back one more time.
It seems his agenda can be seen as to not deliberate, just ask who votes how and he quickly told judge they were hung so that he got the outcome he wanted...IMO

ETA: since he stated "they" we're all shocked, I have to wonder if a wrong form was filled out and they really only had a question, did JSS jump the shark because of the form thAt was handed in?

This is very confusing

 

[21merc7]

Thats quite a generalization there... Considering I'm older and would give her the DP in a heart beat. I'm truly disgusted to think there are people who assume they can profile others based on gender etc..pure poppycock...

I agree. It has nothing to do with gender, more with mindset. Regardless man or woman.

 

[RR0004]

I don't have the exact snippet from him, RR, but it was something to the effect of (paraphrasing)- "Juan Martinez is relentless and I don't like being talked to like I'm stupid, which I think happened a few times during proceedings."

My :twocents: is that in Mr. Foreman's mind it was Alpha Dog meets Alpha Dog and once that gauntlet was thrown, it became some odd war of attrition to him. His interviews were strange, like he was gleaning satisfaction out of being a deliberate contrarian to the State's sentencing position.

ITA. But when did Juan actually speak directly to the jury...in the beginning....and at the end. Speak to someone as if they're stupid? Wow! Those are powerful words...and I just can't remember a time when JM was disrespectful to the jury.