Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

daisydomino

Active Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
2
I just saw where a segment producer for Gma is in touch with the lone Juror's husband.

I am starting to remove people who are tweeting out her name, and address and phone number from twitter! OUTRAGEOUS!

These actions, just like this, is why we didn't get to see the penalty phase ... just like this. :gaah:

Yep!

This is awful. :( People, leave her alone.
 

MissHaley

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
0
You know how ruthless and harsh people can be, she is probably in hiding...she will be harassed for days/weeks/months to come. Her name and address are out there, she will
probably have to move.
How did name & address get out?
 

Amster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
11,308
Reaction score
1,873
First off.. I think that Jodi should have LWOP to keep her out of society and assure us that she is gone. I am sorry, after listening to the jurors, that the hold-out refused to participate and explain herself. That was not fair to the other jurors, and it does seem hinky to me. And it should have been addressed by the judge when it was brought to her attention. What makes me equally sick though, is to hear the family wailing because all they want is Jodi's death. Jodi was convicted. Spending seven years wishing for someones death, and making it your mission seems pathological to me. I feel terribly for the loss of their brother, but no more or less than I do for anyone who has lost a loved one to murder...no matter HOW heinous the method was. This was the State of Arizona VS Jodi Arias. There are ALWAYS loved ones who are recognized as victims. The family needs to move on. Jodi will be out of their faces IF they choose. JMO

wow....such empathy for the family of Travis Alexander. Just move on....:facepalm:
 

Boytwnmom

Verified Attorney
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
298
on appeal issues being the reason why no action was taken against the juror. Now, I agree that no matter what reason, it would be used as an appeal. But aren't there legitimate reasons to dismiss a non-deliberating juror or one who committed misconduct by lying or similar? I don't know much about this topic naturally but I was reading a CA paper on Juror Misconduct that went over some similar issues. I don't know if AZ has similar statutes requiring deliberations and specifically referencing how jurors can be dismissed.

I found parts of the paper seemingly relevant to what I think may have gone on here with the juror and how the situation could have been handled. Of course, it's from the defense perspective and naturally the defense has more to gain in this matter, as in most others. They can try to get an unfavorable juror booted, a favorable one retained and/or threaten to get the verdict overturned later.

Would it have essentially required both counsel to consent to investigate further? Did Nurmi do the appeal threat unless they left that juror alone? I'm sure he figured out it was a defense holdout. So, would the judge just refuse since the state has no recourse?

Anyway, the paper kind of sets out what I feel likely happened and how it should have been investigated. But I guess there's no way to get that done when the juror misconduct benefits the defense. I still would love to know what really went on here. But since we don't even know how much of the trial went I guess that's a remote dream.

“A refusal to deliberate consists of a juror’s unwillingness to engage in the deliberative process; that is, he or she will not participate in discussions with fellow jurors by listening to their views and by expressing his or her own views. Examples of refusal to deliberate include, but are not limited to, expressing a fixed conclusion at the beginning of deliberations and refusing to consider other points of view, refusing to speak to other jurors, and attempting to separate oneself physically from the remainder of the jury.” ( People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 485.)

Penal Code section 1089 authorizes the trial court to discharge a juror at any time before or after the final submission of the case to the jury if, upon good cause, the juror is found to be unable to perform his or her duty. ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 621.) A juror's inability to perform must appear in the record as a “demonstrable reality.” (Ibid.; see People v. Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1052–1053.) On appeal, the trial court’s decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( Barnwell, supra, at p. 1052.)

...courts must exercise care when intruding into the deliberative process to ensure that the secrecy and sanctity of the deliberative process is maintained. ( Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 475.) However, the need to protect the secrecy of deliberations does not preclude reasonable inquiry by the court into allegations of misconduct during deliberations. ( Id., at p. 476.) The
trial court has a duty to investigate an allegation of juror misconduct to determine whether cause exists to replace an offending juror with a substitute. ( Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 532.) The inquiry should be “as limited in scope as possible, to avoid intruding unnecessarily upon the sanctity of the jury’s deliberations. The inquiry should focus upon the conduct of the jurors, rather than upon the content of the deliberations.

Whenever the record indicates that there was an allegation of jury misconduct, appellate counsel should carefully scrutinize the record to determine (a) whether the trial court investigated the misconduct; (b) whether the scope of the inquiry made by the trial court was adequate; and (c) whether the juror’s responses should have resulted in his or her replacement.
http://www.sdap.org/downloads/research/criminal/jmcdu.pdfhttp://
 

Ricki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,378
Reaction score
486
I think she was a plant, probably by MDLR and they knew it. They seemed to have advanced knowledge of alot that went down before it happened.

How would MDLR plant her and it does not get noticed? I may be naive. I just don't know how that would work. Doesn't the court send out jury notices for potential jurors. They do here.
 

Hope4More

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
13,102
Reaction score
13,477
Turns out spa-time is good for the soul. :)

Yes, she deserved the DP and no she didn't get it, and yes the Alexanders didn't get the sentence they wanted. But it really is exquisitely perfect how it turned out.

If anyone thinks the DP meant different conditions at Perryville, you haven't read about the rules changing and how little different her day to day existence would have been in very short order, DP or LWOP. The genuine big difference is she is GONE. She will be without any outside support, ever, except for a mother 1,000 miles away and the inevitable groupies she would have had either way, and she's been robbed of the extra dozens of years she could pretend to herself she'd be free on appeal. The Slumber party book talks about how much difference it makes to be able to hold onto that hope.

Better yet, she's been robbed of any pretense she's a victim. The jury didn't believe she was a victim, and hated that she tried to victimize Travis in court. They dislike her so much they wanted her dead. They loved the prosecutor she hates, didn't believe ANY of the lies she manufactured, including *advertiser censored* on the computer. That is complete and total repudiation of HER.

The retrial revealed WAY more about her than the first. Everything she wanted to hide is out in the open. She didn't get the DP so she can't even play poster child DP victim.

And, the holdout juror has TAINTED the outcome, rightfully or not. Most folks will always believe that she should have received the DP and would have if......or, if....... That is a a hugely different and better outcome than last time, when some jurors DID believe she was abused, 8-4 thought she should be spared, and nobody questioned the legitimacy of the verdict.

I'm sure she knows she lost, and her last tweets are evidence that's so. I've been popping in and out reading the threads here and get that most folks here are angry and don't agree with what I'm saying. Hugs to you....I'm totally at peace with the outcome and ready to let go of all things JA.

PS- warning about the May 26th text. It will likely make you sad to read it. MF didn't make up her story whole cloth about Travis feeling suicidal. She twisted the truth, and she sure did lie 100% about JA being suicidal, but Travis was a deeply unhappy man in late May. JA deserved every last word he said to her on May 26, but it is also the case that he was blaming her for his own inability to kick her out of his life completely, once and for all.

One part of Travis' legacy that I'm walking away with a powerful reminder of the necessity of setting absolute boundaries and that sometimes forgiveness needs to be earned.
 

~Lyric~

Where is the Justice for Holly Bobo?
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
1,595
Reaction score
44
How did name & address get out?

From what I can gather, her husband posted something on his fb..and you know how things snowball when one little nugget gets out.
 

sammie

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
685
Reaction score
0
How did name & address get out?

Not sure, it's all over twitter. The media had it right after the trial, one was tweeting facts about the woman's facebook page (liked The Secret, Law of Attraction, NancyGrace). Once you know the name, it's easy to find address on the internet. :facepalm:
 

Mindmatters

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
3
According to the jurors who did speak, this woman was bringing stuff into, or talking about things in the jury room that wasn't allowed. And, she refused to deliberate. The foreman sent a letter to Sherry, which was read to this person before it was sent. In return, the "DP is revenge" person sent her own letter to Sherry....without telling the others what it said.

I have a feeling she is going to be outed as a stealth juror....but, no problem. Evidently, in Arizona at least, a juror can lie to get on a jury and then disregard all rules without penalty as long as the cheater is in favor of the defendant.

This will sound absolutely callous but there is a saying.... you reap what you sow.
 

Sweetiemom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
69
After seeing and reading about everything that went down today, it would not surprise me to see the judge give Arias LWP...I am just so disgusted with this whole mess.
 

Hatfield

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
17,014
Reaction score
59,055
Argos: Do you happen to know - was she the one that held out for the decision today?

Husband: She was.

Argos: Did she tell you what the feeling was like inside of that jury room?
Husband: Yeah, she said she felt like she was being assaulted by all the other jurors ... trying to get her to go the other way. She held strong to her beliefs and I'm proud of her for that.

Argos: Is it a religious belief she had, or why?

Husband: No, it isn't. She's not opposed to the death penalty. She just didn't believe it was warranted here.

Argos: And she still sticks by her decision?

Husband: Absolutely, she does.



Read more: http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/...lt-like-she-was-being-assaulted#ixzz3TYd349b2

Would love to be able to ask her what could Jodi have done more to warrant the DP then?

And if that juror answers anything like be a mass murderer or something, then she should have NOT been on that jury because this was a DP case from the very start and she knew that up front and going into it. JA could not kill anymore people while on trial.
 

smeck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
73
How would MDLR plant her and it does not get noticed? I may be naive. I just don't know how that would work. Doesn't the court send out jury notices for potential jurors. They do here.

Well....someone could have followed her to her car and made a deal $$$$ with her early in the trial.
 

cady

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
7,097
Reaction score
9,854
wow....such empathy for the family of Travis Alexander. Just move on....:facepalm:

I believe that their beloved brother would hope that they move on with their respective lives, and enjoy them JMO I would hope that for my friends and family.
 

ElleElle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
7,497
Reaction score
32
I believe Juror 17 was confused. Revenge is what the murderess imposed upon Travis simply because he became aware that he simply did not need her in his life and had the grace to forgive her lying evil self.

BBM ~ Even if #17 was confused, 11 others couldn't un-confuse her? Something has happened and I have a feeling it got emotional for this juror and she ignored the facts and evidence the 11 others clearly saw.
 

Mindmatters

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
3
Turns out spa-time is good for the soul. :)

Yes, she deserved the DP and no she didn't get it, and yes the Alexanders didn't get the sentence they wanted. But it really is exquisitely perfect how it turned out.

If anyone thinks the DP meant different conditions at Perryville, you haven't read about the rules changing and how little different her day to day existence would have been in very short order, DP or LWOP. The genuine big difference is she is GONE. She will be without any outside support, ever, except for a mother 1,000 miles away and the inevitable groupies she would have had either way, and she's been robbed of the extra dozens of years she could pretend to herself she'd be free on appeal. The Slumber party book talks about how much difference it makes to be able to hold onto that hope.

Better yet, she's been robbed of any pretense she's a victim. The jury didn't believe she was a victim, and hated that she tried to victimize Travis in court. They dislike her so much they wanted her dead. They loved the prosecutor she hates, didn't believe ANY of the lies she manufactured, including *advertiser censored* on the computer. That is complete and total repudiation of HER.

The retrial revealed WAY more about her than the first. Everything she wanted to hide is out in the open. She didn't get the DP so she can't even play poster child DP victim.

And, the holdout juror has TAINTED the outcome, rightfully or not. Most folks will always believe that she should have received the DP and would have if......or, if....... That is a a hugely different and better outcome than last time, when some jurors DID believe she was abused, 8-4 thought she should be spared, and nobody questioned the legitimacy of the verdict.

I'm sure she knows she lost, and her last tweets are evidence that's so. I've been popping in and out reading the threads here and get that most folks here are angry and don't agree with what I'm saying. Hugs to you....I'm totally at peace with the outcome and ready to let go of all things JA.

PS- warning about the May 26th text. It will likely make you sad to read it. MF didn't make up her story whole cloth about Travis feeling suicidal. She twisted the truth, and she sure did lie 100% about JA being suicidal, but Travis was a deeply unhappy man in late May. JA deserved every last word he said to her on May 26, but it is also the case that he was blaming her for his own inability to kick her out of his life completely, once and for all.

One part of Travis' legacy that I'm walking away with a powerful reminder of the necessity of setting absolute boundaries and that sometimes forgiveness needs to be earned.

ITA What a superb post.

Now it is time for Victims Advocates to bring about reform in the Juror selection process, to ensure specific instructions are provided in the event a jury is faced with someone who refuses to participate in the deliberation process, and to demand that Victims that are murdered have protections against patently false claims amade against them for the sake of their murder's rights.

And may one of the reforms bear the name of Travis Alexander sometime in the future--I know I am willing to advocate for changes on behalf of TA and his family.
 

Ricki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,378
Reaction score
486
Did you read that back in Oct. this Juror was held back & questioned by the judge, all others were dismissed for the day. There were posts here that it was in BK notes.

I could be very wrong but I thought that took place because Dr. Drew mentioned that day, he was having juror 17 on his show that night. It was juror 17 from the guilt trial that was scheduled that evening. If this is wrong please feel free to correct me.
 

Greater Than

Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 14, 2014
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
63

"She felt like she was being assaulted."

The jury room can get very heated during deliberations. That is nothing new nor surprising, especially for a capital murder case.

But I'll tell you what, if I was on this jury and this lone juror could not provide us with a single scinero of when she would consider the DP warranted, I would probably unleash what she felt was a verbal assault too. It would anger me beyond belief that she lied about being open to it during jury selection. It's so unfair to the victim...the family...the PT,..the justice system... Ugh!
 

tlckgram

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
318
Reaction score
0
I think she was a plant, probably by MDLR and they knew it. They seemed to have advanced knowledge of alot that went down before it happened.

Much as I detest MDLR, I don't think juror 17 was a plant per se. I think it was just everyone knew it would only take ONE juror to throw it and they were hoping as hard for that ONE as we were for the DP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top