Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[ShadyLady]

#juror17

There is a copy of a doc that has appeared on various twitter feeds regarding the answers to questions asked by the court. At the top of the post it says karasoncrime.com.

Is this a legitimate doc? Did Beth post something like this on her site?

 

[La-Cooks]

Who are "they"? TIA

It is my understanding that the contract with MDLR was between her and the Maricopa County Office of Public Defense Services. Most contracts have a holding over clause that if another contract is not signed, then the contract becomes month to month. They did dnot have to sign a new contract with her. http://www.maricopa.gov/OPDS/Assets...tracts/Service_Provider_Contracts/11075-c.pdf

 

[Jmoose]

Isn't he given the op to exclude certain jurors, isn't that the point of jury selection .. wouldn't that info have been useful? I bet they do it from now on.

Yeah-but you don't get an infinite number of peremptory challenges; maybe he used them all up before she got to the front of the line. Or, maybe she was only a little honest-remember, she's married 2 criminals-what is the chance that she is honest by nature?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

#juror17

There is a copy of a doc that has appeared on various twitter feeds regarding the answers to questions asked by the court. At the top of the post it says karasoncrime.com.

Is this a legitimate doc? Did Beth post something like this on her site?

Yeah I saw that .. Paid site right? She even credits the person who shared it with her!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I'm also astounded...and question her understanding of evidence if she really, as reported, actually WANTED to bring in that Lifetime movie to be reviewed during deliberations. REALLY????

So she thinks reality is something seen in a movie where the producers always omit and embellish certain aspects of it?

Her reality seem to be embedded in fantasy instead.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to learn if she kept up with this case as closely as we have here before becoming a juror.

IMO

 

[krkrjx]

I know we've had discussions about this in the past...but unless you've been caught in a sociopath's web, there's no way you could possibly know just how difficult it is to disengage.

IMO, truer words were never spoken!

 

[elementary]

Wow! Charming, as always

Wilmott's statement is egotistical and sick, like all of the murdering convict's, IMO. It's interesting that psychopaths are overrepresented in psychology and law.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

One thing for certain, this is definitely overshadowing the defenses hollow "victory".

Kinda like Special Snowflakes is already melting into the media background for awhile?

I also liked how one of the bloggers (was it Jen?) yesterday wouldn't put up Jodi's photo, because the day needed to be focused on Travis.

 

[ohreally]

I am gong to wait, until all the facts are known, to voice my opinion completely, on juror #17. (for now, innocent until proven guilty)

I have been thinking about the 11 jurors saying that in the beginning there was a 50/50 vote or how they stood. So since that being stated, by them, 5 other jurors voted for life. It bothers me that those 5 believe since they changed their way of thinking, well, that #17 should have also. Every vote counted, everyone should have been able to decide for themselves without too much pressure. Who she was, how her life was, her past experience, maybe they were different than everyone else and those things effected her vote. I know they didn't think she tried to deliberate to their expectations and they wanted to have a unanimous verdict. That being said, unless she is proven to be a juror with an agenda, she had her right to vote how she felt and still be treated with respect. JMOO

IIRC it was 50/50 split at the beginning. Both sides of the split sent a note to the judge stating their concerns that juror 17 was a concern to them. This tells me it wasn't the fact that she didn't want to give the DP that concerned them. It was the fact that she didn't want to deliberate, stated she watched the news, and wanted to bring in other outside information. One male juror said that it wasn't till the end of the deliberations that he changed his vote to DP. That is what deliberation is for. These 11 jurors did their job. They came in willing to go over the evidence and discuss it with an open mind. They did, and some changed their minds after deliberating. The one hold out refused to do that IMO because she had an agenda.
These jurors did not want juror 17 off because she was not going to vote DP, and the vote and note at the beginning of deliberations proves it to me.

 

[sammie]

You're Welcome!!! The latest update from Fox10 (http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/2...-husband-has-ties-to-prosecutor-juan-martinez) indicates county officials are actively investigating this, and "they" aren't commenting, ... which is (IMO) a good thing. No need to compromise an ongoing investigation.

Now, the Super Secret Courtroom of Judge Stephens? THAT's another story.

Was just going to post that, does a good job of bringing us up to date...Monica Lindstorm could have given us a bit more actual legal expertise, IMHO. "Well that's not good for anyone?" LOL, thanks captain obvious! :doh:

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Apparently they could have kept her on an hourly basis until sentencing. Then she's done.

I'm sure she was negotiating and threw in a few threats if it wasn't extended longer.

What would be interesting now is to see the termination clauses (Hint hint to the County!)

 

[sammie]

IIRC it was 50/50 split at the beginning. Both sides of the split sent a note to the judge stating their concerns that juror 17 was a concern to them. This tells me it wasn't the fact that she didn't want to give the DP that concerned them. It was the fact that she didn't want to deliberate, stated she watched the news, and wanted to bring in other outside information. One male juror said that it wasn't till the end of the deliberations that he changed his vote to DP. That is what deliberation is for. These 11 jurors did their job. They came in willing to go over the evidence and discuss it with an open mind. They did, and some changed their minds after deliberating. The one hold out refused to do that IMO because she had an agenda.
These jurors did not want juror 17 off because she was not going to vote DP, and the vote and note at the beginning of deliberations proves it to me.

Correction, IIRC I believe it was said 50% (for death), with a few undecided.

 

[Shadowboy]

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/jurors-attorneys-social-media-trial-dunn-fjc-2014.pdf/$file/jurors-attorneys-social-media-trial-dunn-fjc-2014.pdf

For those needing more tangential information in their lives ... Study re: use of social media by jurors and by PT/DT to screen jurors.

"The results, based on the responses of 494 responding judges, indicate that detected social media use by jurors is infrequent and that most
judges have taken steps to ensure jurors do not use social media in the courtroom. ... Only 33 judges reported instances of detected social media use by jurors during trial or deliberations. Attorneys’ use of social media to research prospective jurors during voir dire is difficult to detect and quantify; most
judges do not know whether attorneys are accessing potential jurors’ social media profiles during voir dire, and most judges do not address the issue with attorneys."

The sample admonitions and jury instructions in this PDF are interesting. JSS might need to take note.

 

[ShadyLady]

Yeah I saw that .. Paid site right? She even credits the person who shared it with her!

If it's legit, I hope we can discuss, as I see some red flags.

 

[elementary]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 46s47 seconds ago
#jodiarias atty Jennifer Willmott, "We all knew (#Juror17's) 1st husband had a past. If Juan didn't check it out, that's his fault."

They knew that the juror's husband was connected with Juan and yet they didn't bring that to the attention of the judge?????? And this is okay????? They knew throughout the entire trial?

It surely sounds like the DT also took advantage of it, in ways we may not possibly know. Geez.

 

[Jmoose]

All I can think is that if she was specifically asked she either lied or she did not know that it was Juan who prosecuted the case. I'm sure everyone has heard of Juan or seen photos of him, but she may not have known that he prosecuted. JMO

Sorry-she married her first felon the day before or the day after he was sentenced. Don't you think their reception was an "I hate Juan Martinez" party? She knew who prosecuted him-I'd bet money on it. Unless she never talked to her husband about anything, and never went to his trial

 

[La-Cooks]

Didn't Nurmi scream objection taking along his phone as 'proof'. We know Nurmi uses social media. :laughing:

 

[La-Cooks]

Sorry-she married her first felon the day before or the day after he was sentenced. Don't you think their reception was an "I hate Juan Martinez" party? She knew who prosecuted him-I'd bet money on it. Unless she never talked to her husband about anything, and never went to his trial

Agree! I know I wouldn't forget Juan if he prosecuted me or any member of my family. There is no way to forget that fact. :laughing:

 

[sammie]

If it's legit, I hope we can discuss, as I see some red flags.

If it is what's out on there on twitter, same guy who has been posting documents and been right all along. Mods can ShadyLady or someone post the transcript of Juror #17s voir dire?

 

[ICit]

One thing that stands out in my mind regarding the J-17 issue, is that J-4 was interviewed, and when asked directly if the jury wanted a specific alternate to switch places with J-17, he said that was not the case. J-4 said that they asked that J-17 be replaced, but they did not ask for a specific alternate. JSS, iirc, stated that the jury wanted Alternate J-2 as the replacement.

That is a huge discrepancy. It would be nice to see the actual question from the jurors.

ETA: It could be 2 separate questions. If the courtroom wouldn't have been held in such a secret manner, maybe these questions wouldn't linger.

Makes me wonder if the secret sealed question from juror 17 wasn't the one that requested a particular juror as replacement?

GOSSIP ALERT: has anyone else heard if the report that MDLR tweeted at 9:32 a.m. Arizona time indicating that the verdict was a win for JA? It was not read until after 10:00.