Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

Status
Not open for further replies.

MissHaley

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
0
Defendants Rights vs Victim's Rights- Does it bother anyone else that if jury misconduct is found in a case that is against the defendant, the verdict can be thrown out & retried. But, if it's against the State, they have no recourse? I believe in defendants rights but things have gone way too far, especially if the defendant is guilty! Victims have gotten lost & now it's become a game of 'winning'. Gone too far.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
8,887
Reaction score
255
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
In our case, the murderers were sentenced to 1. Death 2. Life WITH parole for the conspiracy charge (there was no LWOP in AZ in 1990) and also 3. Restitution. It wasn't much, but we had to present funeral expenses, lost wages etc. Not that we've ever seen a dime (but of course our taxes have gone to their millions of dollars in legal assistance over the years). I'm wondering if Arias will be sentenced to that as well...only because she can actually have a chance to make money in prison. AZLawyer? Is this a thing of the past?
 

krkrjx

The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
10,675
Reaction score
25,616
Would it be possible for Travis' s family to hire a lawyer to sue lifetime network and the producers of the movie seeing as how their airing of the movie before the sentence was pronounced appears to have influenced the outcome?

I do not think the network is responsible here. The movie was a work of fiction for one thing but that aside she, as a juror, was not supposed to be watching a movie or anything else on TV or internet regarding this case or anyone involved in it. They can't even follow the news on the subject. That is not allowed when you are on a jury.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
8,887
Reaction score
255
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Defendants Rights vs Victim's Rights- Does it bother anyone else that if jury misconduct is found in a case that is against the defendant, the verdict can be thrown out & retried. But, if it's against the State, they have no recourse? I believe in defendants rights but things have gone way too far, especially if the defendant is guilty! Victims have gotten lost & now it's become a game of 'winning'. Gone too far.

Yes, yes yes and also a resounding YES!
 

Steve44

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
11
Another injustice in the quest for justice for Travis Alexander is not surprising. The injustice now is that a juror with an agenda may have lied either directly or by omission to get seated on this jury. This particular flavor of injustice has happened in the US court system more often than I am comfortable with but so far no one has come up with a foolproof method for avoiding it.

Regarding the actual sentence of natural life in prison which I expect to be imposed on Killer Arias--that is not an injustice in my view. I know people like Jodi (ok, maybe not anyone close to her level of psychopathy, but you get the gist) and believe me, life behind bars is not a cake walk for such individuals. Yes, she will grin in that stupid-faced way she has and she will tweet, or have it done on her behalf, that she is all settled in and getting along well as she waits for vindication via the appeals that either have been or will be filed that demand she be set free.

Don't believe her. She lies to the nth degree, as we all know; that she will lie about her content existence behind the walls of a maximum security prison is to be expected. Don't believe the tweets, regardless of who tweets them, as they will be sent for the sole purpose of getting everyone riled up. I, for one, will not fall for it.

I am relieved that Jodi will be locked up for life and am pleased that it comes via hung jury. Had it been a verdict of death, this killer would be in the public's face for decades to come and no doubt a pita do-gooder or two would have stepped in to get her sentence commuted at some point. Who needs it! Not me. Not the family and friends of the murdered man. Not the citizens of Arizona.

Had there been a verdict of life in prison, the killer would still be going away for life but the jury making that decision would have vindicated the defense team in their vilification of murder victim Travis Alexander. I am pleased that this vindication has not and never will come to pass.

Looking at this mess of a trial as a whole and especially at the disgusting behavior the jurors are reporting about one of their own, I am on an even keel with the non-verdict here. It sends the killer away without fanfare, it vindicates the murder victim, and it shouts loud and clear that even though Arias avoided the death penalty the jury had her number all along! I am good with that.

Well said. Many here I'm sure, including myself, wish the DP were other than it actually is, which is more of a boon to the killer than a punishment for her crime, and if that had been the case then JA would have deserved nothing less. But given the reality, the current situation is the best and most just the law can provide, as insufficient a recompense to her actions as it still may be. Adding to this is that every single jury member that imo weighed the facts fairly saw the truth for what it was, and the lies for what they were. Let this fact and this victory not be lost on the minds and hearts of the family, and those of every observer who identified with the human suffering created on the whim of a selfish and entitled predator, who deserves far worse than what she got. But human justice is not the only justice in this mysterious and beautiful universe. And JA has far more to answer to than her fellow man.
 

turaj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
4,096
Reaction score
5,655
anyone that has listened to JSS in her comments at the time that JA could have allocuted but refused unless sealed etc. should be confident JSS is not letting her off anything short of natural life. The total disgust for JA is obvious as JSS attempts to be sure that JA understands what she is doing by not speaking directly to the jurors and showing remorse. again not a JSS fan no doubt not the best judge for this case but to have to deal face to face with this attention seeking monster must really take its toll. I am not so sure there will not be a delay on the sentencing with some dt maneouver but it will come.
 

Tesstruhart

New Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
I have heard/read that her background is family court and this was first dp case...if that is true it does explain some of the excess caution used to avoid appeals...she took it so far it became impossible to run a court and be fair to anyone really...clearly she was not a good choice for a high profile case. I also think some of the things that happened such as jurors not being able to deliberate as long as they want seem to be the result of a court system that is strapped for cash and space.


I thought that JSS was a terrible judge. There were so many sidebars and delays. I totally agree with DebinGa that she was incapable of making judicial decisions in a timely manner in the courtroom. She let the defense run rough-shod over and the system. It is a pleasure to watch a trial run by a competent judge. Whether you agree with the rulings or not, at least there is a coherent theme to the trial. Also, wasn't it entirely in her purview to replace that juror? I seem to remember in Scott Peterson that someone was replaced during deliberations for something other than illness.
 

Amster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
11,292
Reaction score
1,623
I doubt it BUT I like the way you think...I am hoping some creative consequences come from this debacle to assure it can NEVER happen again. My personal crusade has to do with the way the ONLY victim in this case was trashed over and over in court with some degree of "success". This should never be allowed, esp on all of our taxpayer $$$. I keep hammering the money part because I know that's what gets politician's attention. I've been tweeting about this nonstop and hoping it falls on someone's ears who can actually make a difference. It's happened before in my life and can happen again. At this stage it feels like the best I can offer--that mouthpiece--so none of this was in vain.

So nice to see you here! Thanks!

I've watched a lot of trials.....and, never, ever have I seen a judge allow such horrible trashing of a victim. Never. Most judges shut that down right away! Is it an Arizona thing?
I also think, like Florida, in a DP case, with the jury, majority rules. That takes care of the dastardly, pathetic stealth juror.

Peace to you....so nice to see you found your soulmate. True love story! :heartbeat:
 

deedee21

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
2,040
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02807.htm

FWIW, members of a jury can be charged with jury tampering as can lawyers, judges, anyone who is connected to a court case. If you are officially part of the prosecution or defence, you can only deal with members of the jury through the normal workings of the court.
Which brings to mind JM's questioning of Geffner regarding his apparent focus on one particular juror. Maybe, if it was #17, JM had an inkling something was going on.
Its possible the DAs office is getting warrants to go into her facebook, phone records, and anything else deemed neccessary to prove jury tampering. Time will tell. I hope they do interviews. Give her rope and she will hang herself.
 

MissHaley

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
0
I do not think the network is responsible here. The movie was a work of fiction for one thing but that aside she, as a juror, was not supposed to be watching a movie or anything else on TV or internet regarding this case or anyone involved in it. They can't even follow the news on the subject. That is not allowed when you are on a jury.
I do remember that the movie was shown several times while the trial was ongoing. She should not have brought it up in the jury room as it was not presented as evidence. This juror obviously did not obey the judge's admonition that was given daily. She asks if they have watched or heard anything, and this lady (J 17) once again lied. The whole def team was liars, so goes this juror. The common link.
 

Sweetiemom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
68
Juror #17 might want to keep her current husband very happy. If he was to turn on her and spill what he knows about all of this, there could be hell to pay for her.......and possibly other people as well.

I wonder how many pieces of silver it took to buy her vote?
 

MaLou

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
227
Reaction score
1
it is also so very obvious that she spoke about the deliberations and trial with husband...otherwise he would not have been so cool and calm talking about his "respect" for her.

I noticed the same thing. Didn't he also say, "It just wasn't there", as in there wasn't enough evidence to merit the DP. Maybe if she actually LOOKED at the evidence, i.e. the autopsy photos she refused to look at, she may have felt differently.
 

RadarLuv

New Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
2,556
Reaction score
1
I'll send it to NG and she can UNLEASH THE LAWYERS!

If true, this is a Nancy Grace BOMBSHELL.....are you very confident that this person is the same person as #17???
 

Beccaboo

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
613
Reaction score
0
In our case, the murderers were sentenced to 1. Death 2. Life WITH parole for the conspiracy charge (there was no LWOP in AZ in 1990) and also 3. Restitution. It wasn't much, but we had to present funeral expenses, lost wages etc. Not that we've ever seen a dime (but of course our taxes have gone to their millions of dollars in legal assistance over the years). I'm wondering if Arias will be sentenced to that as well...only because she can actually have a chance to make money in prison. AZLawyer? Is this a thing of the past?

I just wanted to say I just read your letter to the jury and BRAVA!!! Beautiful!!!! Thank you!!
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
8,887
Reaction score
255
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
So nice to see you here! Thanks!

I've watched a lot of trials.....and, never, ever have I seen a judge allow such horrible trashing of a victim. Never. Most judges shut that down right away! Is it an Arizona thing?
I also think, like Florida, in a DP case, with the jury, majority rules. That takes care of the dastardly, pathetic stealth juror.

Peace to you....so nice to see you found your soulmate. True love story! :heartbeat:

I feel very fortunate that in 1990 is was the Judge who did the sentencing. That of course is changed but the Judge is someone who would clearly understand and follow the LAW. With this jury system, the defense is simply hoping that someone, like juror 17 refuses or is incapable of following the law in order to come to the obvious decision. If this one wasn't clear cut I don't know what could be. I wrote about the precedent yesterday that this sets. Imagine a toddler being raped and/or killed and the defense trying to fly some cockamamie defense that blames him, hoping for a twisted closet pedophile on the jury who could close off to deliberations like happened here. I know that's extreme but we are a hair's breath away from that kind of defense strategy. "It just takes one juror" they say. One to refuse to follow the law and be driven by their own agenda/pathology/sneakiness/whatever.
I'm not sure if this 17 came in as stealth but if she lied, I lean to that and there absolutely should be a consequence to that...and one that not only impacts HER but this case as well as obviously it would be cause for mistrial if the decision had gone against this murderer.
The "fairness meter" has swung wayyyyy too far toward our worst of the worst, trust me it was NOT like this in 1990 and I believe it is for one and only one reason: they get away with everything they are allowed to.
And this opened another door in that regard.
Which is why I want to work any way I can to close that door now before Travis is forgotten. Anyway....yes I share your outrage obviously but I do believe in change. That's what created the Victims Bill of Rights in the first place!
 

AZWatcher

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
1
I sincerely hope I'm reading this wrong, but many of these posts and blogs feel like passive-aggressive, veiled threats directed at or about juror 17. I'm thinking you are nice people with good intentions who may need to take a deep breath and understand that no matter your own life experiences, you can NEVER put yourself in juror 17's place.
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
Not sure exactly what is kosher to post here right now but just wanted to share that I wrote a long letter on my blog yesterday to the jurors in this last phase. It's getting a lot of play (over 6000 hits so far) and more importantly, it's having the impact I intended without violating any confidences. I'm being contacted on it. I won't link it but if you go to my blog in my signature line here, it is the first post. I hope it helps. It's my honest response to this non-verdict. I'm feeling better about things today and hope the rest of you are as well.
Love and blessings to all involved.


I read it Katie. Very well written. Good point that juries suffer though this as well as the families of the victim/victims. Thank you for sharing that with us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top