Jodi Arias Trial Verdict IS IN: GUILTY Of MURDER In The Slaying Of Travis Alexander
Image courtesy Arias
Phoenix, AZ- In the 4 month long trial of Jodi Ann Arias for the murder of her brief boyfriend Travis Victor Alexander, the jury deliberating since last Friday has arrived at a verdict in her case. Arias was found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of Travis Alexander on June 4th, 2008.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,859 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Well I got notified hung jury Must be so
This should end the trials now
Does she get life now?
So sorry for the Alexanders
She gets life with or without parole- but to be honest, she will win an appeal on the guilt phase, imo.
B
I am hearing roommate Sean Alexander ask Nancy G how can one person on a jury stop…?
He didn’t read Twelve Angry Men in HS.
I am glad the holdout juror followed her own understanding of the evidence despite tremendous pressure.
One role of the dp in society is retribution to effect the nebulous concept of “justice.”
That would be legitimate, & the foreman could have argued it.
But the lone juror picked up on “revenge,” which is illegitimate. I think the family’s thirst for death being such a strong visible focus displayed in Court hurt the dp case actually making it appear revenge rather than being driven by the case. And Martinez made it about emotion, not the case.
Since the vote was 50-50 originally, I don’t think this can be blamed on one juror.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/03/05/jodi-arias-juror-number-four-speaks-hung-jury-penalty-retrial
Martinez needs to muzzle these jurors imo.
I respectfully disagree Rose (capital R)- this is exactly what needs to be exposed. Nothing factual or legal about whether or not to condemn a person to death is the central issue of the problem- imo. Who does this surprise exactly in this jurisdiction- and this record? That is shocking to me.
B
Blink writes:
Yes, where’s who to tell me I called it again, lol.
————-
Hey Blink! Here I am congratulating you once AGAIN on your perceptions!
(Only hope that there is a chance that your prediction of a guilt phase appeal won’t happen, but am girding for yet another example of your prowess!)
but have to say:
I don’t think the defense ” won”. Gloating that this is some kind of victory is speaking the very language of revenge- in this case against Travis for ” what he did to Arias”
Arias life has not been “saved” Every minute of her life lacks any freedom associated with the ability to pursue life liberty and happiness. No matter where she is,she’s done.
All that has happened is that instead of having a time, date and specific circumstances set for her death, it will be a more vague scenario.
I think the source of this whole nightmare is and always has been Jodi Arias deceit.
I think I have now seen evil, and how powerful it can be.
Had to get it off my chest.
And now back to the program in progress….
Thank you who- I was kidding though
The only predictable thing about our jury system is that it is wholly unpredicatable.
For me- I have seen evil in many cases unfortunately, and I do not believe she fits that description. I believe that what she intended to do and how it ended up however, was. Arias is due to spend the rest of her life in jail where she belongs and in my view and the irony here is that if she had just told the truth in the first place that might not be the case.
B
@Grace. wrt “Blink, it appears there was only one holdout for “life” and she refused to deliberate” Respectfully, this is media spin by very angry juror “opponents.” A Courtroom media observor said during the trial she was very attentive & took copious notes. I’ll tell you, if my jury went over it the first day & thereafter I watched 5 peers voting as I did be moved 1 by 1 to the death column by the “evidence,” I’d refuse to discuss the evidence because apparently it was presented on the persuader-in-chief’s terms (just call him mini-Juan), & Ibhope I’d keep parrotting “I don’t see it that way” rather than bean him. He says she didn’t explain herself, but imo he wanted her to do so only so he or others coukd debunk her reasoning. imo She knew that after day 1 he was not hearing her or respecting her pov. I too would not have played his game. It is just as possible others gave in so he would not bully them on TV afterwards. I respect her.
—-
@Blink. Why appeal? Would she be retried? Another bite at the dp?
She is a sociopath- what else has she got to do but sit in a cell? Textbook reversible errors, imo.
B
Apparently juror holdout had a domestic abuse background. Male juror chose the wrong lady to bully.
Well, once again you nailed this Blink! “this is exactly what needs to be exposed. Nothing factual or legal about whether or not to condemn a person to death is the central issue of the problem- imo.” Why in all these MSM
juror analyses isn’t this central problem brought up in the juror media interviews?
Because that is not the ratings producer- beat up the lone juror hold out is. My personal view on the dp is very strong- there are many crimes I feel it is appropriate and I have absolutely no qualms about sentencing a person to death if I felt the “punishment fit the crime” AND>>> the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to my satisfaction (AS CHARGED). Unfortunately I have seen many a prosecution miss this burden and wrongfully convict or overcharge defendants so I am always very leary about a capital case in the first place and I believe the general “jury of peers” is as well.
Again- David Camm is a contemporary example. I will absolutely never in a million years understand how that man was found guilty 2x and tried a 3rd.
Lastly- this is all moot because I have no doubt whatsoever Arias will appeal her conviction successfully. Caveat- if she can find counsel she does not piss off more than they advocate the issues of law.
B
B
I meant muzzle them because their statements
make the prosecution look bad (cf central problem issue),
but you are right that exposure is the best course.
@Mom 3.0 imo Stephens will not offer possibility of parole. She wants to live too.
Great husband:
http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/juror-no-12s-husband-she-felt-like-she-was-being-assaulted
Indeed. I am so sick of mob mentality in high profile cases especially.
B
RE:
Ragdoll says:
March 5, 2015 at 5:47 pm
If rumors are true, and # 17 was dishonest during voir dire, I think it truly was a bum rap. Her duty was to be honest and follow the process and according to the rest she would not deliberate with them. Not that she didn’t agree, but that she would not discuss etc. That is not the process. And they reported that. So, I can see why they are speaking out. Good for them The people of AZ should be told. jmo.
I think if he did not preform her duty that the foreperson would have sent a note to the judge- no?
B
From above- they did. They were told to keep at it.
See this from 17 min ago:
VIDEO | Troy Hayden weighs in on juror 17 and her family ties to the criminal justice system. It has since emerged that Juan Martinez prosecuted the holdout’s ex-husband. They married the day before his 2000 sentencing.
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11206107/fox-10s-troy-hayden-weighs-in-on-aftermath-of-hung-jury
OMG- I certainly hope she was vior dired correctly and she answered honestly and did not withhold this information because if she did intentionally withhold it or lie- they will prosecute her and they should.
B
Here is more on both from that chatter site.
http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/03/jodi-arias-just-when-you-thought-it-was.html
What was the voir dire question Eloise?
btw, I would be very shocked if Juan’s investigator hadn’t turned this up long ago.
I would not be shocked, but WOULD surprise me is if they did uncover it and made a strategy decision that backfired.
Unless this juror lied and not by ommission, I mean intentionally lied on the vior dire the press is unfairly vilifying this woman.
Their is a new docket entry…
B
There’s word that Maria De La Rosa is connected to Juror #17. Her daughter may be a friend of #17. Not gonna make a huge to do over it, unless something actually comes of it.
http://tinyurl.com/kk8j3yf (-snipped: According to Troy Hayden at FOX AZ #17 is being investigated on a high level and he cannot say anything more about it…”)
https://twitter.com/andrewfox10/status/573987591403364352 (defense knew about juror 17)
-snipped: “Developing: MCSO looking into websites releasing personal information of #JodiArias jurors”. Again, this is Troy Hayden’s report. I can’t find anything else on google to corroborate. However, I find it ironic that JA’s supporters got juror names almost immediately after the verdict. It’s the only site that has the names and facebook pages.
Hmmmmmm…….
JMHO
I think if he did not preform her duty that the foreperson would have sent a note to the judge- no?
B
Yes, he sent a note to the judge indicating #17 would NOT deliberate and asked for an alternate. JSS declined the request. #17 further indicated she watched the TV movie. Last, she made an eerily similar statement as JA (during the pre-meditation trial) during delibs…..”the death penalty is a form of revenge”.
SMH and JMHO
Nice to see you Graceinthehills and Eloise! <3
Doxing-Rx @DoxingRx 2m2 minutes ago
Willmott said both sides knew #juror17 1st husband had “a past.” But says she did not know Juan Martinez prosecuted case #jodiarias
Regardless, this seems to be more of Jaun’s issue. It just seems ‘slimy’, if you know what I mean (some crossed fingers that it would pass through the process without recognition by a certain prosecutor).
This is…psycho. (@DoxingRx has some very interesting tweets)
https://twitter.com/DoxingRx/status/574004878055333889
Looks like she disclosed it & Juan didn’t check it out:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/12-news/2015/03/06/12news-holdout-juror-ex-husband-prosecuted-juan-martinez/24532359/
I doubt if she remembered who her “fiance’s” (1 husband removed) prosecutor was 14 years ago.
And since she divorced him, & was abused by him, I doubt she saw his prosecutor as her enemy.
Not just that- typically plea deals are handled by ADA’s but signed off on by the DA- it is possible he never even met him. Lastly- it was inappropriate for the jury to give the statement they did to the Alexander family- in short denouncing a fellow jury and insuring the last vote was 11-1 would be known and connected to #17. But coming out of Stephen’s courtroom does not surprise me.
B
Re Blink
Mom3.0 says:
March 5, 2015 at 1:34 pm
All that I wrote came directly from the interview with 8 of the jurors-
But I agree Im not sure if we can know what the jury deliberated for certain- definitely not for those who do not come forward
Rose says:
March 6, 2015 at 4:42 am
@Mom 3.0 imo Stephens will not offer possibility of parole. She wants to live too.
—
Ha no doubt
Thanks for the response rose
I agree with much of Roses thoughts Rose says:
March 6, 2015 at 4:29 am
It seems to me that Juror 17 felt at least one if not more of the mitigators outweighed the aggrevators
I think this (based on the jurors interview) was mostly IRT “mental illness”
I am not angry at her at all if this is the case- for the States own expert said more than once that BPD is a serious mental illness- although for Demarte it wsnt a mitigator- nor it seems not for the other 11 jurors- Still for Juror 17 who had a history of DV which was known and who ws forthcoming about the prison sentence etc- BPD WAS a mitigator-
The Defnse brought forth a number of Possible mitigators- it was always to be a PERSONAL decision for each juror whther or not those mitigators outweighed the aggravators-
the Judge instructed that noone should change their belief/decision only to reach an agreement etc…
Its Just like the 11 that held fast to their own personal feelings of not considering BPD, age, dv, abuse etc as outweighing the aggrivators juror 17 felt the opposite
AJMO
Peace
I will likely never know- but my interest lies in who was for dp or life in the first vote, and subsequent votes. In other words if the first vote was 6-6 and through the coming days the banter to pull to the other side ensued.. that would say a lot, imo.
B
When I saw Hughes was finally publishing, I decided to look up the family & began with Tanisha. I rapidly decided to go no further. I wish them well, but it seems their wrongful death suit comes next. They’re not gonna get enough to pay their trial costs out of her imo, so the litigator is doing it for publicity.
Good Point Blink – it was said to be initially close to a 50 50 split with “some undecided” if we look at that- then we also take into account only 8 gave an interview and some that spoke seemed to be only alternates…
What do the others who did not speak feel… and what about the “undecided” persons what do/did they feel and why- and when- what or who changed their minds?
–
For me with the apology to the Alexander family and the acknowledgement of laying out all of the autopsy photos it has me concerned (neither are supposed to figure in as deliberation process- If I understand correctly and I may not) this and other tidbits have me questioning what was going on in that jury room as one juror said she had to make an apology before they could move forward w/ the deliberations…
I totally understand those who are feeling sad and despondent and even angry- I felt much the same with the CA case-
I understand wanting to make sure there is no illegal misdoings on her or ANY of the jurors part by all means- send yr concerns to the appropriate people
But what i dont understand is people outthere scouring her FB page and vilifying her for liking Nancy Grace and HLN-
or questioning her background with DV
She was voir dired and “passed” it seems with her questionare she was forthcoming…
Its already scary to be tasked with being a juror I fear the aftermath of this all being that it will be a burden no one ever willingly be on a jury-
Will this all effect any future case w/ any potential jurors “just going along” if they find themselves not agreeing– will they “fold” simply because they dont want the other jurors to accuse them of not deliberating- or of “having an agenda” or they dont want to be hated or hounded in the media or haunted by the masses
Who would want their name and life outthere… to subject themselves to such vilification and “outing” for doing their civic duty the best they knew how?
Just thinking outloud AP
If it did start out 6 to 6 and say resolved by Monday, I bet the persuader-in-the-lead was
beyond angry he couldn’t get J17 to give.
Absolutely. 6-6 in a dp vote means there was a great deal of persuading going on.
B
Out of curiosity- what do you all think is the best practice, or proper protocol to follow when deliberating? A beginning vote, review evidence and subsequent votes, to see if anyone missed facts after review or what?
@Eloise. My only effective jury was back in the day when the world was run by white males & a goidly number of jurors were a combo of professionals & ordinary people but still very homogenous in race & values. It was in the day when say each Dallas high school had 2-3 hispanics at most. And the Dallas prosecutor was the legendary Henry Wade. My memory is the elected foreman went over the Judge’s charge & instructions. Then went over the legal charges. Then went over the evidence presented from both sides as fitting the charges. (in this case would have gone over the exacerbators (crim scene slaughter pics) vs the mitigators (mental illness, childhood abuse, debasement) and discussed each item. Each juror would summarize their pov. Then & only then would the first vote be taken. That is how it worked on my good jury. But, foreman & leadership are unlikely to be from Professional ranks with abstract reasoning skills today, and juries lack a homogenous shared civic culture.
My last juror opportunity, 20+ years ago, was a trial of an attorney accused of (I don’t remember). I was the ideal juror for the lawyer defendant, highly educated caucasian also an attorney and therefore likely to identify with him.
During voir dire I insisted, even under questioning by the Judge, I could not wear an impartial hat and if the allegations were proven, he had no business in practice. I was outraged an attorney woukd garner his charges. (My having a 1 yo at home with no other caregiver had nothing to do with it….) I was excused & haven’t been recalled for jury duty in 25 years. Probably figured I was mental.
I think at 21 I got on that Dallas jury which made its share of headlines because I was very young & naive & simple, & both sides thot I’d be persuadable by dominant jurors (haha). In my opinion, that is how Martinez cast J17 in his mind. A jury consultant would say she has a history of dependency on domineering men & would cave to a “leadership” foreman, imo. I think Juan wanted her on the jury as someone who would run from conflict & just agree in order to leave.
re: furor over juror
As I understood the jury instructions, including the ” dynamite charge”, each individual is duty bound to decide for themselves if the evidence for mitigation outweighs the cruelty of the crime itself.
Also as I understand the jury instructions, this individual decision is to be based on fact, as opposed to emotional reactions to those facts. And it is a sticky thing for a judge to appear to ” urge ” the jury to come to a unanimous decision, because it is wrong for a judge to exert any press whatsoever to agree simply for the sake of agreeing.
So, how CAN a group of jurors come to a unanimous agreement? Well,not only does it state in the jury instructions that they CAN discuss their own perpectives on the evidence presented, they are duty bound to be open to what other jurors are saying.
For example, if I thought the sky was blue on a particular day, and everyone else thought the sky was grey, its entirely possible that I would change my mind if another juror presented how THEY had come to that conclusion. Thats called discussion, not co ersion for the sake of agreement.
What has come out in the media is that day one, the jury told the judge that one of the jurors made it known immediately that nothing would possibly change her mind. The jury asked the judge if this apparently closed minded juror could be replaced. The judge said no.
One would have thought that the judge herself would have looked into this request further- but doing so opens the door to pressure and singling out- a big no no. So I don’t think Stephens erred in responding by saying, figure it out.
Its a jury of peers. As Blink ( who I think of as a swami who sees all knows all at this point) pointed out, she would have been surprised if ANY twelve people could agree on a sentence after this circus. And I think that is the reality. It would be hard to find any twelve people who had exactly the same view about Arias after the defense tactic of throwing everything against the wall and seeing if it sticks, and the State focusing more on dis crediting defense experts than on the crime itself.
The defense went with the classic ” abuse excuse”, and it worked.
I think its reasonable to assume that 1 out of 12 times, the abuse excuse is gonna work. There is going to be someone who will be so sympathetic to the concept that one’s actions can be excused if you show that your whole life was sad, and someone treated you badly and that your judgement was compromised because of that mistreatment, and therefore you aren’t totally responsible. Homicide cases have been “won” on the principal of battered woman syndrome before, and this is another one.
What is troubling to me however, is that unlike previous presentations of abuse excuse and battered woman defense, in this case, the only real evidence was out of context emails and the defendants words as believed by the defense experts. Arias didn’t even live with travis and doesn’t even meet the criteria for a relationship that was presented in other successfully defended cases where a battered woman killed her husband.
Travis Alexander WAS on trial in this case. We now have a case that can be referred to by the next defense lawyer in a DP trial- that lawyer can point out that in State versus Arias, emails with mean words were judged to be abusive enough to mitigate a DP, and that a diagnosis of mental ill health – as opposed to insanity- was also considered mitigation.
Big take away: don’t put anything in writing that you don’t want in front of a judge. like ever.
I too think Stephens will give sentence of life without parole.
Arias stated in an interview at the end of the guilt phase trial words to the effect that she felt she had the right to kill anyone who had abused her.
If she gets out -ever- what is to stop her from meeting the ” wrong guy” again???
Who- seriously brilliant post. If I have not paid you the compliment in a while- I have most enjoyed being on this journey of information, advocacy and learning with you. Next- post of the day in Arias. I am no Swami however, it’s just that this is what I do. One of the BOC editors asked me to re-review Martinez opening argument the other day for feedback. I have to say that I am surprised that anyone walked away from that disjointed and sometimes vulgar display thinking anyone really knew what happened and if one listened carefully- he certainly did no favors for Travis in his delivery. I realize I have been harsh and critical of Mr. Martinez- as y’all know, that is very unlike me. However, in this case, I think he was a TERRIBLE representation of this victim- and btw- that is HIS INTENDED ROLE. I also believe his office’s decisions about evidence and strategy will give Arias a new trial. If I thought he had a learning takeaway from this – like ALL OF US PROFESSIONALS are tasked with- I would probably be less vocal. Lastly- If I hear that bafoon in a suit shriek one more time that Travis’s life ended with a gunshot I am going to hurl. That is a forensic impossibility based on the evidence and if he does not know that than he has no business prosecuting a case like this, period. I am not saying this because it is my opinion- I am saying this because when this case goes back around- there will be a line forming at the left of top forensic experts who are actually qualified to render their opinions and they will unanimously agree he is wrong. I stake my professional reputation on that.
I digress.
Jurors are made up of peers- who are just people. They are emotional and they are reactive- as we all are. I think everyone is taking for granted this woman bought some of the mitigators and maybe she did. But has anyone considered that maybe she felt that life in prison was way more brutal and appropriate of a sentence because AZ has no intention of killing Arias or any other prison anytime soon?
It was just a travisty. Yes, an intentional misspelling on my part.
B
“Jurors are made up of peers- who are just people. They are emotional and they are reactive- as we all are. I think everyone is taking for granted this woman bought some of the mitigators and maybe she did. But has anyone considered that maybe she felt that life in prison was way more brutal and appropriate of a sentence because AZ has no intention of killing Arias or any other prison anytime soon?
It was just a travisty. Yes, an intentional misspelling on my part.
B”
Kudos B
first of all thank you Blink!!!
Blink writes:
But has anyone considered that maybe she felt that life in prison was way more brutal and appropriate of a sentence because AZ has no intention of killing Arias or any other prison anytime soon?
————–
Although that is the mark that was hit as a result of juror 17′s choice to grant life, I can’t see how that was her aim.
The concept of suffering more with LWOP than DP a really valid argument.
(additionally, It is 100 percent factual that the cost of the DP itself , including the dollars and time provided by automatic appeals, is still LESS than the cost of incarcerating someone for life)
BUT, if that WAS juror 17′s position, does not address the evidence as much as it would reflect an individuals personal feelings. The jurors duty was to rationally and objectively examine the evidence presented and decide if the cruel nature of the murder was greater than the evidence presented in mitigation.
The jury was not asked for anything other than to say life or death. It was not asked of the jury to come up with their own idea of punishment. Belieiving that a life sentence would be more punitive than a death sentence, and voting for life on THAT basis is a way of saying you think someeone should suffer MORE than a death penalty.
Having said all that IF this was juror 17′s motive, its even more twisted than the idea of getting revenge on Martinez for an ex husband’s sentence 15 years ago.
I think the juror is simply someone who was able to identify with Arias to the point of hoping that she herself would be spared her life under the same circumstances. Sympathy, if distorted, can be quite narcissistic. We know the juror is 20 or so, and has already had a few marriages…. and has made choices to be involved with criminals in the past. So yea, ummmm. Reasonable man standard in her case would be different than a lot of people.
But going back to Nurmis motions to change venues, to sequester the jury, to keep the media out, and the fact that they were down to 14 jurors in the end anyway- this was and always has been a no win for every single person.
Though I have pity for any man who has a sexual relationship with a nut job in the future. They have been warned.
while I am on a soapbox here, just want to say that i think one of the cruelest things that was done to Travis was when the defense defined this relationship as “love” He’ll never have a chance to know what love really is, and it was Jodi Arias’ action (or ” reaction”- whatever side you are on) that assured that.
On Nurmi’s motions to sequester and preclude while I can say with certainty this never works in a high profile case that takes this long- he was right to ask and in accordance with statute- should have been granted so we agree this was always going to be a problem and definitely was.
I also think that if one considers that a mitigator is possible- not necessary “factual” it breeds doubt and that is enough.
B
Blink writes:
I also think that if one considers that a mitigator is possible- not necessary “factual” it breeds doubt and that
is enough.
B
—–
I think that the whole concept of mitigation in a death penalty is a reflection of our present cultural ambiguity about the death penalty itself. It is now law that in DP case, the defendant MUST have at least two attorneys, one of which MUST be a mitigation specialist. This in and of itself is a big billboard saying “hey, not so fast”, and it is designed to protect the innocent.
The concept of what constitutes mitigation is even changing. It is now specified in just about all states, that it is not the NUMBER of mitigators, but the quality of those mitigators and the preponderance of facts to support those mitigators.
Age-
This mitigator is supposed to be for minors and people so young as to not have a fully formed value system simply because as a youth, they do not have the same experience as an adult. Arias was 27 years old, and had been living a life independent of her parental environment for years, buying a house, working, interacting with society as an adult.
Mental health issues:
regardless of either sides diagnosis, NONE of those diagnosis interfered with Arias ability to know right from wrong, or most importantly that her actions would result in death.
Physical abuse
All based on Arias claims and the defense position that DV victims do not tell anyone about it.
WHY didnt the defense offer X-rays and medical exam that would prove the nature of her finger injury and how old it was. This is possible to know. A cut tendon can be seen, a broken bone ( especially one that was not treated by a doctor) can be discerned, and even how long ago that injury/fracture happened can be pinpointed by examining the injury and state of the healing process. Ask any pro football player who is retired and seeking insurance, and is under scrutiny for pre- existing conditions.
who- because xrays show no nexus to the crime or allegations, not directly. It’s hearsay, most especially when the person she was accusing cannot be asked.
B
Rose~ Thanks for responding to the deliberation question. When I have served, that too is how we proceeded, and it was not 20 yrs ago. I think the thing I wanted to say was we are speculating to assume these jurors did not follow a similar process. It seems Mark Eiglarsh has heard more info. regarding their process and reports juror # 17 participated with more feedback than I was aware of. I think it would be speculative to say the other 11 came to their votes due to peer pressure unless we have further information?
And Who just happened to give a perfect example of exactly what I mean-
~snip~
For example, if I thought the sky was blue on a particular day, and everyone else thought the sky was grey, its entirely possible that I would change my mind if another juror presented how THEY had come to that conclusion. Thats called discussion, not co ersion for the sake of agreement. From> whodunnit says:
March 8, 2015 at 6:11 pm
Anyway- that was just my opinion on all that- feeling frustrated for the family- falling victim again to a screwy system.
blink writes:
who- because xrays show no nexus to the crime or allegations, not directly. It’s hearsay, most especially when the person she was accusing cannot be asked.
B
—–
got it-
I just thought that if they had some way of saying this is broken finger that occurred in jan 2008, it could be considered corroboration to her claim of physical abuse, the way that having the guy at the bishops house testifying about the bishops computer and about the conversation he had with travis about child porn was presented to “corroborate” her claims of travis “perverted” nature . (And seriously if that testimony wasn’t here say, what was it??)
PHEW I just exhausted myself , sorry for length.,
who- thank you for taking the time to post yr thoughts– as always you have given me much to think about-
if you dont mind-Ill share my ponderings with you-
You wrote:Also as I understand the jury instructions, this individual decision is to be based on fact, as opposed to emotional reactions to those facts
I wholly agree with this statement-
So im asking myself what evidence, Which one of the mitigators that each juror was to weigh for themselves wasnt factual but mere emotional reaction?-
For Juror 17 and for each of them?
The others, absent 17, came out and said that it was at first close to an even split- some fort death others life …
so if true than well at least 6 of them held on to their initial belief after the same amount of deliberations… yet they all complain that Juror 17 was not swayed and held her initial belief….
So that had me asking How is that any different than the original 6 for death?
They said they felt
17 was all about I feel I feel- then they went on to say she believed Arias mental makeup- outweighed the aggrevators- and she spoke of the jurors as if they were trying to “get revenge”
But then I realized We have no first hand information from Juror 17 all we have is what the others interpretations were on her deliberations/thoughts and 17s husbands few sentences thats all-
which had me thinking well anyone who posts here knows how easy it is for our thoughts to be misunderstood- and how much harder it sometimes becomes with each further attempt to clarify…
Here and in everyday conversations
We all speak of facts and feelings and its easy to misinterpret both
The 8 seemed angered that 17 spoke with the preface of “I feel”
was she speaking to feelings or just trying to be understood
About feelings…
The 8 came out with a prepared statement – which was directed to the Alexander family and friends – expressing their sorrow and heartfelt apologies at not being able to give JA death- they spoke of wanting the Alexanders to find some peace in the fact 11-1 voted for death…- they spoke of their feelings that Travis character and life was wrongly portrayed-
It seems their whole prepared statement was based in feelings- anger being the most prevalent-
How much of those feelings weighed into their own deliberations?
who you wrote:
The jurors duty was to rationally and objectively examine the evidence presented and decide if the cruel nature of the murder was greater than the evidence presented in mitigation.
-
I agree that the jurors were to rationally and objectively examine the evidence presented that evidence included the mitigating factors that is evidence- and for juror 17 it SEEMS(unless the rumors are true) that she did weigh that evidence rationally and objectively – same as the 11, Which must have been harder with Travis autopsy photos displayed front and center
You wrote:
I think the juror is simply someone who was able to identify with Arias to the point of hoping that she herself would be spared her life under the same circumstances.
–I agree this may have been a factor and if so then this juror it seems for me, was exactly who we the people wish to be on any jury if we were to find ourselves before the court defending against death- that is at least one person that fits into our definition of a JURY of our PEERS-
TMK Martinez did not use a strike on juror 3 17- he could have and he could have with some checking got her thrown off- simply because of the sort of prior relationship with the prosecutor…he didnt – so until he says differently I have to believe he had his reasons to believe she’d vote death- perhaps he felt like most of us that an actual survivor of DV would be less sympathetic to Arias claims not more- for that is what happened in the guilt phase for most- they were angered (including me) by what we FELT was JAs lie…
You wrote:
Sympathy, if distorted, can be quite narcissistic.
Yes it can and with that thought I have to remember the other 11 certainly were full of sympathy for the Alexanders … leads me to wonder did that twist their decisions in some fashion?
You wrote:
We know the juror is 20 or so, and has already had a few marriages…. and has made choices to be involved with criminals in the past. So yea, ummmm. Reasonable man standard in her case would be different than a lot of people.
Perhaps but this does not mean she isnt a reasonable person for this same woman went on to get her daughters MH care to “break the cycle”- she recognized her patterns and shortcomings and went on to better herself- and her children
To me- her husband now – it seems is someone who supports her and wishes to protect her- past criminal failings or not…
Questioning 17 past and how it may have come into play leads me in fairness to wonder what the other jurors make up is-could they have something or someone in their past that prevented them from reasonably or objectively weighing the evidence…
You wrote:
whodunnit says:
March 9, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Yes all of what you say is true – I would add that it is not strictly a matter of how the mitigator is “supposed” to be utilized as with yr age argument-
it is personal- it comes down to what any one juror believes and if that one juror feels 27 yo is a mitigtor which outtweighs the ag. than that juror must vote life
The same goes for abuse
and BPD PTSD
and the rest
By law a lone juror can prevent a death sentence by finding a mitigator not agreed on by the rest of the panel-
Juries are instructed to consider both sets of factors,they are expected to use their own judgment in deciding which factors carry a greater weight. .
it was always gonna be a challenge to get to 12
One jury already hung
I ask What proof is there that Juror 11 didnt deliberate or follow the instructions and voted based on something other than rationality and objectivity?
Im left thinking, Until we hear she definitely acted illegally we have no proof just interpretations
Its great to read everyones thoughts it just goes to show how different they can be even when discussing the same set of facts
Great posts who thanks for always keeping me thinking
A&P
Mom 3.0 writes:
Im left thinking, Until we hear she definitely acted illegally we have no proof just interpretations
————
I don’t know what juror 17 was thinking anymore than what the other jurors were thinking- I was responding to Blink’s comment when she wondered if juror 17 could have been motivated to give life based on the thought that life would be more challenging for Arias than a DP verdict, and making general comments about the obligations of a jury.
Juries are all supposed to go into deliberation with the mindset that they are open to the other jurors point of view, though should not change their minds simply to get a unanimous vote. Saying ” I won’t change my mind” is different from saying” here is why I think this”, i.e. deliberating. As I understood it, the foreman told the judge on day one that one of the jurors stated immediately that they would not be swayed from their position of life.
If the vote was split 50 50 at first count, I think it is logical to assume that with deliberation, the other jury members incorporated other perspectives and therefore changed their minds. What I interpret from the media coverage is that this particular person ( 17) did not engage in any conversations, period.
I think this post verdict clamor is all connected to the fact that this trial was not public. This trial was not public because the defense took that position that having an open courtroom would compromise Arias ability to get a fair trial. As a result we are all guessing at who said what and when.
Ironically the defense demand to close the trial has resulted in the media becoming even MORE empowered to disseminate info about the trial in however they want to, with whatever spin they want. This is exactly what the defense claimed they feared.
thank god ,for juror 17.this case ,imo. is not what the death penalty is for . this is like eye for an eye. if Jodi had murdered the roommates (had they come home,and walked in on her,or as they slept in their beds)) ,or the police officer that pulled her over,i’d consider the death penalty. this case was some serious Mormon propaganda against women.
susan- that is pretty harsh and propaganda-ish based on your personal feelings. I do not share your opinion but as you stated it respectfully it has a place here.
B
@Ragdoll. wrt DoxingRx (chris stark) -paid to be a social media spin doctor by tabloids
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=232081300308305&id=172941139555655
Who,
Oh yes. She disappeared and has come back incognito? Thanks for the heads up, Rose..
Came across this…..not giving it much regard, initially until I got to the end.
-snipped
Arias has been seen by Jail Intel officials instructing the 15 year olds as to how to get false IDs in order to continue the visits.
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/JodiAriasBan.pdf
I think she’ll have no problem making life in prison, an adventure. I feel for her fellow inmates.
@Susan. On a personal level I view Mormonism as a religious cult. To each their own religious beliefs though, and Mormons see their religion as valid as say Islam or Hinduism. .
My dau’s primary MS/HS instrument teacher is a Mormon & his family visited his elderly parents in Utah each year (he grew up in Philadelphia.) They were a classic straightlaced marry-young faith & family group. Highly ethical, no tea coffee or alcohol. When he traveled abroad to perform, whether Paris or Japan, he ate at MacDonalds, lived humbly, & gave to his church. Most Mormons are like that imo. In terms of social contacts, TA was Mormon. None of us know his beliefs. In terms of socialized religious behaviors, he was the polar opposite of Mormon. I think family background and personal choice has everything to do with the behavioral piece, not the religion.
Rose writes:
I think family background and personal choice has everything to do with the behavioral piece, not the religion.
———
I agree-
but actually still do not believe that Travis was the person the defense describes. I think he was human. and did pretty well for someone with such a challenging childhood. I also noticed he didnt stab or shoot anyone, slice someone’s throat, hide as much evidence as possible, construct intricate alibis, say he didnt do it and then say he did do it but it was because the other person made him do it. If Travis had lousy background that made him mean to Arias, I guess you could say that Arias had a background that made her a murderer. Sorry to be facetious.
IMO ,The defense based one half of their case on poor Jodi Arias, and the other half on Travis as a bad Mormon.
If viewed so narrow mindedly through the prism of their religious background, I don’t think ANYONE could stand up to the hyperbolic scrutiny that the remnants of a dead Travis were subjected to.
Re who-
whodunnit says:
March 10, 2015 at 11:12 am
Respectful snip
I was responding to Blink’s comment when she wondered if juror 17 could have been motivated to give life based on the thought that life would be more challenging for Arias than a DP verdict, and making general comments about the obligations of a jury.
—Yes who I understood that was the case- as I said your posts made me think and led me to ponder some things- ideas which I then shared with you in my post-
Sorry if it seemed like i wasnt respecting yr thoughts I was
You wrote:
Juries are all supposed to go into deliberation with the mindset that they are open to the other jurors point of view, though should not change their minds simply to get a unanimous vote. Saying ” I won’t change my mind” is different from saying” here is why I think this”, i.e. deliberating.
–I understand yr point- which led to my thoughts of how can we know if 17 or any of the original 6 for death were open to the other jurors point of views?
The actual jury instructions in Arizona read: ** by me
Do not form final opinions about any fact or about the outcome of the case **until** you have heard and considered all of the evidence, the closing arguments, and the rest of the instructions I will give you on the law
** Keep an open mind during the trial.**
*Form your final opinions **only** after you have had an opportunity to discuss the case with each other in the jury room at the end of
the trial.*
Please advise me in writing immediately if you believe that any juror has violated any provision of this admonition.
http://www.azbar.org/media/58829/1-preliminary_instructions-revised_2013.pdf
end snip
So for me each juror had the right by law to step into that jury room with all ready formed opinions- and to me, the instruction was to form the absolute final opinion only after there had been an opportunity to discuss the case with other jurors-
To me, it does not read that discussion must be for a set amount of time nor does it read that a juror must continue to discuss after they have reached their final opinion or that they must continue to be open to being swayed by others POV after knowing their final opinion has been formed- Final opinion means final opinion I would think-
You wrote:
As I understood it, the foreman told the judge on day one that one of the jurors stated immediately that they would not be swayed from their position of life.
who, yes by instruction the foreman was in the right by bringing his BELIEF that juror 17 was not adhering to the admonition ..
not being open to being swayed on day one- though is not the jury instruction it is to discuss and then you are free to at any point reach yr final opinion-
TMK She did discuss according to the 8 it wasnt alot but she did discuss.
My point is that each juror no matter the amount of time spent deliberating or actively discussing or just pondering/listening had the same right to form a final opinion as their fellow jurors did on that first day or even in the first minute- the 6 final opinion was death for juror 17 it was life- making the final count 11-1
you wrote:
What I interpret from the media coverage is that this particular person ( 17) did not engage in any conversations, period.
–I understand this to be yr interpretation I respect that
yet for me, I must kim according to the jurors who did speak out, she did engage in discussions she just wasnt participating in the way they wished or the amount they wished.
Again the instructions never laid out what must be discussed nor that all must be active in every discussion or for what amount of time.
You wrote:
I think this post verdict clamor is all connected to the fact that this trial was not public.
—I respect yr thoughts who
for me, I think there is all this clamor because the majority of the jury and the mag. of public felt JA should be given death-
CA trial was public – the clamor then arose when the majority did not agree with the verdict-
You wrote:
This trial was not public because the defense took that position that having an open courtroom would compromise Arias ability to get a fair trial.
“As a result we are all guessing at who said what and when.”
yes but that is only the case with the trial itself- not in terms of the jurors and what was said and when- for that will always be unknown to us nomatter how public the trial
unless they choose to come forward- the difference with this trial seems to be that these jurors instead of speaking only of their own thoughts and deliberations took it upon themselves to speak to and give their interpretations of what the standout felt & thought & why- it seems they took the opportunity to admonish the stand out for not coming to the same final decision they did
Re the media…yeah the media often sucks … I havent even read “the murder business” but yeah I get it
Thanks again who- as always I enjoy the discussion and learn so very much from you
A&P
Well we finally get a peek into the thoughts of juror 17 it seems according to her she was trying to give her opinions while listening to others “taking turns” but felt that her opinions werent being valued..
snipped:
jurors accused Juror 17—the lone holdout—of having an agenda and failing to deliberate.
Court documents released Tuesday state that two days prior to the mistrial, Juror 17 told the court that she felt harassed by the other jurors.
“I don’t feel that I’m being given a shot,” she stated March 3. “My opinion is not being heard.”
“My opinion is being — it’s not being valued whereas I’m sitting and listening to – you know, we are sitting taking turns. And you know, other people’s opinion are being written down and valued. I don’t feel mine is,” she said, according to court documents.
jurors said Juror 17 had watched a Lifetime movie depicting Arias’ first murder trial and that she couldn’t articulate why she supported a “life” decision . They felt the juror had an agenda.
“Clearly, Juror 17 disclosed she had watched the movie. The Court finds no misconduct by Juror 17 on this issue,” the court said.
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/jodi-arias-update-court-records-detail-juror-17-issues-mistrial-motions
The article goes on to state that the judge interviewed 2 jurors including the foreperson to see if they still had concerns…they stated they had seen improvement-
Blink is this standard procedure ?
I mean if this had went for death- wouldnt this all be grounds to throw out the verdict?
The state made several attempts to remove juror 17 once alleging potential misconduct- The judge ruled there was none
The defense filed a motion for mistrial, citing juror coercion regarding the individual questioning of the jurors. That motion was denied.
I REALLY HATE when MSM quotes from docs they do not include and interpret them. I feel that leads to misrepresentation and potential bias.
That said, absolutely, in no uncertain terms would the states attempts to have this juror removed result is a valid appellate issue. How did Martinez know the vote was 11-1? Did he make that assumption based on the appearance before the judge? I certainly hope that is the only way. I can tell you in more than one case I have worked on- that bailiff outside the door has very good hearing. Jus sayin’.
As an example- Martinez certainly has access to the vior dire transcripts- he already knew she admitted watching the lifetime movie so what was the prima facie for the motion and it’s “seal” in the first place?
As far as Judge Stephens procedure in interviewing individual jurors- it would be inappropriate for me to say based on a few snippets and not the entire incident/exchange in total. But from what I can tell, in general, she is required to address a jury complaint/allegation of an allegation of juror impropriety. To my knowledge that must be done in chambers sans either counsel as nobody has the right to know where they are in terms of individual votes until a verdict- through a motion to poll them from either side. It is still on the record.
I am willing to give Stephens the benefit of the doubt for not granting the defense motion for mistrial as a result- before a determination of the hung jury ensued. Meaning- I would respect her decision if after interviewing and her subsequent ruling that she knew these jurors were going to hang and force a mistrial anyway so for the record let that play out- but if not- Nurmi was right because at the end of the day- even appearing before the judge on such allegations may very well have affected her “position.” I do not blame her for feeling bullied as best I can tell she was honest in her disclosures and the prosecution missed their burden to use a peremptory or further investigate her based on her answers. I truly believe this was a strategy decision gone bad on Martinez’s part or he missed it, but no juror should be vilified for it.
B
@Whodunnit. I’m afraid since I’m not a juror I paid very little attention to defense’ depiction of the victim behaviorally. Like you I consider it irrelevant to the crime. Hiwever, the defense was obligated to do that in the sentencing phase as a mitigating factor. “I think he was human. and did pretty well for someone with such a challenging childhood”
I agree. Howver behavioral practices are so intertwined with belief & worship in Mormonism, I suggest he was not a Mormon at all. And, at least in the case of Arias, he sought out a vulnerable cooperative female to be used in a debasing manner. Imo if it were not her, it would be another woman, or he would debase other vulnerables, wherher sexually or in other ways, male or female ashe passedthrough life. That doesn’t merit his victimization, but “pretty good” is on a spectrum.
Re:
Mom3.0 says:
March 10, 2015 at 2:23 am
======
Hi Mom 3.0
I read your post, your response to what I had written.
Gotta be honest, I am over the juror 17 stuff. I don’t care. She was supported by law to have her vote, and she got it.
The judge said after the verdict that the jurors were allowed to talk to the press.
if 17 felt bullied- well she has a right to express that thought as much as the jurors have a right to express that they felt frustration with her inability to state precisely why she had come to her conclusions.
Speaking from way outside the box, its interesting that the idea of bullying and being misunderstood would also be an issue with the jury that was charged to decide if the words Travis wrote to Arias constituted verbal abuse.
Stephens has ruled there was no juror misconduct. Who knows if state or defense will take that ruling to a higher court, guess we shall see!
Not sure what you mean Who- but there is no interlocutory oppty for either party. If you meant appellate, the state has no standing and the defense got what they motioned for so I doubt that they would entertain a remedy. TOTALLY agree with your thoughts on the bullying irony.
B
Blink Id first like to say I hope you dont take offense to what I am gonna try to convey- I am not the most articulate person despite the # of words in my posts…
I am in awe of your new strengths…I have found that with time and w/ yr further educational endeavors yr responses have become more articulate & much more than mere emotional opinions… yr writing/grammar has improved so much- I am proud of the strides you have made- I sometimes miss yr “before” style and little quirks but value the change I just needed to to let you know – the improvements have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated by me-. You and yr family should be proud of the accomplishment.
—
As to yr response-
Well said Blink-
I went searching for the docs here they are:
http://cdn-static.wildabouttrial.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/arias-minute.pdf“ineffective in de
liberating”
media should have included them and I look forward to any further thoughts you can share onthe entire PDF
theres alot more info to digest-
it seems concerns went both ways Juror 17 stated: :
Juror Deliberation Question 5 (submitted by Ju
ror 17) stated she was feeling harassed
with “pictures and many comments that are not a part of the mitigating factors such as time
served and the possibility of getting out early
from prison, a book deal, the looks one juror wants
to give the family.”
—With everything I have learned here Blink about what is and isnt supposed to be considered by the jury… it seems it is probably a good thing that this Juror did not change her vote to death- all concerns by the 11 and 17 could have factored into a reversal of the verdict no?
On the points you made earlier- it seems all including the judge and Martinez could have surmised the 11-1 make-up from the questions sent to the judge as all 11 were represented in the concerns against 17…
You wrote IRT interviewing the jurors..:
To my knowledge that must be done in chambers sans either counsel as nobody has the right to know where they are in terms of individual votes until a verdict- through a motion to poll them from either side. It is still on the record
–Blink,if i am understanding the PDF correctly it seems this was done with “The defendant, all counsel and victim family members were present”
To me nomatter what the jurors felt whether for death or Life being in that room subjected to questioning infront of the defendant and the family could have wrongly biased their process…i mean who could sit mere feet away from the family or Arias and not be at risk of it impacting their deliberations
IRT the family understandably they seemed to have a hrd time of keeping their emotions in check and for Arias Im sure she attempted to at least give puppy dog eyes…you know?
maybe it was fair since all were included ? IDK
Perhaps the writing was on the wall with the first hung jury- perhaps it would be best to treat the DP more like a double jeopardy rule…
But they were so close..
IDk what the answer is-
A&P
Mom 3.0- How very kind of you, thank you. I will review the doc you posted and respond- I just wanted to acknowledge your post before I knew I would have time to review the transcript. But I will. Thanks again
B
blink writes:
If you meant appellate, the state has no standing and the defense got what they motioned for so I doubt that they would entertain a remedy.
————–
Got it- I was just guessing that maybe a juror issue could be grounds for an appeal of some kind- to throw the whole thing out. Thanks for pointing out the facts!! Always a learning curve! Thanks so much for educating me!!
B
Rose writes
Howver behavioral practices are so intertwined with belief & worship in Mormonism, I suggest he was not a Mormon at all. And, at least in the case of Arias, he sought out a vulnerable cooperative female to be used in a debasing manner. Imo if it were not her, it would be another woman, or he would debase other vulnerables, wherher sexually or in other ways, male or female ashe passedthrough life.
——
I see your point of view and now I understand it, your opinion has changed my perspective. I think I was reacting to what I saw as victimization of Travis and just had a bit of my head in the sand- you are right, he certainly was not pristine. I don’t condemn him for not following his faith- I think the defense manipulated that prong for all the wrong reasons0 and I never quite got around to believing that even the emails and the weird sex was abusive though. Maybe I am just too far removed or too tough, though.
I have put this forth on this board that I was a victim of domestic abuse, as a naive 18 year old, and though I identified with the idea that victims don’t tell , I worked hard to discard that and heal. By the age of 27, I can guarantee you it wouldn’t have ever happened to me again,.I felt Arias was playing the victim to the hilt, and lost respect for her because of it.
In any case, if its true that Travis really did use women without thinking of their needs in any way, if its true his behavior would have continued I am almost sure that an ingredient in every woman in his life would have been a, “a love of bad boys” and b, her ability to believe she herself could change him with her love. I really feel that this MUST have been part of Arias mindset, You don’t have to be BPD to think like that.
As far as the “sooner or later he would get really burned” concept, I do think thats where things collided with Arias own path in life, and though he may have been headed for a real comeuppance in general, I think she was on track to go off the rails completely . In this way, I can support the defense position of ” love gone bad”- but feel they exaggerated that theme to play to the j=the jury’s heart strings.Didn’t work 100 percent, as we know.
I think it is really unfortunate that Mormonism was kind of put on trial, what the heck??? I agree with you that Travis was not a mormon in the sense of the word that would allow for him to be viewed as a grevious transgressor, its not like he was a bishop. As fas as I could tell, in his motivational speeches I didn’t get that he ever said ” Mormonism saved my life” , but I could be wrong.