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
@ Whodunnit. I don’t know who advanced this idea ” “sooner or later he would get really burned” concept,”
I think like many opportunistic men, he would have gone on to be successful in a worldly sense. A Horman male comes to mind. Last nite on npr there was an interview with a social media commentator about 50 shades of grey, a book and movie I will never read/view making money. He talked about rescuing bad boys. In Keynesian terms. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/q-schedule-for-wednesday-march-11-2015-1.2989317/jeet-this-week-what-50-shades-of-grey-can-teach-us-about-economics-1.2990094 Maybe Jeet should blog about this trial.
I was trying to say, imo it was unlikely he’d be “burned.”
He had a successful persona.
Blink Youre welcome I look forward to yr analysis on the PDF-
The foreman did an interview for the trial Diaries…
In reading FM thoughts, to me it seems Juror 17 deliberated throughout.. in the note to the judge she was said to be “ineffective in deliberations” does that mean they thought she was ineffective at swaying?
Interesting another note said that there had been no change in vote since Thursday…but according to this Juror after the weekend 1 juror had come back with undecided….it seems it took the rest of that day to convince this juror to again lean towards death..
snip:
Monday
We took another vote. It was 10 death, 1 undecided (they leaned toward death by end of day) and 1 life. We brought out the autopsy photos along with some other items.
By Tuesday the vote was again 11-1
This is when the foreman said “It was so heated and intense in the deliberation room I did feel Juror 17 was being attacked at this point but she wasn’t deliberating and it frustrated some of the jurors”
This is when he sent the two notes regarding Juror 17- *Some* of the jurors felt she wasnt deliberating …and he did feel she was being attacked so why didnt he include that information in a note as foreman it seems from this interview he was trying very hard to be balanced, fair and tactful– why not speak to the judge of these concerns also?
When he took the questions to vote 11 of 11 were concerned with her ineffectiveness at deliberating- and 7 of 11 concerned w/movie watching
He took the 2 questions to vote 11 of 11 were concerned with her ineffectiveness at deliberating- and 7 of 11 concerned w/movie watching and her truthfulness at bringing this info up in Voir dire
he also added the question to ask for a replacement for 17
“I respectfully request consideration of an alternate. Please advise in meantime we will continue to deliberate.”
Wednesday After impass instruction
foreman states: Juror 17 was engaged and fully participating We had great discussion as a jury Most of us felt Jodi had to get rid of Travis Alexander so she could move on. Juror 17 agreed with this theory as a motive.
I felt positive 17 was coming around that the jurors would be unanimous after all.
Further snip:
Juror 17 expressed to us she still felt mitigating factors #4, #5, #8, #9 applied to Jodi Arias. We asked her what it would take for her to vote death in a capital case.
She responded “this would if not for the mitigating factors.”
Juror 17 told us there was nothing we could do or say to change her vote. Once again the room exploded into a heated, cussing match between some jurors and 17
At 4:30 it was very intense foreman suggested rest back tomorrow thats when 2 jurors stood up and requested that they be let off the jury one seemed to demand it if a hung jury wasnt called
the foremean states:
It was clear to everyone additional time would not change Juror 17’s view. I felt I was losing the jury one by one
note read:
“We are not unanimous. Votes steady since last Thursday. Jurors say vote will not change. Inform judge or we want off jury. We are hung. No more time will help.”
Thurs- jury in …not clear if additional vote was taken… Juror 17 was asked if she had changed her mind…no
Foreman thoughts on verdict snipped:
In the end, it’s just hard to get 12 people to agree and it’s hard to ask regular people to make such a heavy decision regarding the death penalty. At that moment I felt a judge could make a more consistent decision rather than 12 people.
http://thetrialdiaries.com/exclusivethe-foreman-from-the-jodi-arias-trial-speakshear-his-story/
— After reading I cant help but question if they had just had more time with less emotional outbursts perhaps the votes would have changed again…
A&P
If I am reading that correctly- I have never heard of a foreperson voting with the other jurors as to the effectiveness of another juror in my life.
I feel bad for him actually- and how about the 2 demanding to be released from duty? This really was an ungodly protracted penalty trial, imo.
B
whodunnit says:
March 11, 2015 at 11:45 am
thanks for letting me know you read most appreciated-
Very Good Point about irony who
as a fan of Alanis Morisette, JAs gotta be thinking of the lyric:
“A little too ironic…and, yeah, I really do think…”
especially since according to the FM interview most felt JA was emotionally abused:
The mitigating factor Jodi suffered physical and emotional abuse while in a relationship with Travis Alexander was next on our list, it was #5. The emotional most jurors believed the physical some…
AJMO Peace
blink , as I hit submit ,I realized you had asked for no religion bashing . I was cringing and thought ,you would just censor that comment. but actually I wasn’t speaking to the religious aspects ,I was talking about the business end. I was told to notice the commercials ,during the trial coverage,that it was Mormon advertising & sponsorship.- the media blitz-. there was a prepaid legal/legal shield ,commercial that ran a lot( conflict of interest) ,and of course ,ancestry.com. (that runs all time,every where anyway).one of the car rentals companies appeared to have a Mormon link ,but I cant verify it . the tv movie ,IMO,has got to have a connection to the media blitz .or the movies producers , started the media blitz .you don’t have to read the following link , it has nothing to do with Jodi arias ,I am linking to prove I am doin some research .its Lifetime movies, I guess he is the previous vp. http://www.tvwritersvault.com/tvexecutiveinterviews/exec_interview_stephen_bulka.asp — he says outside producers ,bring them the projects . I was trying to figure how the whole media blitz ,was organized and concerted with the trial and how HLN got the trial . (I read nbc wanted nothing to do with it) silver screen pictures was a production co. involved ,they are from Australia(and a pro Jodi site claims the media blitz started with a blogger from Australia.
rose writes
I was trying to say, imo it was unlikely he’d be “burned.”
He had a successful persona.
—–
oh I am so sorry I read it the wrong way!!! No one advanced the sooner or later theory- that was ME erroneously) interpreting , I just made a gobbedly gook of iT!
blink writes:
If I am reading that correctly- I have never heard of a foreperson voting with the other jurors as to the effectiveness of another juror in my life.
———–
I read the link for the trial diaries interview, and I myself did not interpret what was reported by the interviewer as being that The foreman took a vote specifically on juror 17. My interpretation of the recounting of the foremen’s words as according to trial diaries, was that he asked the jury as a whole to vote on whether or not they considered the fact that juror 17 had seen the arias movie as a problem, and 7 out of 11 said yes they did.
I do not consider that a vote on a jurors effectiveness. I think it was rather a valid question to ask of the judge- by saying, this juror has seen a movie about the defendant, does that disqualify her point of view .
I consider that a foreman trying to discern if this was a matter that should be put before the judge. I think he HAD to represent the majority at least) of the jury, and needed to know how to represent what was going on to the judge.
Its interesting to see how we all interpret things we read based on our perspectives. My perspective on this interview, which is a recounting/summation of what the foreman said as opposed to a verbatim question and answer form, is that the foreman acted responsibly in his obligation to come to a unanimous vote. In other states, a unanimous vote is not required, in other states the sentencing is only in the judges hands, not a jury’s. This trial is probably a good example of WHY Arizon is now one of only THREE states that has a jury vote for the sentencing..
who as always its great to read yr perspective-
Im not sure if this comes down to differing perspectives though..
According to the article, the Foreman took 2 votes concerning Juror 17 the first you noted on
the movie watching/ Voir dire #1 see () tally 7-1
and second on Juror 17′s ineffectiveness at deliberating
#2 see () tally 11 -11
Snipped:
I drafted two questions:
2 concerns regarding Juror 17- #1…17 was exposed to some of the Lifetime movie previously and we want to double check this was disclosed and considered. (I took a vote on this question among jurors and 7-11 were concerned with this)
#2…In my assessment this juror was ineffective in deliberations and was unable and/or unwilling to express her views despite repeated requests. (I again took a vote on this question and 11-11 jurors were concerned.)
I then wrote down another question for the judge, “I respectfully request consideration of an alternate. Please advise in meantime we will continue to deliberate.”
end snip-
AJMO Peace
susanm says:
March 12, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Hi sususanm- glad to see you- thank you for sharing yr research with us- –
Heres how I look at it FWIW
From watching these trials I learned that there is a big population of Mormons in Arizona… 1 of the Jurors was LDS as was Florez…
also, the victim Travis…the defendant…and several of the witnesses so that may account for the advertizing playing to a certain demographic…
It makes sense to me that Mormons would have an interest in the case that has become known for attempting to put their religion on trial and that the advertisements would hope to bank on their interest- thats business I guess
A&P
“he asked the jury as a whole to vote on whether or not they considered the fact that juror 17 had seen the arias movie as a problem, and 7 out of 11 said yes they did.”
That is beyond bizarre,
outside of his jury instructions,
and unbelieveably polarizing.
If, as foreman, he questioned this, he should have sent a note to the judge. Doubtless it
was known to him during the trial and only came up again when she would not vote with him.
She had disclosed it under voir dire, & Martinez accepted her onto the jury. It was not
the jurors place to substitute their judgment for Martinez.
Agreed- I have never heard of that action by a foreperson on a deliberating jury in my life.
B
@Susanm. wrt the business end, it is interesting the televised trial was awash in commercials by Mormon-owned enterprises & prepaid legal, but maybe the businesses figured their target audience (Mormon consumers) would tune in in higher numbers than usual.
An example of why Defense had to put on all that mitigation evidence of every kind:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/03/12/maricopa-county-phoenix-judge-throws-out-death/70234316/
Mom 3.0
re: juror furor
I understand what you are saying, completely. But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done…. the jury’s responsibility was to come to a unanimous verdict. They were instructed to deliberate with each other. The foreman submitted that deliberation was not happening. It is logical to think at that point, the judge could have said, hung jury, got it. But she didnt
The foreman submitted that one juror has watched the movie. From the description of the jury room becoming heated, I inferred that the discrepant opinions of the jurors (at least seven voiced there opinion that watching the arias movie was affecting the ability to be truly objective) affected the foreman enough to submit to the judge that they were at a road block and this was an issue.
I just don’t know what else he could have done. The first round of opinions showed 7 for death, 4 UNDECIDED and one for life…. those undecided could have gone either way, but clearly by the next vote a couple of days later, they felt strongly enough to vote death on the first official vote. The vote could have been further split, but it wasn’t, and I really do think the need for unanimous vote is what propelled the intensity of whatever was going on. I don’t see the jury as a whole as having been out of order, especially because ultimately the judge ruled that it was not out of line, you know?
adding to my last post
and unfortunately this is all based on the trial diaries interpretation of the “interview” with the foreman-
It sounds like the 11 jurors simply could not understand WHY Juror 17 was voting life in the face of all the evidence that had convinced THEM of a sentence of death. Juror 17 may simply have been unable to explain her thought process, or the other jurors may have just been unswayed by what she put forth. It will forever be impossible to know if Juror 17 had been the foreman, would her approach have been accorded more respect. There are just too many variables for us to know.
And lest face it, conflict of any kind makes for more news. If the verdict had come back unanimous for life, there would still be a focus on the jury, the same as the focus now, it feels like it’s just about propagating media profit at this point, isn’t it? tip of the hat to Susanm latest post!) Respectfully, Just my opinion as always.
@ Whodunnit. wrt “the jury’s responsibility was to come to a unanimous verdict”
Many juries do not reach a unanimous verdict either way.
I don’t think unimous verdict outcomes are in jury charges.
On her jury I would have been the lone life. My mitigator
would have been mental illness. Possibly childhood abuse add on (I paid no attention to that
testimony thinking at the time it was too attenuated.)
If I explained my reasoning, but my opinion was repeatedly discounted
(as she says), after Day 1, I would have been far ruder to the strongarm foreman than Juror 17.
Rose writes:
@ Whodunnit. wrt “the jury’s responsibility was to come to a unanimous verdict”
Many juries do not reach a unanimous verdict either way.
—–
I guess you are referencing something when you say many juries do not reach a unanimous verdict- but in Arizona, the jury MUST reach a unanimous verdict or it is considered hung.
( In other states , it is a majority rules thing, so it is not necessary for everyone to agree to reach a verdict)
It would be interesting to know how many jury’s end up hung in the sentencing phase of death penalty cases.
There are only THREE states that have a jury decide on life or death.
All the other states have a jury for the guilt phases, but the final sentencing is left up to the judge
.And of course some states don’t even have the death penalty.
But these specific things about court law in Arizona are just another example of how out of the norm this whole trial has been!!
Anyway, Arizona is one of those three states that empowers a jury to decide the sentence.
And the jury is clearly instructed that the vote for life or death must be a unanimous one, or they must declare themselves hung.
So yes, any jury in a death penalty case in Arizona is tasked with coming to a unanimous agreement, that is their responsibility. That is the pressure they are under. So I would imagine most discussion is oriented toward making other jurors understand why they should agree with you, because if you don’t agree, you haven’t fulfilled your duty.
.
My feeling is that this pressure of having to get EVERYONE to agree to the same thing is what the challenge was.
All I am trying to say is that I don’t know what else the foreman could have done. I think they all had a right to their opinion, and expressed it in the end.
Juror 17, via her husband and other means, has been able to get her message out to the public that she felt disrespected, and it sounds like the other jurors are saying that SHE didnt respect them either! It looks like they all had a hard time going through the whole thing, though in different ways. Again, what SHOULD the foreman have done?? I am asking that literally.
Also Maybe you would have been a lone hold out, but I never would have even made it through jury selection!
I couldn’t take that kind of responsibility for someone else’s life or death, period. I only believe in the death penalty in theory, I could never mete it out, ever.
Personally,I didn’t buy the mental illness as a mitigator, because nothing that any of the experts said convinced me that Arias was not aware and/or fully responsible of what she was doing.None of the diagnosis indicated that she was unaware that her actions could leave him dead. Just my opinion. I didnt buy the childhood abuse as so extreme that it would have the effect of eliminating Arias’ ability to act freely and follow the dictates of her own will. Again, and obviously, only my opinion.
just wanted to respond to your post!
Obviously I would be disqualified as a penalty phase juror because it is my firm view that there are reversible errors in her guilt phase trial. AND I disagree vehemently with the State’s chronology of events and their representation of many evidentiary items. That is certainly not on the plate of the penalty phase jurors. But as you and others have pointed out- is that really possible? I mean, is it possible to weigh aggravators and mitigators only and assuming the verdict as decided is “true”? I could never- and most especially not in this case. I stopped counting at 18 objections by Nurmi in Martinez’s opening statement. Martinez’s opening was disjointed and vulgar- and as I stated earlier in my view not at all a strong advocate for Travis.
B
.
@Who, wrt “but in Arizona, the jury MUST reach a unanimous verdict or it is considered hung.” exactly. that is the reason for a mistrial outcome. I don’t think it’s all that unlikely an outcome in an AZ death penalty case with a very poor muddy prosecution.
See Maricopa p 3
http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/What%20We%20Do/caseload%20highlights%20hung%20juries.ashx
This is all the felonies. I assume a mistrial is more likely in the solely DP verdicts.
prosecutorial misconduct in AZ
http://archive.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20131027milke-krone-prosecutors-conduct-day1.html
During jury selection I would have persuaded Defense I coukd not set aside my bias she shoukd fry.
“Again, what SHOULD the foreman have done?? I am asking that literally”
Not bullying any jurors with differing opinions would have been a good start.
Sometimes forepersons just have to respect others’ entrenched
positions and realize it is their job to
organize in favor of, but not to secure, a unanimous verdict.
RE
whodunnit says:
March 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Respectful snip-
Mom 3.0
re: juror furor
I understand what you are saying, completely.
the jury’s responsibility was to come to a unanimous verdict.
–
who thank you for taking the time and effort to ponder on my thoughts-
I would like to say that I appreciate yr houghts as well and yr willingness to cont the discussion
you wrote:
the jury’s responsibility was to come to a unanimous verdict.
Although it is the hope that at each phase of the trial the jury may weigh the evidence objectively and thoroughly all in an effort to reach a just unanimous verdict-
in Arizona the instructions given to a jury during the penalty phase read in part:
** BY ME
http://www.azbar.org
snipped:
While all twelve of you had to unanimously agree that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance, ***you do not need to unanimously agree on a particular mitigating circumstance.***
*Each one of you must decide
individually whether any mitigating circumstance exists.
You are not limited to the mitigating circumstances offered by the
defendant. *
*You must also consider any other information that you find is relevant in determining whether to impose a life sentence, so long as
it relates to an aspect of the defendant’s background,
character, propensities, record, or circumstances of the offense.*
The defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance that the defendant offers
by a preponderance of the evidence.
That is, although the defendant need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such a mitigating circumstance exists.
In proving a mitigating circumstance, the defendant may
rely on any evidence already presented and is not required to present additional evidence.
**You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating circumstance[s] you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the
mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.**
*“Sufficiently substantial to call for leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate,** in the
opinion of an individual juror,** to persuade **that juror** to vote for a sentence of life in prison.*
Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are of the same
quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for
a sentence of death and may instead
vote for a sentence of life in prison.
* A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence
even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.*
*A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to the assessment of the appropriate penalty.*
***** In other words, each of you must determine whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it
warrants leniency in this case.*****
**The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the
burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. **
**It is for you, as jurors, to decide
what you *****individually****** believe is the appropriate sentence.
In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and appropriate, you must decide
how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating
factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and
circumstances of the case
.** This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each juror.**
If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency,then you shall return a verdict of life.
If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the
mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of death.
Your decision is not a recommendation. Your decision is binding.
If you unanimously find that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision. If you unanimously find that the defendant should
be sentenced to death, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision.
**If you cannot unanimously agree on the appropriate sentence, your foreperson shall tell the judge**
end
-
who, the first jury could not reach an unanimous verdict either- in fact IIRC 4 felt either collectively or individually that at least 1 of the mitigating factors called for leniency -only 1 felt leniency was called for this time around
Still BOTH juries came to the same conclusion
Justice was served it isnt as if Arias will walk free or was found innocent or not guilty its just that for 5 Arizona citizens the aggrevators presented by the prosecution were outweighed by at least one mitigator- For Juror 17 it seems she expressed to the jury she still felt mitigating factors #4, #5, #8, #9 carried the most weight
Yet it is Juror 17 who is being vilified for being the lone hold out– as if she is the sole person who prevented the Alexander family from getting “justice”- NO that isnt so
Respectfully deciding justice was NEVER to be solely in the hands of the Alexander family- it couldnt be for that would be vengeance not justice
Justice was to be determined in a court of law by a jury/S of JAs peers
justice is that Arias was found guilty
justice is that 2 juries weighed the aggrevators/ mitigtors and were unable to reach a unanimous verdict
justice is JA will be sentenced to life or natural life-
The jury/S did not fail in their responsibility in not reaching unanimity it seems BOTH juries did exactly what they were tasked to do in the penalty phase that is:
Each of you must determine whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it
warrants leniency in this case.
The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the
burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence.
It is for you, as jurors, to decide
what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.
To be cont
A&P
cont 2
RE
whodunnit says:
March 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm
respectful snipS-
“But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done”
“They were instructed to deliberate with each other. The foreman submitted that deliberation was not happening.”
Lets take a look at what the FM stated in his interview
Day by Day on the deliberations AND jUROR 17:
At the start day 1 ** by me
snip:
We decided to talk about mitigating factors, **clockwise we would each take a turn about how we felt about each one.** We started with the age of Jodi Arias. One by one no one thought “age” of Jodi Arias was a factor until it came to Juror 17.
** It struck me as interesting she would find this a mitigating factor but we moved onto the next one.
** Lots of talking was going on at this point we could finally communicate with each other about the case**
–END SNIP
LOOK CONT-
FM states that they ALL cont discussing mitigators-
criminal history- none
remorse-none
emotional and physical abuse – some yes # not given juror 17 said this carries alot of weight for her
Some including 17 wanted to look at Carls interview-
at this point what did the foreman do…did he wish to cont “deliberating” going thru the mitigators discussing each… no it seems not
this is when he wished to stop the discussion and move to “breaking the ice” that is ” just start a conversation on life or death” how did he do this? he took a count-
It was approximately 7 for death penalty, 4 undecided and 1 for life
me says: Yeah nothing eases one into a deliberation ofevidence or keeping the discussion open and flowing slike taking a vote and forming sides….JMO
Despite the vote- (and the polarization that was beginning IMO)
they finished the day off w/ some jurors wanting to look at Jodi’s journals & the psychological reports while making a decision on which way they would lean
its unclear if they looked at the journals at this point – they did not have the Psch reports so we know they did not look at these-
At the end of day 1
ALL jurors were FULLY deliberating and continued to try to do so despite IMO the FM shutting the convo down – with his new topic of “easing” into a discussion of Death or life which seems to have been just a means to get a vote-
I wonder if the vote taken was anonymous or out loud?
I end day one wondering if Juror 17 was contributing to such a degree that FM worried the undecideds would go the other way….they wanted to review Carls interview they wanted to review journals and P.reports…It seems to me that Juror 17 had already made it onto the FM “radar” because of the “age” mitigator
Cont Day 2
ajmo
Cont prt 3
RE
whodunnit says:
March 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm
respectful snipS-
“But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done”
“They were instructed to deliberate with each other. The foreman submitted that deliberation was not happening.”
–
a look at what the FM stated in his interview
Day by Day on the deliberations AND jUROR 17:
Day 2 Thursday
the day begins with all discussing mitigators 5-9
no concerns with Juror 17 not engaging-
We had gone through mitigating factors 1-4 the day prior and were now going to tackle 5-9. The mitigating factor Jodi suffered physical and emotional abuse while in a relationship with Travis Alexander was next on our list, it was #5. The emotional most jurors believed the physical some.
me? how many is most? 11 10 how many is some? Is “some” synonymous with the 4 undecideds?
They move on to discuss #7 “she was diagnosed with PTSD. We all believed she should have had it from the murder and it wasn’t a mitigating factor.”
Next # 8 according to the interview :
We didn’t see #8 the Borderline Personality Disorder as a factor either but most felt Jodi had it. At this point we were all still in sharing mode.
-me? Wait they were all deliberating “still in sharing mode” and all felt #8 wasnt factor? but later FM says juror 17 “STILL” felt # 8 was a factor? when did she change her mind….
—Heres where “But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done” definitely comes in IMO
After lunch foreman begins by taking another vote- not an anonymous vote but one in which he is literally drawing lines between the jurors- in a VERY obvious way
why? well because in his words : “I wanted a data point from the jurors.”
“Everyone seemed more comfortable voting now; everyone got up and put their vote on the side they chose…”
me? In what order did they go? was Juror 17 first up? or one of the first up? ws the FM & those that were definitely for death first up? – …what of the previously “undecideds”?
Did they hang back? were they intimidated by the very public vote?
the very public and seemingly unpopular life vote as previously recorded? 7 death… 1 life 4 undecided…
Now the tally was 11 to 1 DEATH
This is where the FM realized something..
“This is when I noticed Juror 17 had put more weight on the mitigating factors than anybody else.”
what did he notice? Perhaps that Juror 1 was the lone holdout
what should the realization have been? perhaps it shouldve been when people who by his own account had been previously “uneasy voting” are asked to get up infront of an entire room of people 7 of which were known previously to want death… and “pick a side” literally human nature may spur them to write their name on the popular side- regardless of what they felt on mitigators..
KIM up to now the 12 had been “sharing” they had been deliberating and Juror 17 was doing so in such a manner that until the writing on the wall…it was NOT obvious to the FM that she was giving more weight to mitigators vs agrravators No obvious biases were mentioned at all
The deliberations by ALL continued-
snip
After the vote we decided to do a round table chat and look at the Gchat between Travis and Jodi. (This was the chat where Travis called Jodi “evil” “a frickin whore” “a rotten lunatic.”) Some of the ladies on the jury noticed the manipulation from Jodi Arias and even Juror 17 agreed.
they looked at text messages and journals -
most felt travis was mad because Jodi wanted to speak to the bishop IRT sexually relationship
the day ended with all still deliberating
So for two solid days the entire jury was sharing the entire jury was deliberating the foreman took votes
and votes were changing
7 death
4 undecided
1 life
to 11 death one life
then a break -the weekend – all have time away-
Do some take time to simmer on the 11-1 vote so close…if not for the KNOWN lone holdout?
AJMO Peace
Cont day 3
Cont prt 4
RE
whodunnit says:
March 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm
respectful snipS-
“But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done”
“They were instructed to deliberate with each other. The foreman submitted that deliberation was not happening.”
–
a look at what the FM stated in his interview
Day by Day on the deliberations AND jUROR 17:
Day 3 Monday
According to Fm this is the dy they began debating-
Start of day they take a vote- it seems this vote was again not anonymous as the newly undecided was again AT the END of the DAY leaning death….
vote at star of day was
10 death, 1 undecided and 1 life.
So this is when the autopsy photos were brought out along with “some other items”
According to the FM Juror 17 was still engaged and still deliberating-
snipped-
Juror 17 wanted to read Jodi’s journals starting from June of 2007. Juror 17 would read them out loud to others and then we would pass it around and take our turn reading. Juror 17 would take a lot of notes. We put large pieces of white paper on the walls, one for each mitigating factor. We would have a female juror read the texts as Jodi and a male juror read the part of Travis. We worked a lot together reading and writing.
Next we have the FM not questioning her deliberation nor her cooperation nor her “effectiveness” or bias- but instead questioning (sometimes to the point of jawdropping) her shared differing perspective during the discussions of how they interpreted of evidence
KIM by the end of the day undecided was leaning toward death but had not changed their vote yet and with Jurors voiced perspectives this is when the debate insued according to FM
snip:
When a juror would find things in writing that would collaborate other evidence Juror 17 often times saw it or interpreted it differently. On some occasions it made my jaw drop. Everyone saw things one way in the journals but Juror 17 didn’t see it the same way. This is when we began to debate.
—
Juror 17 was still sharing – still deliberatinbg – still discussing- KIM no new vote is reported for all anyone knew juror 17 was effective in deliberations up to this point and may have been a factor in the new undecided vote after the weekend and may have been the reason the undecided couldnt do more that day other than”lean” toward death…
The day ends with FM noting
Juror 17 while sharing MENTIONS something….what does she mention?
Juror 17 mentions to us she saw bits and pieces of the Lifetime movie “Dirty Little Secret,” while she was vacuuming one day and it was on in the background. She stated to us she disclosed this on her questionnaire.
–FM doesnt say she factored this into her deliberations or argued that others should consider it- it was “mentioned” and 17 said she was forthright in disclosing it to the court
No bias is obvious from the beginning ccording to FM juror 17 has been deliberating and sharing and votes ARE STILL changing
7 death
4 undecided
1 life
to 11 death one life
then to
10 death
1 undecided
1 life
Cont day 4
ajmo peace
Rose writes:
Not bullying any jurors with differing opinions would have been a good start.
——
I can imagine that anyone who had a different opinion than 11 other people would feel bullied in an atmosphere in which all of them were charged with a life and death decision.
It seems that the use of a jury for the sentencing phase has not always been in place in Arizona. This would be an example of why it doesn’t work. I wish the Judge would have been empowered to make the sentencing ruling in the first place. Because she sat in a position to know everything, the motions, the side bars, the whole deal. These juries- both of them, were doomed from the start. It was just too much to ask of anyone, in my opinion. I hope that juror 17 does not carry her experience of the deliberations into an identity as victim, this case has victimized so many people and will continue to do so, I fear.
I find this interesting, Here is a link about death penalty in Arizona. Including the history of how the D.P. sentence has been approached. Note: there were NO executions carried out in Arizona from 1962 to 1992.
The method of empowering a jury to decide on life or death began in 1973.
here is link:
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arizona-law/arizona-capital-punishment-laws.html
As of 2005, the supreme court declared that NO ONE age 18 or under may be executed as punishment for murder.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/recent-developments-the-death-penalty.html
If you read this link, it seems pretty clear that as a nation, we are divided on sentencing- many states have abolished life with parole, for example. And it appears the guidelines for sentencing vary from state to state..
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/selected-state-sentencing-laws.html
don’t know if I am interpreting this correctly, but it looks like ALL Death Penalty sentences must be decided by a jury, not a judge. So does that mean NO Judge can EVER sentence someone to death unless the jury votes for it? Looks like it:
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu4b&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/233?opendocument
Link for back ground on hung juries.
Requirements for unanimity in guilt stage and eligibility for DP stage vary from state to state.
( interesting- In Oregon, only 11 out of twelve jurors is required for a verdict of death in sentencing
phase)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
Cont prt 5
RE
whodunnit says:
March 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm
respectful snipS-
“But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done”
“They were instructed to deliberate with each other. The foreman submitted that deliberation was not happening.”
–
a look at what the FM stated in his interview
Day by Day on the deliberations AND jUROR 17:
Day 4 Tuesday
–No new vote seems to have been taken on day 4 despite the previous vote having been left at
10 death
1 undecided
1 life-
Instead- today begins with jurors (no # mentioned) suddenly calling for Juror 17 to explain her views…
as if the previous 3 days worth of contributing of deliberating of voting of sharing never happened….
snip
” Jurors wanted an explanation from Juror 17 on her views but 17 was just reading the journals, taking notes and talking less. This is when things began to get very heated. Jurors felt 17 wasn’t deliberating at this point”
–me says…perhaps she was talking less because everyoneelse was talking AT her not discussing not deliberating with her…now it seems to be her on trial…defending her views when by last count the votes were changing… . deliberations were effecting views and the process had been moving along….
How can she cont to deliberating the case “at this point”–weighing the mitigators against the aggrevators if all they are now interested in – is demanding that she defend herself?
again IRT what should the FM should have done-
Well it seems to me- he COULD have said this isnt about17 we need to get back to the task at hand we left off on # 8 were were viewing evidence lets get back to that-
we have been deliberating for 3 days and Juror 17 has contributed to that cause- and up until now things were smoothly going along- this has been a cordial courteous productuvive process…it is now heated- and that heat is directed at one juror- what has changed seems to be a voicing of demands …
lets take a breath and remember the great progress we have made… and remember votes and thoughts are still in flux-
All of us should feel that we are safe in sharing our thoughts and our votes nomatter what we feel the final tally will reveal Lets get back to discussing the weight of the evidence
Instead what does FM do?
snip:
I decided a note needed sent to the judge regarding Juror 17 and I informed her I was doing this and would read the note out loud before it was sent. I explained to her it wasn’t personal. The jury felt Juror 17 was biased from the beginning and just wasn’t deliberating. This gave me the feeling we were a hung jury
he sends a note to the judge
end
So he says it isnt personal-but according to his review of this day it had BECOME personal- and the jury up til then had NOT brought to his attention that they felt this juror was biased from the beginning- and according to his interview of prior days deliberations he had not felt that way either-
and IF the votes were still changing- ten how is it that he felt this jury was hung? The votes were influx not stagnant-
He stated:
It was so heated and intense in the deliberation room I did feel Juror 17 was being attacked at this point but she wasn’t deliberating and it frustrated some of the jurors.
HUH- BY his OWN account SHE had been deliberating as had the others has had he- and it seems that she was being singled out, targeted from the start of the day and it wasnt because she wasnt deliberating but because she wouldnt or couldnt defend her self from the unwanted and IMO unwarranted demands of the others to explain herself
Did FM write to the judge over his concerns of the heated attacks on Juror 17? NO he instead wrote
“I respectfully ask for an alternate”- not for those who were attacking but for Juror 17-
and it seems to me that he made a FALSE CLAIM (if his interview is to be believed) that she was ineffective at deliberating and that she was unable or unwilling to express her views despite repeated requests.
–By the FM “OWN WORDS” in the previous days
She had been expressing her views she had been willing and able to do so- until Day 4 when the “attacks” began
He took votes against Juror 17 from the group – further making it personal further alienating her and further bolstering the others disrespectful treatment bordering IMO on juror intimidation
Was a vote taken on how many felt the attacks were uncalled for or out of hand or intimidating to them and their votes to what ws supposed to be a free thought process?
What do you think these attacks on 17 did for that 1 juror who had been again undecided? what did this mob mentality do to all of their thought processes?
day 4 cont
Snipped
After some time the jury was then called into the courtroom and given the Impasse Instructions. The instructions didn’t help us and we weren’t allowed to tell the judge our vote
–Wait the instructions didnt help? how so as the FM goes on to state that they all decided to Finally ask for the psch reports that were discussed way back on Day 1
they continued to deliberate- looking at the journals and texts I never butted heads with Juror 17 during this time, I was trying to stay calm and keep her engaged. I noticed after the Impasse Instructions given by the judge Juror 17 moved to a different location at our table and began to engage.
snipped:
I never butted heads with Juror 17 during this time, I was trying to stay calm and keep her engaged. I noticed after the Impasse Instructions given by the judge Juror 17 moved to a different location at our table and began to engage.
–
So which is it the impasse didnt help or it did?
Oh wait the vote was at last taken again was it anonymous…would it matter at this point…. the tally was 11-1
- Day 4 cont with Judge individually interviewing the jurors to include FM
In his interview he stated:
The judge asked me about the ineffective deliberations. I told her after our questions were submitted Juror 17 showed signs of improvement. The judge then asked me if I thought deliberations were happening and I stated they had improved
–
Does this not strike anyoneelse as disingenuous? She had improved after their questions? really? wait- she up until day 4 and the starting gate “inquisition” had Never been ineffective at deliberations she had been willing and able to share her views and was deliberating and cont to do so after the impasse?
the FM states she was a “d” then moved to c+ or B-…
WTH? what of the others who were attacking what of their grades? seriously?
A D is passing— BTW
and the last vote was 11-1 so Im not getting it
IMO the impasse was not called for when he wrote the questions to the judge as at least one other juror had changed their vote to undecided
- the deliberating had been fruitful until this FM took a vote on “bias” 17 mentioning the movie and whther she was truthful in voi dire which only 7 had agreed was a concern- 7 huh… 7 were originally for death
Bias might have turned an otherwise ongoing productive deliberation process into a standstill/standoff but im not sure that 17 was at fault…
cont Day 5
AJMO Peace
Cont prt 5
RE
whodunnit says:
March 13, 2015 at 5:45 pm
respectful snipS-
“But at the same time, I am wondering what a foreman SHOULD have done”
“They were instructed to deliberate with each other. The foreman submitted that deliberation was not happening.”
–
a look at what the FM stated in his interview
Day by Day on the deliberations AND jUROR 17:
Day 4 Wednesday
In 4 days worth of deliberations the votes had changed 4 times-
they were not stagnant they were influx
Day 1
7 death
4 undecided
1 life
Day 2
11 death one life
Day 3
10 death
1 undecided
1 life
Day 4
11 death
1 life
–
Day 5 began no with a vote not with further deliberations of the evidence or its weight but according to FM:
We again tried to dig for reasons as to why Juror 17 was voting for Life.
—
Juror 17 continued to deliberate and she was sharing personal stories as well as being open about her thought process and the struggles of weighing the mitigators
Juror 17 shared her own personal story IRT better explain her thoughts on the abuse mitigator
Juror 17 she wrote down her pros and cons on each mitigating factor.
17 shard her thoughts on #8 The Borderline Personality Disorder and #9 the psychological makeup impairing Jodi’s ability to cope with the tumultuous relationship mitigators which had weight with her.
The FM states:
She just couldn’t separate these two factors from each other. I gave her positive feedback for making efforts in hopes it would encourage her.
–me? encourages her to what? separate them – no need the mitigators are to be recognized and given weight as a juror sees fit…
day 5 cont-
One juror suggested we now start discussing the Aggravating circumstances and we made a paper and attached it to the wall
me ? had they not began to discuss the aggrevators? Did they not make a demonstrative up til now for the aggrevators the way they did for the vote or for the mitigators?
If not perhaps this is why they needed the impasse not just for 17 but for all
Many people are visual learners that is they need to see and go thru the process of seeing before they can decide…..it seems to me that there was much left to discuss and review during their deliberations on Day 5
Cont-
Deliberations cont Juror 17 fully participated and Juror 17 was engaged
they had great discussions as a jury and continued to look through journals and texts .
Reviewed premeditation and aggrevators reviewed crime scene phootos and autopsy photos-
Most of us felt Jodi had to get rid of Travis Alexander so she could move on. Juror 17 agreed with this theory as a motive.
snipped:
I felt positive 17 was coming around that the jurors would be unanimous after all.
But for her the mitigaors #4, #5, #8, #9 still applied to Jodi Arias despite understanding the premed and all the rest-
-
Had the jury continued to discuss and not again attack then refuse to cont the deliberations the next day threatening the judge with a walk out I feel that they may have reached Juror 17
just because she felt a mitigator still applied does not have to mean that she felt it was equal to or outweighed the aggrevators…
Perhaps if a kind level headed person had said yes I agree with you those mitigators DO apply to JA but for me they do not outweigh the aggrevators because… she could have voted death-
ANother very real outcome had they not threatened a walk out or falsely claimed to be hung W no change “since Thurs” had no one ever singled out 17 by the FM words “attacking” her the vote may have cont to morph w more deliberations-
On the last Day of deliberations the FM states he felt He was losing the jurors 1 by 1…. he said It was clear to everyone additional time would not change Juror 17’s view.
But what of the others minds?
We will never know and neither will they
Deliberations ceased
the note was written:
“We are not unanimous. Votes steady since last Thursday. Jurors say vote will not change. Inform judge or we want off jury. In my assessment we are hung and additional time will not help.”
The next day- # 6 it ended in a mistrial w/ no further deliberations
Even so all was not lost
it is Juror 17 whose truthfulness and “agenda” and possible misconduct that was being questioned,… FM got to share that look with the Alexanders and they shared their prepared statement conveying their sorrow and apologies for not getting “justice” for Travis at the same time sharing anger for Juror 17 from preventing them from doing so
Sentencing is on April 13
thanks for moderting B- thanks for reading all
thanks for discussing who
thats all i got other than stating I agree from everything that has been said by this jury…there should be an investigation of Juror 17 BUT I also believe it should extend to all the jurors
Mom3.0 walks off with a song echoing…
It’s a death row pardon two minutes too late
And isn’t it ironic… don’t you think
It’s like rain on your wedding day
It’s a free ride when you’ve already paid
It’s the good advice that you just didn’t take
Who would’ve thought… it figures
AJMO Peace
discussion here has arisen about the outrageousness of polling individual jurors. Bklink and other have been aghast and it sure seemed weird to me too
here is something I found on line
Committee Notes on Rules—1998 Amendment
The right of a party to have the jury polled is an “undoubted right.” Humphries v. District of Columbia, 174 U.S. 190, 194 (1899). Its purpose is to determine with certainty that “each of the jurors approves of the verdict as returned; that no one has been coerced or induced to sign a verdict to which he does not fully assent.” Id.
Currently, Rule 31(d) is silent on the precise method of polling the jury. Thus, a court in its discretion may conduct the poll collectively or individually. As one court has noted, although the prevailing view is that the method used is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, United States v. Miller, 59 F.3d 417, 420 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing cases), the preference, nonetheless of the appellate and trial courts, seems to favor individual polling. Id. (citing cases). That is the position taken in the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice §15–4.5. Those sources favoring individual polling observe that conducting a poll of the jurors collectively saves little time and does not always adequately insure that an individual juror who has been forced to join the majority during deliberations will voice dissent from a collective response. On the other hand, an advantage to individual polling is the “likelihood that it will discourage post-trial efforts to challenge the verdict on allegations of coercion on the part of some of the jurors.” Miller, Id. at 420 (citing Audette v. Isaksen Fishing Corp., 789 F.2d 956, 961, n. 6 (1st Cir. 1986)).
The Committee is persuaded by the authorities and practice that there are advantages of conducting an individual poll of the jurors. Thus, the rule requires that the jurors be polled individually when a polling is requested, or when polling is directed sua sponte by the court. The amendment, however, leaves to the court the discretion as to whether to conduct a separate poll for each defendant, each count of the indictment or complaint, or on other issues.
Changes Made to Rule 31 After Publication (“GAP Report”). The Committee changed the rule to require that any polling of the jury must be done before the jury is discharged and it incorporated suggested style changes submitted by the Style Subcommittee.
Who- respectfully- it only applies to a jury who has reached a verdict. Not a hung jury, and not a jury in the midst of deliberations.
B
@ Who. When a verdict has been reached, either way, guilty or innocent, individuals are polled to see if that is their true verdict. I do not think it outrageous, unusual nor wierd. The major press jury I served on was polled individually in open Court as to our verdict of not guilty on charges. While the Judge does it, my impression was attorneys can request it of the judge. Frankly I woukd expect it in a dp case. But it is not done in a mistrial.
Blink writes:
Who- respectfully- it only applies to a jury who has reached a verdict. Not a hung jury, and not a jury in the midst of deliberations.
B
—-
OOOOOPPPPPS !!! As Roseanna Rosannadanna would say:” Never mind’!!
xxx
Lol- Violins in schools
B
Mom 3.0
My initial reaction to the juror furor was that imo no group[ of twelve was ever going to be able to agree to a sentence. Then a discussion arose about what the jury was doing behind closed doors, based on Juror 17 telling the media that she felt bullied.
It is interesting to me to see how concisely and specifically you have responded to this thread, with quotes , snips and full explanations of why you see the inner workings of the jury as having been off, and why you feel the foreman was at fault. You know what? THATS deliberation, and I have read all of your posts respectfully. You have illuminated fully your process and how you have arrived at your conclusions. And BECAUSE of that, I fully understand your point of view!! I get it, you are outraged that a juror with a differing opinion would feel unheard.
Even though there have been very lengthy posts calling me out and demanding that I see juror 17 as being victimized, I myself don’t feel bullied. I know it is your intention to make it clear that 17 was bullied.
But maybe in another way, I am like juror 17, listening but not willing to go to huge lengths to explain my own point of view anymore.
Fwiw- I appreciate the respectful way you addressed this both Who and Mom 3.0
I have to say that I agree with both of you. I do feel that juror #17 was singled out, questioned about her “motivation” when she did not “cave” about things that were cleared through vior dire. That said, if we assume the vote was taken about her not deliberating or whatever by all jurors- I could certainly see how she felt “bullied” because that is improper. HOWEVER that is a part of the jury process that this foreperson I am certain did not realize was improper. That’s because he was just a citizen put in charge of that deliberation without *arguably I admit*- proper instruction or understanding of same. But that is deliberation- it is our jury system. It is flawed, but in my view so is ( as you have pointed out) expecting a jury that did not hear the original case to be asked to agree to put someone to death in this mini vignette format.
So, in that regard, this was set up to fail really- it’s the process that does not meet the task, imo, not the individuals who were asked to preform it. I would never make this jury, but if I did I would probably be one of those that was threatening to quit if I was one of the 11 (either way) and maybe that’s wrong, but I do not believe a person should be forced to conform their opinion in such a sensitive issue and the judge instructed similarly.
I believe it was Rose who posted the link to the AZ stats as to 40% of appellate cases the 9th circuit has found prosecutorial misconduct or error.
Disclosure: Prosecutorial error occurred in one of my personal cases resulting in a new trial for a defendant convicted of murder. As a result, the State agreed to a plea bargain that took this man from LWOP for first degree murder, to a 30 year sentence with time served he could be out in 12 years. Am I pissed? You bet your azz- most especially because I warned the prosecutor his strategy would get this defendant another bite of the apple when he tried the other 2. I was right and there was no way the State could try this again without opening the door to the other 2 standing convictions. Am I pissed? Yes. I am going to make prosecutorial hubris my bitch I do believe. I am thankful the family was spared another trial, but again, that didn’t have to be if (I felt) I was taken seriously and my opinion was considered sound. In this case- the DA’s investigator was actually fired because he firmly agreed with me. Did I feel bullied? No. I stated my concerns, of which this would now be the second capital case I did this, was discredited due to hubris, with the second predicted outcome. It’s the process. Saying I told you so holds zero satisfaction for me. Trying cases properly to secure appropriate convictions- regardless of which side of the fence I am engaged is satisfying.
ps. sorry for the length but I felt I needed to disclose as it certainly has tempered my opinions.
B
“Even though there have been very lengthy posts calling me out and demanding that I see juror 17 as being victimized, ” I hope mine were not read that way Who. No intent there on my part.
she saw herself as bullied. that’s enough. I don’t think you or I can have any idea of what really transpired in that jury room. It is the united jurors’ behavior after they came out of the room and began slurring her publically I find very troublesome.
who I wasnt calling you out I was answering the question you put forth what should the foreman have done-
Yr right this discussion board is lot like the deliberation room
I am so glad that you didnt feel bullied who because you were never the subject of my posts-
I never demanded that you see juror 17 as bullied or that you explain yr reasonings for not- and there isnt a group of others demanding that you explain yrself either or making our discussion all about you
Blink our FM never shut down the deliberations she never accused you of being ineffective at deliberating because yr posts are shorter than mine or longer than roses…. rose and I susanm etc are sharing differing perspectives yr sharing yours and our discussion may be effecting the other readers (jurors) out there in lurk land or they may not-
With further discussion perspectives are changing- for instance you changed yr thoughts on Travis after having read Roses post
“I see your point of view and now I understand it, your opinion has changed my perspective.”
Blink as FM responded kindly and respectfully to all including both of us she didnt further the thought that one of us is wrong and the other right-
As foreman she is fostering further discussions not stifling them and
She as FM (moderator) she hasnt allowed us to cuss at one another or to make demands of one another nor has she asked for one of us to be replaced by an alternate – (banned us from posting)
She hasnt accused one of us of bias and lying and she never took a vote on that…
and she herself isnt falsely claiming that one of us is incapable of or unwilling to share our thoughts and views
luckily our deliberations will never end in a death sentence if one of us changes our perspective just to get along or holds to it just because they can
So yeah I agree with you it is easy to feel bullied when you are the 1 against the lot-especially if the FM isnt handling it in a balanced way
AJMO Peace
Blink writes:
So, in that regard, this was set up to fail really- it’s the process that does not meet the task, imo, not the individuals who were asked to preform it
—–
I agree wholeheartedly, and as I have stated, this is at the core of the challenge.
Mom 3.0 writes:
who I wasnt calling you out I was answering the question you put forth what should the foreman have done-
—–
Oh yes I absolutely know that, don’t worry! (but thank you for repeating it xx) Your posts were long and detailed and I very VERY much appreciated the lengths you went to to explain your point of view!It enabled me to understand that your position was not about whether or not Arias should have life or death, but your concern for the way a differing opinion in the jury deliberations was apparently treated. I am sure that if they had voted life 11-1, and one held out for DP, you would have illuminated the process in the same way.
Rose writes:
I don’t think you or I can have any idea of what really transpired in that jury room. It is the united jurors’ behavior after they came out of the room and began slurring her publically I find very troublesome.
—–
Totally agree. And I think that it went both ways, both ” sides” were not very discreet about voicing how they felt. Juror 17 conveyed her feelings, her husband spoke out for her, and the foreman gave an interview… phew. What a trial!!
I think you mention earlier that Juror 17 ‘s position was attacked because there was such fervor in the public at large, almost an ” off with her head” clamour.
It was a sensationalized trial, complete with blow hard (and still questionable) prosecutorial efforts and defense dragging in the kitchen sink.
Nobody has won anything.
But I am hopeful that this trial is educating the public to the larger issues of our court system, as well as what can be considered abuse.
Putting these two people Arias and Alexander up to a magnifying glass is certainly cautionary tale, in every sense of the word!!
Thanks all, I love this board!
The bottom line is that the judge did not find misconduct on any of the jurors part, so we are all just left with what we can glean from postings and media.
who- thank you for yr kind reply- and for valuing the intent of my lengthy posts
We all want to be heard and understood
Yes my posts are my way of trying to understand a perspective and I tend to speak to the side of what I perceive to be the underdog
I am often motivated by the thought:
“There are no facts, only interpretations.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
which sometimes leads me to forget:
“The trick to forgetting the big picture is to look at everything close up.”
― Chuck Palahniuk
AJMO Peace
Juror 17
It seems that during jury selection Martinez did attempt to get Juror 17 then # 138 removed for cause=
It seems that he felt she was too emotional when speaking of her DV past
and with the case wouldnt be able to handle her emotion
Defense did mot agree
The Judge questioned her PP can you put aside your experiences and judge this case based only on evidence and the law given
answer affirmative
Martinez still wished for her to be removed saying PP she cried
Judge ended by saying She seems like a strong person to me-
It would appear Martinez did not use a strike for this juror…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7jqGuEniFA&feature=youtu.be&t=26m11s
–
FYI
also Juror 17 gave an unpaid interview to FOX 12 I havent seen it yet…
Re Blink says:
Disclosure: Prosecutorial error occurred in one of my personal cases resulting in a new trial for a defendant convicted of murder. As a result, the State agreed to a plea bargain that took this man from LWOP for first degree murder, to a 30 year sentence with time served he could be out in 12 years. Am I pissed? You bet your azz- most especially because I warned the prosecutor his strategy would get this defendant another bite of the apple when he tried the other 2. I was right and there was no way the State could try this again without opening the door to the other 2 standing convictions. Am I pissed? Yes. I am going to make prosecutorial hubris my bitch I do believe. I am thankful the family was spared another trial, but again, that didn’t have to be if (I felt) I was taken seriously and my opinion was considered sound. In this case- the DA’s investigator was actually fired because he firmly agreed with me. Did I feel bullied? No. I stated my concerns, of which this would now be the second capital case I did this, was discredited due to hubris, with the second predicted outcome. It’s the process. Saying I told you so holds zero satisfaction for me. Trying cases properly to secure appropriate convictions- regardless of which side of the fence I am engaged is satisfying.
ps. sorry for the length but I felt I needed to disclose as it certainly has tempered my opinions.
B
–
Blink thank you for the disclaimer- I better understand the why of yr thoughts and feelings..
- I am glad to know that prosecutorial hubris is going to be “Your Bitch” yikes LOL
This brings to mind for me the discussion of the DA also-IRT yr earlier thoughts on overcharging…
I firmly believe now, and it took awhile to get squarely on yr page that the Prosecution and the DA in CA case overcharged with the DP-
had they not wished to put CA to death I think a jury would have been able to get there by fitting the puzzle pieces together
On a DP case I feel most want the puzzle complete with no virtual pieces left to ponder…I also think this might have helped the Anthonys not lie so much…if the sentence was to be years and not death row for life they may have been more forthcoming … at the very least I dont think it would have come down to throwing George under the bus for molestation and child murder/cover-up…but then again they are the Anthony’s so Im probably kidding myself
I think IRT the Arias case the prosecution and DA overcharged going for the DP also-
She confessed and wanted to plea- The killing was horrible yes-
But IMO to reach the aggrevators- they had to skew the evidence- the whole shot last debacle- throwing Florez and Horn under the bus… the photos, the “mistake” of no porn no viruses.. IMO premeditation is still just a matter of perspective… it came down to gas cans and ?
AJMO Peace
1. If you recall- Linda Burdick pulled the dp of Caylee’s homicide case prior to her remains being located. Once they were- it was back on. That never made any sense to me because there was no cause of death and the manner of death ( which I agreed with) was still very arguable between experts. Could a 34 month old put herself in those bags and end up in the bog? Likely no- but it rested solely on (imo) the computer forensics (which were wrong and again arguable because as I wrote- they were not even Casey’s). You cannot expect a jury to put to death a young Mother without a single incident or witness claiming abuse or mistreatment of that child. ( I am talking about “real abuse”- we all know she was a lousy Mother and she had plenty of instruction). I keep saying one day I will write all I know and participated in with her case and when I contemplate what that looks like I always come back to the same thing- when I am ready, I will know- if I ever am. That said- another example of Ashton’s hubris is when he was interviewed and asked if he could would – what would he ask members of the jury? His reply (para) ‘I would ask them if they believed she was in the back of that car.” I cannot tell you how many late night protracted conversations I have had about that response alone. My personal feelings about Casey Anthony aside ( because I do have many very strong ones) there was never any way to determine if she died accidentally (via negligence or other) or was murdered by some means. How can anyone expect a jury to make that determination when the law expressly prohibits making jurors experts. Ashton thought images of her dancing on the table and callous videos etc would sway the jury and technically once again- that is at odds with law ( Brady ). O/T: But I have also had some of the most cherished and humerus conversations about that case as it was progressing and have developed some great friends and professional mentors. The conversation I had when CA flashed on screen in the white sunglasses she stole from Target I had previously seen going to the register on the conveyer belt. This is how absolutely sociopathic that girl was.
2. In Arias- I believe she was overcharged as per what Martinez presented as his case in chief. Sounds odd to say considering he won a conviction subject to the dp- but as you know I do not believe it will stand. I honestly do not know if he is uneducated in matters of crime scene forensics in general and therefore uncomfortable of if he saw what really happened and decided it was in his best interests to win a dp conviction to present as he did. I don’t think so. I think he did not interpret the evidence properly use appropriate resources for analysis. Because if he had- this case was potentially still a dp case ( in my view ) as occurring in the “commission of” and less defensable that way. That said- I still believe the proper interpretation of the evidence in this case- provided it still has chain of custody integrity can secure a first degree murder charge in this case.
B
Bless you Whodunnit.
Scroll.
Savor your own perspective.
blink writes:
That said- I still believe the proper interpretation of the evidence in this case- provided it still has chain of custody integrity can secure a first degree murder charge in this case.
B
I agree.
SO, as I understand it,
there are two possible sentences Judge Stephens can give:
1.Life without parole
2. Life with possibility of parole after 25 years*
* Because there are NO present laws in Arizona that allow life with parole, a sentence of life with parole would simply be a way of allowing Arias to have a legal leg to stand on IF and WHEN they change the law in Arizona to include life with parole.
MY QUESTION:
WHO pays for an appeal – assuming they go after the guilt phase verdict.
The State or will it be a freebie from a lawyer or paid for by moneys accruccred via Arias appellate funding site.?
The State of AZ- she is indigent. Either way.
B
Mom 3.0 writes:
(see post written at :
March 16, 2015 at 1:37 am
—-
Mom 3.0
Thank you so much for that post and your insight once again, and the kindness you show with the consideration of every piece of evidence, every post.
Blink, thank you for yr reply.
1. I cant believe I forgot ok maybe blocked , that LB had taken the DP off the table…
I hope someday to read yr tell all- and I am glad that I am not alone in still be haunted by it all -the knowns and unknowns as it were …
2.I was speaking to the case as it was presented-
Its not that I dont think what happened to Travis- shouldnt result in a DP conviction or that I feel JA deserves a lighter sentence-
I just cant get those virtual puzzle pieces presented by the Prosecution to fit… too many were missing too many out of place or came out of questionable gathering…
To name a few:
The blood evidence
The sim cards /camera
The computer exams
The autopsy typos / sequencing
The buying of 2 the “we” talk the wet banister
I agree that it is a winnable DP case-as it was “won”
and I agree with the proper interpretation of the evidence – chain of custody integrity assured that it would secure a first degree murder charge in this case- one that I could “back” where anyone could follow all the evidence to say yep they got it right- or as close to right as possible
As it is now- I fear that there are justifiable concerns over evidence integrity- and I dont know how that could be overcome since much of the evidence wasnt collected or was damaged/lost or mishandled in some fashion…. How can that be overcome? IDK…
AJMO Peace
Re whodunnit says:
March 16, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Making one person smile can change the world – maybe not the whole world, but their world.- Thanks for making me smile
who Ive been thinking alot about yr thoughts and concerns over how to make the process better…
Yr last thought:
whodunnit says:
March 15, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Blink writes:
So, in that regard, this was set up to fail really- it’s the process that does not meet the task, imo, not the individuals who were asked to preform it
—–
I agree wholeheartedly, and as I have stated, this is at the core of the challenge.
—–
I dont know what the answers are who- but I thank you for asking the questions –
Remaining silent to the concerns will do nothing research is happening perhaps someday because of people like you asking hard questions- our justice system will be made even better
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2007/05/unanimity.html
AJMO Peace
Mom 3.0 writes:
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2007/05/unanimity.html
–
Great link, and very interesting.
I just want to clarify that when I spoke of the what I consider the core challenge in the Arias jury, it is the fact that these ordinary citizens were asked to give a sentence on charges that they were not part of arriving at- meaning they had no part of the verdict of guilt or qualification for DP, and that it was demanded that they sift through many hours of psychological expert testimony-experts who have devoted their lives to the field and even seem to have their own lingo- and with only a layman’s perspective, decide on the veracity and quality of that testimony. In this way they were required to judge the experts as well as absorb what they were saying AND factor that into the fulcrum of if the mitigating evidence outweighed the level of cruelty of the crime. So in a way, these ordinary people were asked to become psychological experts themselves. Add to that the pressure of knowing that if they couldn’t agree unanimously, they would have , in effect, failed.It was just a no win , imo.
Arias DID want to plea, but ONLY to second degree. Her plea stated that defense believed she would receive Life with parole after 25 years, or even less. Was this the fuse that lit Martinez’ hubris? Did Travis family demand that they would accept no there situation than a fight to the end for death penalty?
How can we know?
side note, kind of:
Though you know I didnt buy the mitigation to the extent that others do, it is still a travesty that in the end, no matter how important it is/was to know that Arias suffered from emotional problems, I still don’t see how she is going to get any help for those problems she has- no matter what sentence JSS metes out. If a criminal is ” excused ” for a crime because of mental issues, what help do they get, really? But thats a whole other issue.
FINALLY- to Blink
any interest in Durst?
http://blinkoncrime.com/2015/03/18/robert-durst-is-jinxed-hbo-documentary-leads-to-arrest-for-murder-of-friend-susan-berman-possible-ties-to-other-cases/
B
well written
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/03/21/jodi-arias-trial-juror-treatment-raises-questions/25109059/
Agreed and as you know I agree with the characterization that Martinez abused his power regarding #17 in the first place. God help him if he is the one who released her name.
B
The likely inference from the article was an Alexander family member. However,
Martinez otherwise directly provided the information to family members,
well aware of what the outcome would be. He
used the family, which to me is worse than doing it himself. But who would
prosecute family, so he is a safe snake, imo.
Agreed- not gonna lie- I want his hand slapped already. He is a nuisance and in my view guilty of misconduct for a variety of reasons throughout the guilt and penalty phases.
And- he is a bully.
B
“Agreed- not gonna lie- I want his hand slapped already. He is a nuisance and in my view guilty of misconduct for a variety of reasons throughout the guilt and penalty phases.
And- he is a bully.
B”
—————————————————————————–
Amen!
Hello my dear friendies.
I don’t have much to add. Amazing posts and angles, y’all are expressing. Coming from the heart, hubris, ego…greed…it’s breeding like wildfire. We know it’s not just in the court room. Justice exists. Corruption trumps justice and we get to witness the gong show. It’s the way of the world, now. It’s not getting better, either. Personally, I’ve resigned to trust the final judgement. Martinez is the not the first prosecutor to exhibit unethical practice. He won’t be the last. It seems like a revolving door of evil. Its whirlwind continues to gather chutzpah. How do we adapt to the rampant takeover inside and outside the courtroom? It’s no longer about the truth. It’s come to who lies the best.
Can anyone verify if this text/email was ever entered into evidence? I’ve read it. Jodi’s ability to dance around the truth and divert questions with a straight answer, makes her a master of trickery. A true deviant and enemy of the truth. I see an entity who’s determined to manipulate emotionally, to gain sympathy. Travis called her on it and wouldn’t buy into it anymore. He really was done and she failed to reel him in again with her own hubris. That’s what sent her over, other than other bits and pieces of the obvious vs. the inexplicable.
http://tinyurl.com/kg8kylx
I’m reading a book which opened my eyes and heart. There is only one source of Truth. The source is the only One we can put our trust in.
-snipped
“Jesus’ words are absolute truth, they are the standard
by which all other purported truths must be measured”.
http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/pdf/GreatestWordsEverSpoken-Steven-K-Scott.pdf
Everyone in the world needs to read this book. Believer. Non believer.
Shalom y’all. Posted with love and respect…..jmho.
PS….it’s been rumored that the convicted killer, herself, had written the names of the jurors on her wrist, and exposed the list during one ofs her mass video conferencings. She revealed the list when guards weren’t looking. There’s more, but it’s not proven, so I won’t post on it, further.
https://twitter.com/troyhaydenfox10 (other sources and blogs are writing about it. It’s not encrypted, sarcastically speaking).
LWOP
If the State of AZ pays for the appeal, why is a supporter raising $ online for an appeal?
I don’t believe it is automatic unless she had received the dp in AZ
B
Blink Does an appeal mean asking for a new trial or a lesser sentence? Or what
Is the goal
Seems like just being quiet for awhile would be good Not that I approved for that first trial
For an appeal to be filed a prosecution must be fully adjudicated- now it is. She will file an appeal on the guilt phase within 20 days.
I should note that I am hearing that there are more than a few defense attorneys looking to seek review of Martinez’s conduct during this trial and others ( a la Centre County for anyone following) but in his case, I believe strongly if presented well- has legs. If that is the case, Arias is entitled to relief and the 9th circuit is pretty tough on evidentiary problems.
B
@Blink. Is it alleged by crim defense attys that Martinez routinely has ex parte contacts with judges?
I don’t know the specifics outside of the conduct and practice in Arias case. LOL Stephens does not strike me as much of a texter.
B