Maricopa County Attorney Talks Next Steps in the Jodi Arias Case

The head prosecutor Bill Montgomery of Phoenix said today that he believes that an impartial jury can be found to determine the punishment for Jodi Arias. That is, if his office is unable to reach a deal in this case.

Jodiwhiteshirtclip

At a news conference today, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery discussed the next steps in the Jodi Arias case. The lack of a verdict in the sentencing phase of the case means that Montgomery’s office would have to have a new trial to determine what her punishment should be. There may be no new trial if the lawyers and the victim’s family can come to an agreement in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

I don’t know that Jodi is going to agree to life without the possibility of parole. Nor is it clear that Travis Alexander’s family would give up the death penalty. They have stated unequivocally that they want her to die.

With regard to finding an impartial jury, I don’t think it will be a problem. There are many people who’ve never heard of Jodi Arias or if they have, they barely know any details of the case. How many of you have heard, in regard to the case: ”Isn’t that the woman who killed her boyfriend or something?”

Of course there will be people who might lie to get on the jury but they can likely be screened out. If there were individuals attempting to lie to get on the jury, it would likely be those who are for rather than against the death penalty.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Stay tuned.

15 thoughts on “Maricopa County Attorney Talks Next Steps in the Jodi Arias Case

  1. I wonder if the family would consider LWOP to put this case to rest. I believe they could find an impartial jury too. There are many people I know who know nothing about the case.

    • Jodi seemed surprised when the jury had not reached a verdict in her favor. She hints at that in one of her post trial interviews. I doubt that she will accept a LWOP with no appeals. I firmly believe she thinks she still has a chance of gaining her freedom in the future.

  2. I really don’t think Jodi will agree to life without parole, not to mention agree to No Appeals. She’s going to want to cost the county another million and have herself more extended fun torturing the Alexanders and getting herself more publicity. I think she is that convoluted. She wants to try out her next court script, the one she’s had plenty of time in solitary to write. We will see yet another shape-shifting Jodi. Take a look at her most recent tweet. She’s going to be peeling lots of onions and putting on the Poor Me tears next time. And if Juan can’t use the context of those few rough Travis emails and texts out of 80,000, there just might be another juror who believes that Poor Innocent Jodi was a victim of abuse for no reason at all other than Travis was just a nasty man who shoved her around. If the judge found the entries into the doggie door, slashing tires, hiding behind the Christmas tree, peeking in windows watching Travis be intimate with another woman (shiver!), ringing doorbells and hiding, and hacking email and cell phone message were prejudicial, then Juan will just have to show the jury that obviously Jodi did *Something Really Terrible* to rouse his ire. Terrible enough for him to call her a Sociopath, which, as it turns out, was actually kind of him when you compare it to the raw evil she really is.

    • “And if Juan can’t use the context of those few rough Travis emails and texts out of 80,000, there just might be another juror who believes that Poor Innocent Jodi was a victim of abuse”

      What makes you think he CAN”T (couldn’t)? Were they ruled inadmissible? I thought that was HIS decision? I have been scratching my head as to the logic behind not establishing that context better.

      • I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but apparently some of the things she was suspected of doing, including stalking and slashing tires, were inadmissible as “prejudicial” and hearsay, or some such thing.

        The thing is, she did enough horrible things to tick him off enough to write some very angry emails. And one of those things REALLY set him off. Nobody knows what that **thing*** was except Travis and Jodi — and she made sure he wasn’t going to talk. Asking her what it was isn’t even worth a thought since every time she opens her mouth, she lies. Whatever it was, he felt that it hurt him even worse than the death of his father, and he concluded that she was the “worst thing” that ever happened to him. I’d say ole sleazy Jodi was up to something terrible, probably as a method of blackmail. Love me or I’ll tell everybody you’re a pedo, or maybe I will send out that sex tape I recorded to your friends, relatives and employer. Surely no one here can deny that Jodi is just that sleazy.

        Ironically, her bullroar story of Travis getting it on with pictures of little boys, copies or originals of which nobody can find on or off his computer, was admissible — since she could testify to it and he, of course, can’t deny it. In other words, she can make up any damned thing she wants about Travis.

        • Uppity, I love reading your comments. That is my understanding as well, they were ruled too “prejudicial” to Travis’ murderer, Juan Martinez was unable to question her or mention what sparked them. I think she was attempting blackmail as well. Since there were thousands of emails and text messages, it’s shameful only those are read. I’m sure the jury questions what sparked
          them too.

          The way to tell if Travis’ murderer is lying is her mouth is open. I think she has Caylee’s “mother” beat when it comes to Queen of Liars. That says a lot to me.

          It doesn’t make sense to me that Travis can be trashed and he’s the victim. Yet his murderer gets a pass on the terrible things she did to provoke him. It seems to me Travis was on trial as much as his murderer. Fortunately anyone who is reasonable can see through her desperate lies and know there is no evidence Travis was a pedophile or an abuser. I wish the jury could see all we’ve seen. I hope someday we will find out what awful thing she did to provoke Travis. Perhaps it will persuade her “followers” that she’s not the survivor they think she is.

          • Thank you Robin.

            I’m sure if she ‘wins’ by getting Life in the general population, she will go into sadistic mode often and reveal what really p*ssed Travis off – just for spite and the opportunity to chuckle with psychotic glee at her ability to torture the Alexanders for the rest of their lives. It’s so Her to do that kind of thing. She’s the little girl in that old movie, The Bad Seed, all grown up.

        • I realize that the tire slashing allegations were ruled inadmissible. What I was commenting on was the thousands of perfectly normal, nice emails. I don’t believe that those were ruled inadmissible and I can’t understand why Juan didn’t draw more attention to those for context and to reiterate the timeline– to show how rare it was for Travis to write the things he wrote towards the end.

    • The woman has an evil streak alright. And in that instant I’m certain she took a sadistic enjoyment in how she butchered Travis, the locus of the affront to her narcissistic ego. But projecting any and every evil characteristic you can think of upon her? That’s just too tidy and clean, and people are always much more complicated and messy than easy categorizations like that.

      First and foremost, the woman is an extreme narcissist: everything is about her and serving her ego. That’s a very inward-facing thing. The sadistic tendencies you suggest here don’t make sense, because they are mostly outward-facing. Apathy is her most likely reaction to the Alexander family, not an intent to torture them — as that would require acknowledging that they have feelings and exist relative to herself. Elsewhere you’ve also projected sadism on to Travis’ grandmother (the flowers), when the obvious explanation that would suffice is a selfish, narcissistic, defensive gesture (“Why would a guilty person send flowers?”) instead of an offensive one.

      There’s a line here that’s a bit morally convenient and intellectually lazy to paint people in such broad strokes. We’d prefer to make sense of the chaos by categorizing people neatly into “good” and “evil” buckets, as if organizing a sock drawer. It’s a nice crutch to label people and take comfort in that false world view, but it’s still false.

      Good people do bad things, and bad people often do good things. Huge fans of President Clinton, his leadership, and his economic policies are offset by a rather self-destructive habit of screwing around with skanks and interns. Travis was such an inspiration and model for others and a leader within his Mormon faith, and yet even he is humanly fallible and capable of womanizing, rape fantasies, and dirty secrets he tried to keep hidden. Heck, even Hitler dabbled in vegetarianism.

      We can cry foul about Zervakos’ bias in not immediately acknowledging that a murder isn’t what they “look like”. But it’s equally blind bias to apply the morally convenient crutch of HLN TV touting Travis as a saint — or the many offended people, like yourself, who want to shoehorn JA as a surrogate for Satan. Either extreme celebrates a rejection of rational thought.

      • While I admire the generally cool-headed spirit of what you write, I have to take issue with the whole “Travis wasn’t a saint” angle. That to me is code for a whole religious-centric morally judgemental attitude regarding what for a large number of people is normal adult sexual behavior. The examples you give of “non-sainthood” are nothing that should take “sainthood” away from a single man, dating in the prime of his life. It was clear to all his friends that he was truly smitten with Jodi for the first few months they dated (and, yes, had sex). But at some point, no matter how he had hoped he’d feel this person was “the one”, he had undeniable misgivings. What’s your view, that he was obligated regardless to marry her? It takes time to get to know someone, and that’s what he was doing– getting to know her. She complained to everyone that he wasn’t committing to her, then they broke up. After that they continued to have sex for months afterwards, no strings attached. He didn’t promise her exclusivity and she knew at that point that they weren’t exclusive. He was a single man. It isn’t cheating to date several people when there is no commitment with anyone. In my opinion he would have had to have a lot more than what seems like somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 – 6 sexual partners total in his 30 years of life to qualify as a womanizer. What he actually was, apparently: a flirt. So what?
        As for “rape fantasies” and “12-year-old girl” fantasies, that’s just more of the immature fear of sexuality stuff as stoked by the defense to outrage the prudes. If you go into any adult store, you know, the kind that sell oils and sex toys, you will find schoolgirl costumes. Most stripper clubs will have catholic-schoolgirl-uniformed dancers. Are all the men who are turned on by that secretly pedophiles? It’s called PLAY and FANTASY. Real pedophiles aren’t attracted to adult women in the first place. As a woman I could easily imagine a situation where I’d like my boyfriend to play-act that he’s the high-school football player I went out with when I was a teen. I might find that a turn on, partially because it reminds me of being that age too. But I’m not turned on by actual kids in high school! Same goes with rape FANTASIES. There are estimates that 20-50% of women have rape fantasies. That doesn’t mean IN THE LEAST that those women want to be raped in real life. Fantasies are a safe way for people to play with their imaginations, become villains or children or whatever type of character without hurting anyone. No one should be judged “insufficiently saintly” for fantasies and thoughts. And especially when “insufficiently saintly” is used to mitigate the full seriousness of that person’s being savagely murdered. While I admire the generally cool-headed spirit of what you write, I have to take issue with the whole “Travis wasn’t a saint” angle. That to me is code for a whole religious-centric morally judgemental attitude regarding what for a large number of people is normal adult sexual behavior. The examples you give of “non-sainthood” are nothing that should take “sainthood” away from a single man, dating in the prime of his life. It was clear to all his friends that he was truly smitten with Jodi for the first few months they dated (and, yes, had sex). But at some point, no matter how he had hoped he’d feel this person was “the one”, he had undeniable misgivings. What’s your view, that he was obligated regardless to marry her? It takes time to get to know someone, and that’s what he was doing– getting to know her. She complained to everyone that he wasn’t committing to her, then they broke up. After that they continued to have sex for months afterwards, no strings attached. He didn’t promise her exclusivity and she knew at that point that they weren’t exclusive. He was a single man. It isn’t cheating to date several people when there is no commitment with anyone. In my opinion he would have had to have a lot more than what seems like somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 – 6 sexual partners total in his 30 years of life to qualify as a womanizer. What he actually was, apparently: a flirt. So what?
        As for “rape fantasies” and “12-year-old girl” fantasies, that’s just more of the immature fear of sexuality stuff as stoked by the defense to outrage the prudes. If you go into any adult store, you know, the kind that sell oils and sex toys, you will find schoolgirl costumes. Most stripper clubs will have catholic-schoolgirl-uniformed dancers. Are all the men who are turned on by that secretly pedophiles? It’s called PLAY and FANTASY. Real pedophiles aren’t attracted to adult women in the first place. As a woman I could easily imagine a situation where I’d like my boyfriend to play-act that he’s the high-school football player I went out with when I was a teen. I might find that a turn on, partially because it reminds me of being that age too. But I’m not turned on by actual kids in high school! Same goes with rape FANTASIES. There are estimates that 20-50% of women have rape fantasies. That doesn’t mean IN THE LEAST that those women want to be raped in real life. Fantasies are a safe way for people to play with their imaginations, become villains or children or whatever type of character without hurting anyone. No one should be judged “insufficiently saintly” for fantasies and thoughts. Especially when “insufficiently saintly” is being used to mitigate the full seriousness of that person’s being savagely slaughtered. As if the public would only be right in fully caring about the murder of a puritan celibate, with no fantasies (because, you know, celibates don’t have those.)

      • @Greg—I agree with much of what you’ve said about Jodi (not everything about Travis but @Asterz did a great job addressing concerns I also had about his portrayal.) But as you say, people ARE quite complicated. I agree Jodi has narcissistic traits but you also say “Apathy is her most likely reaction to the Alexander family, not an intent to torture them — as that would require acknowledging that they have feelings and exist relative to herself.” I disagree with that statement and think that by classifying Jodi’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as simply either inward-facing OR outward-facing we will miss the mark. Although the Alexanders may be somewhat “object-like” to Jodi because she understands only her own reality and her own existence, I think she IS interested in torturing them. Travis obviously loved them and would have always loved all of them (including the now-deceased grandmother Jodi sent flowers to.) He didn’t love Jodi and she knew it which contributed to a narcissistic rage which is still there. The fact that the Alexanders had something from Travis Jodi desperately wanted and didn’t have makes their continued existence in the world and their emotional functioning “about her” and about “her” feelings. That kind of thinking also makes her “evil” in the way we often conceptualize evil in the modern world.

  3. I think there is an element that has been overlooked.

    If the prosecution does not move on to a second penalty phase, then isn’t it up to the judge to do the sentencing?

    In other words, the write up makes it sound like there are two options: a plea deal or a repeat of the penalty phase.

    But my understanding is that there is a third option, which is to simply not repeat the penalty phase.

    The prosecutors are trying to act tough and use the possibility of the DP as a bargaining chip, but all they have is the POSSIBILITY of the DP. Even with a new jury they only have a 50% chance of winning

  4. The decision should be made by the family and the prosecutors whether to move forward or not.
    The law provides for a second jury at this time. Jodi’s ego will not allow a deal. She wants the attention
    because she has nothing to lose, and she still wants us to believe that she was a abused woman and that we all got it wrong.

  5. Dr. Randle, I absolutely love your insight. This case all at once fascinates, saddens and sickens me… To me it seems like Jodi constructs her own personal world to reside in – and each day that world is modified in some form or fashion, either added on to or moved around, to fit her needs at the time. When I saw her interrogation video and Det. Flores was telling her that things didn’t add up, and that she hadn’t acted right from day 1 – like someone that loved Travis – that she was acting like someone that was guilty – and then she looks at him and asks him, “is it because I’m not crying?” and then it seems as if she sincerely tries to figure out from him how she SHOULD be acting… She literally says, “I’m not going to change the way I’m acting.” And not 10 minutes later – queue the tears… It chilled me to the bone… She thinks that Det. Flores wants to see tears from her so gives them to him.

    Something that I just can’t get out of my head – I wonder how much of what Jodi has written or stated that she said to Travis during their relationship, or actions that she says Travis committed against her – are truly things that Travis said to her or actions she has committed against him. Like she’s taking his words and pretending that she was the one to say them to him. Or maybe there was violence – but the violence she’s testified to was perpetrated BY her against Travis. Like she’s taking the entire history of the relationship and sort of reversing the roles. She takes on the role of Travis in her telling of the story and he becomes her… She gets to be the good guy and he becomes the sociopath. And she becomes “justified” for killing him because he was the crazy “manipulating” abusive person in the relationship.

    It’s sad that we will never know his version of the relationship, his side of the story… :0 (

Leave a Reply