One can be anti-secrecy and I agree with that, but I have heard too many uncalled for remarks about JSS coming from Court Chatter (and other sources).
I also think that because there is a "court of public opinion", especially now that social media is so involved, it could possibly influence cases as they are going on.
The public does not have the right to every little detail going on within a court until information is released.
Release of information is at the discretion of the court and the laws in place.
That is why we have a court system, to have professionals conduct and participate in the cases. Most know their jobs very well and that is why some have been elected and/or appointed to their positions in the first place.
If one does not trust the very people that they voted into office, then why vote for them at all!
It is not necessarily that the court is hiding something, but rather in the name of fair justice for ALL parties involved, some things are better left until a case is over to be released to the public.
It is not the public who try these cases, although they think they know it all in most cases.
If there is any misconduct on the part of the court and officers of the court, it most always comes out and something is done about it.
I totally understand the outcries when JSS closed the courtroom for Arias "secret" testimony.
I did not agree with that at all.
But at the same time.....
I still believe that she felt it was going to be overturned by the Supreme Court and she was willing to take the flack for her decision because it made for no appeal issue in the future.
I believe she knew exactly what she was doing but unfortunately for her, she has become the brunt of many hateful remarks that could affect her future on the bench come the next election.
She knew that this could happen.
Did the trial(s) of Arias go on for too long? That is an obvious yes.
Was there a bias on the part of JSS to favour the defense? I do not think so.
JSS wanted this case wrapped up nice and tight to avoid any overturning of the verdict through the appeal process.
She is fully aware of the manipulation by the defendant (through her defense team) and stated such when Arias wanted to make her allocution in secrecy.
And one should notice that JSS denied this request because she had the backing of the courts above hers.
Video trial coverage, release of motions and release of minute entries are all being made public now that the trial is finished. Nothing is being hidden from public record.
It is just that the information did not come forward in the timeline that the public wanted.
Any repercussions for misconduct - if there are any at all - will be addressed by those who should address it.
Well said Nern' the unsupported porn issue, secret affidavits and Jodi secret testimony done without Martinez getting to cross examine are out, so we already waited, but tell me' why were the Alexander's impact statements first, maybe so that the impact on the 'jurors of fact' would have less recall? You do not need to answer' because their is no answer, a impact statement is victim rights denied by this court' the slanderous adulterated felonious lies against the Alexander family in side of that courtroom are and were' utterly unexclusable, it is a Travisty and I'm ashamed / embarased' never before and hopefully never again and and and if it takes JSS down' then justice prevailed for the present that is, then justice reform can commence, I believe JSS to be defenceless, not to mention both trials the jury failed to enter a verdict form, 3 check here boxes = DP = Life = Undecided, jury was tasked to make a decision not the Judge' now it is a factor used by our court system that a judge can call the jury voting undecided' but twice in one trial, that issue has been my complaint for nearly a year and it just repeated!
I personally do not know how the judge can be blamed for two non-verdicts.
Both juries heard the evidence as did everyone.
No amount of further evidence would have changed things. The facts were before them in great detail.
It certainly was enough to get the conviction!!!
One cannot predict what a jury will do.
They have been instructed to review all evidence in an independent manner and then come together with the sentence they feel is appropriate.
In the first trial, Arias won over the foreman.
In the second trial, one juror felt that there were mitigating factors that could not be ignored.
Although obvious to us, the public, and to the majority of jurors on both juries, it is apparent that not all could, in good conscience, vote like the majority.
Therefore a mistrial in both cases.
It is important to note that in the second trial - NOT ONE JUROR bought Arias side of things. They saw through her lies and saw her total lack of remorse. So....all the crap put forward by the defense (Arias) was discounted. What was not discounted was the "mental health issue" and that is what I have stated all along would be the deciding factor. It was, for one juror.
I believe that there was form of coercion on the part of 11 and it was a factor in the second trial with the jury but one lone jury stood her ground. That is just my uninformed opinion.
Had this been in another state, it is majority rules. But this is Arizona and it must be unanimous.
#17 must explain the internet searching or the 11 remaining votes were compromised, until that news release (Florez said 14 days) her conscience is presumption or assumption.
I do understand and fully support a lone juror hanging a jury' it is the American and worldly way.
I must say' Post trauma due to Slaughtering is nonsence, but that's Not the way I've chosen to debate' it is just my gut feeling and it would be amiss not to self explain.
We will discover #17's internet use soon' and at that time their will be a theory of if her husband was pressuring, of no internet Jodi information was habitually searched' then we can conclude a consciousness' her juror panel (at present) claim premeditation, and they outnumber.
Still the evidence decides not common opinion.
JSS failed to force jurys to fill out their solitary verdict form, jurors are supplied a abundance of question forms, and One verdict form, their tasked to resolve with foreman signing-off.
JSS can easily say' let a probation board decide if Jodi is a endangerment in 18 years, no matter what popular opinion feels it would do to her career, or 25 years.
This trial only required a month to present evidence because Jodi had No mitigating factors, the defense strategy was throw-out useless arguments to confuse deliberations' it was unjust, to say jury had enough evidence excuses the judges incompatibilities.
I have been trying to add another attachment' I believe it will help my explaining' but last night and today I've had no luck, but I do know now that if I see it you can open it.
Given that it was brought up by the defense that others on the jury were accessing the internet, I think they should all be investigated regarding this issue rather than singling out just one - the only one who didn't vote for the DP.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty
STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY (32)
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming
ALSO
- U.S. Gov't
- U.S. Military
http://www.flaccb.org/CDAC/2014/talkingpoints/UJ.pdf
Florida is one of 32 states which continue to maintain the death penalty. All of these, except
three, require a unanimous recommendation of the jury in recommending a death sentence.
The three states are Alabama (requiring a 10-2 supermajority vote), Delaware and Florida (both
requiring a simple majority vote of 7-5).
I stand corrected' on what States require of a jury panel to vote for a DP and don't know how I was convinced Utah required 11 of 12.
Yes all jurors need their internet use examined, and exact use will be the investigation, their may have been' carpooling jurors who didn't abuse the do not follow Jodi case on news or media, its proof of ignoring the judges rules that's at issue.
And if the 11 were following the rules' Willmott needs disbarred' for lying in chambers' she can lie when examining a witness not in chambers, and that's why court recorded every word, so any of the 11 were cheating or Willmott was lying.
Lunarscope,
I was not trying to correct you but the dialogue we were having just made me curious.
Good point about Willmot. I am very interested what the results are going to be.
No Nerm' do correct me, I learn from it, and from your posts.
"Jodi's sealed hearing October 30 2014" is the link I am trying to attach' it could be that it is to long, I'm still trying, it is a important in chambers discussion to seal the Jodi testimony, I believe (without law experience' mind-you) that both Nurmi and especially Willmott will no less than be sanctioned' and more likely lose their licences due to their lying to the court, it is the most critical!
Also there' Nurmi telling the court (Jodi included) that her parents were to attend the sealed hearings, was utter deception' no matter what spin results, Jodi never wanted her Mother to hear her false claims, and her supporters would have diminished. Now Jodi wanted new attorneys filed on Monday but released last night = likely after the fact' of JSS Jodi conference, the stealth remains!
(03-27-2015, 09:45 PM)Lunarscope Wrote: [ -> ]No Nerm' do correct me, I learn from it, and from your posts.
"Jodi's sealed hearing October 30 2014" is the link I am trying to attach' it could be that it is to long, I'm still trying, it is a important in chambers discussion to seal the Jodi testimony, I believe (without law experience' mind-you) that both Nurmi and especially Willmott will no less than be sanctioned' and more likely lose their licences due to their lying to the court, it is the most critical!
Also there' Nurmi telling the court (Jodi included) that her parents were to attend the sealed hearings, was utter deception' no matter what spin results, Jodi never wanted her Mother to hear her false claims, and her supporters would have diminished. Now Jodi wanted new attorneys filed on Monday but released last night = likely after the fact' of JSS Jodi conference, the stealth remains!
Jodi sure changed her mind about her parents since she wrote that 'Manifesto' junk! Go to page 33 of that, and see what she wrote about (and to) Travis' family. That is followed by 'My Family' and she praises and praises them, each one of them! Back then, they were the next thing to 'angelic' people. Then later, she did not even want them in the court room while she spewed her lies about them. I cannot understand how they can 'defend' her.