+- Crime & Trial Discussion Forums (http://kristinarandle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Crimes and Trials (http://kristinarandle.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Jodi Arias Trial (http://kristinarandle.com/forum/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: End is Near Hopefully (/thread-1.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
RE: End is Near Hopefully - ElaineJ - 03-11-2015
(03-10-2015, 10:31 PM)NERN Wrote: No where does it say that Juror #17 was not participating in deliberations but rather she was "ineffective" during deliberations. They also stated that it did improve after the impasse situation.
This is a clear example of how things get twisted when presented through the media.
JSS researched the law very well and given the responses from jurors interviewed, including #17, she found no grounds for the dismissal of this juror OR a mistrial as asked for by Nurmi
_____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you Nern for noting this information. While I haven't read the minutes, I did accept that JSS had to have considered what was said, including the Juror #17 message to the court along with the other Jurors concerns. Not an easy task to weigh, JSS refers to the law for the answer. I'm satisfied and agree, the one "hold out" doesn't deserve the treatment she has received, even though I have some doubts about her intent.
(03-10-2015, 11:15 PM)Observer Wrote: All of the jurors had to state they could vote for the death penalty. So if she was against the death penalty, she lied to get on the jury. That is jury misconduct.
___________________________________________________________________________
Observer, I understand what you're saying, though Juror #17 was quoted by another jurist during interviews that she did agree with the death penalty but could not articulate her belief on what, exactly would constitute a death penalty if it was not this case. Juror #17, it's said, felt Arias did have mental issues. This seems to be her reasoning, that particular mitigation factor is what she based her decision on, and perhaps a little more.
In other words, to me, that means what ever the clear diagnosis is of Arias, she planned and committed this horrific crime. Every action by Arias prior to that, is reason enough to know there is something incredibly dangerous about her even when I think of her current behavior - no one disagrees about her ability to manipulate her environment, except for her supporters. Arias isn't insane, she does things and did things because she could and it didn't matter to her...to me there's something mentally wrong with that kind of thought process. A mental illness where that person should never be in public ever again. I really think she enjoyed what she did and I find that terrifying.
I don't own a television and haven't for years so I haven't seen the current shows caught up in this case but, I do know they would wear me out if I did!!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - ElaineJ - 03-11-2015
(03-10-2015, 11:42 PM)duluth45 Wrote: If Arizona doesn't have the money to put brakes on the phones, freedoms, etc. that prisoners can have
___________________________________________________________________________
Duluth, while I can't vouch with certainty for Arizona's inmate contacts by phone or visits, many years ago in our local paper, a story about the county jail acquiring an independent contractor to handle all outgoing calls by inmates was done and for a nominal fee, family and friends could place money on the inmates phone account. Minutes remaining rolled over. A Telmate machine was placed in the lobby at the jail where money could be inserted to add extra time. Or, could be done from a home phone. Phone calls were still monitored.
Where it was so benign before, an inmate would fill out a form stating who could visit and calls from the inmate were from the internal system. If anything, it was time consuming for staff. I think the entire system was designed as a money maker for both the county/jail as well as the service. At some point I believe there were complaints about the fees and some changes were made. But I think possibly this is a format that Arizona uses, it brings in more money, just as the meals that are now served at Perryville - which look like a vile clump, their costs per day for preparation are virtually nil.
This teleconferencing that Arias has access to for visitors probably doesn't work on the same format as far as charges, but allows for visitation where the inmate can be observed. According to Arpaio they're doing that but somewhere at the beginning of the process, that was failing since two teens were able to access Arias. All it takes is one staff member to set the ball rolling in the wrong direction. And I'm pretty sure, there are a lot who try every trick in the book to visit inmates. They look for weak links in the system to exploit. Something Arias is keen to...she'll surely learn more as she processes through the system.
Here is an interesting situation done by inmates in jail - talk about exploiting the system! A relative obtained an RO from a male subject while he was incarcerated. It was delivered to him. In the interim, she moved to another town, changed her phone number (he called her from jail) and tried to go on with her life. He anticipated that she would move. On an envelope, he placed a 'Christmas' sticker, not a stamp. It went through the mail process at the jail and the postal service! They delivered it to her! She sent it back and a 'return address' label of her new residence was placed on the envelope. They sent the envelope back to the inmate for "insufficient funds." He now knew where she moved to and began writing her. The timing was remarkable! But you can see how easy this was for an inmate to exploit the system where two agencies failed twice in their positions! Jails are not immune to the antics of inmates!!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - ElaineJ - 03-11-2015
Duluth - Here is a run down, as seen on 'The Examiner' posted by a contributor who followed Troy Hayden's news about contacts for Arias - it explains a lot and to me, it's ripe for exploitations. The choice to exploit, of course, is up to the inmate. And while it is a money maker for the jail, I think it's two fold in design - the other half being inmates could rack up infractions which could net them more time due to disciplinary actions for those infractions.
1. The phone calls are NOT recorded. (So in the case of leaking the juror's names, she didn't have to worry about being caught.) (Arpaio indicated they were recorded, hence catching Arias telling the teens about fake I.D.)
2. No ID is required to talk to a prisoner. No attempt to find out if someone is using their own name is done. (WOW)
3. People just sign up on the website with their address and credit card. Then the prisoner decides if they want to talk to you or not. this insures stolen/mommy and daddy's credit cards can be used. (Seems as though that's a revolving door for crime)
4. A 20-minute call costs only $5.00
5. Jodi was allowed to book 27 calls the Saturday after the mistrial was called. There is no limit set by the jail. (I don't imagine there would be a limit, however, that leaves the door wide open for anyone)
6. Despite the sheriff's news release, they can't stop Jodi's video calls until it goes through a process, which will take 2-3 days, and then there is no guarantee it will happen, is there? That may become an ACLU issue. Arias' fan club must have access
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-11-2015
Jodi's phone visitation is a new system at that jail, on Saturday Jodi received 27 calls and its told (unconformable tweet) that calls took 9 hours, (calls are expensive per minutes and have a 20 minute limit) that's not a form of solitary by any measurement, Joe claim of underage girls (looks bad to fellow inmates in population) calling' may be his (habitually) way of having the appearance of child endangerment, all I'm saying is his tweets are as reliable as reporters wanting attention, he has been repeatedly sued for lying in court costing Arizona tens of millions!
Joe tweeted Jodi would not be allowed further phone calls' then reversed, to say just 10 people were stopped from being able to call her, (Jodi just gets headphones' she doesn't have a phone to hold / use) what resulted is a blogger took Joes list of 10 Jodi supporters and started a list Jodi supporters addresses, the list of 30 became a list of 50 in a few hours, its constantly being updated (just go to 'Jodi Arias Twitter' and click the link with hashtag) and being reposted where its not the updaters Out Jodi supporters list, just names, @-addresses, and US or not' plus a just attention seaker (no threat) list, Jodi's base of supporters is being uprooted' including money trail, Note Jodi's Aunt lives doors away from her parents and is her mothers twin sister, plus she has ties to JII donations' trust fund and scornfully posts nonsense!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Observer - 03-11-2015
In an article on Arizona Central, it was revealed that Martinez filed a motion to get Juror No. 17 removed and the judge denied it.
Excerpts from the article:
That same day, prosecutor Juan Martinez filed a secret motion to have the juror removed, and he based his argument on screen shots of the juror's Facebook page, in which it appeared that she had "liked" news outlets. That suggested she might have visited certain sites during trial -- jurors are admonished from reading or viewing anything about the case outside the courtroom -- but Stephens didn't think the argument was strong enough and denied the motion.
Juror 17 claimed that during the trial she had only visited her Facebook page to wish a relative a happy birthday.
The next day, March 4, defense attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott filed a motion for mistrial, alleging that Stephens' questioning of jurors could be viewed as coercion. Case law frowns on a judge knowing the split in juror votes, which way they are leaning or trying to influence their individual verdicts.
Stephens herself wrote in the minute entry, "The Arizona Supreme Court has cautioned that in a capital case impermissible coercion of the jury's verdict might be found if a trial court is not careful respecting the jury's deliberations in the penalty phase."
To read the entire article go to:
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/798243336918477
Martinez tried his hardest to get that death sentence. This proves how important jury selection is because once a juror gets on the jury, it is tricky getting them off because of a possibility of a sentence reversal in appellate court. That's why it is important that the prosecution not trust a juror's word but check it out for themselves. If Martinez had checked the records of the two convicted felon husbands of Juror No. 17 and found he prosecuted her first husband, she would have been automatically excused because if the juror or their families have had any dealings with any of the attorneys, they are automatically disqualified from serving on the jury. Juror No. 17 answered no when she was asked if she knew Martinez, Wilmot, Nurmi or Arias. If she had answered yes, she would have been excused.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - duluth45 - 03-11-2015
Observer, you said that you and Salhapatica think Juror 17 is timid and is influenced by her husband to hold out against the death penalty. I can hardly think Juror 17 is timid because she held out strongly against 11 people. That shows me something besides timidity. It shows a stubborn strong personality. And why would the husband of Juror 17 want Arias to get life, not death? That makes it sound like he thought what she did was a good thing. As a man, he maybe was thinking that could have been him! I think Juror 17 is proud of what Arias did and simply applauded her actions by not voting death. We'll never know of course. But timid is not how I would describe this gal. Possibly Juror 17 has tendencies like Arias herself - complaining of abuse that maybe never happened, like Arias complained of Bobby Juarez, Matt McCartney, and Travis. I suspect Juror 17 secretly is a fan of Arias, not a timid woman who votes how her abusive husband directs her to vote.
I think Juan dropped the ball by not checking out her background further. If he had known that he prosecuted her first husband, he surely would not have allowed her to get on the jury.
That Arias is able to communicate like she does is so wrong. There is something very wrong with the system. I don't seem to understand where someone wrote that Arpaio is recording her communications. Is he or isn't he, I wonder? I think all of her communications should be recorded and all mail should be thoroughly vetted.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - ElaineJ - 03-11-2015
(03-11-2015, 01:40 PM)Observer Wrote: Excerpts from the article:
That same day, prosecutor Juan Martinez filed a secret motion to have the juror removed, and he based his argument on screen shots of the juror's Facebook page, in which it appeared that she had "liked" news outlets. That suggested she might have visited certain sites during trial -- jurors are admonished from reading or viewing anything about the case outside the courtroom -- but Stephens didn't think the argument was strong enough and denied the motion.
Juror 17 claimed that during the trial she had only visited her Facebook page to wish a relative a happy birthday.
The next day, March 4, defense attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott filed a motion for mistrial, alleging that Stephens' questioning of jurors could be viewed as coercion. Case law frowns on a judge knowing the split in juror votes, which way they are leaning or trying to influence their individual verdicts.
Stephens herself wrote in the minute entry, "The Arizona Supreme Court has cautioned that in a capital case impermissible coercion of the jury's verdict might be found if a trial court is not careful respecting the jury's deliberations in the penalty phase
___________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for the posting of the article link Observer. This is interesting. I think if Juan Martinez were to pursue that further, it would have involved a subpoena (FB) to find out the date and time Juror 17 indicated she "liked" a particular news outlet. The difference between 'following' or just 'liking' is also the question. Dates and times don't appear on "Liked" pages, but they do on "Follow" pages once those appear on a timeline with new articles or photos. I like several pages, but don't follow each one and an option to opt out on something appearing on ones page is available. Same with "liking" a book, there's no date or time indicated and there aren't any updates I subscribe to.
With the response by Juror 17, that she'd only visited to wish a relative Happy Birthday, JSS considered, I think, her response as having passed the litmus test - even if she considered only that it may be a thin line, JSS would have had to question Juror 17's integrity to make the determination to dismiss her on juror misconduct. And that may have been unfounded.
I'm not sure I would consider JSS' judgement as having ruled on the wrong side of the law, especially when the other half of the equation for all parties involved is whether this was an appeal issue and/or an automatic mistrial because of the other jurists belief about Juror 17's conduct. As you noted:
Case law frowns on a judge knowing the split in juror votes, which way they are leaning or trying to influence their individual verdicts. I believe it was correct in that she sent the message back that they were to continue deliberating.
That may have been a legitimate circumvention to the issue of coercion of jurists in deliberation. They had to continue and when the deadlock could not be reconsidered in unison, the final notice had to be given by them and likely cannot be viewed as "influence" by JSS for either verdict or as in this case, a hung jury.
And while "Case law frowns on a judge knowing the split," I think the determination of whether there was judicial misconduct would be on a case by case scenario. You also noted: "The Arizona Supreme Court has cautioned that in a capital case impermissible coercion of the jury's verdict might be found if a trial court is not careful respecting the jury's deliberations in the penalty phase I feel JSS did respect the jury's deliberations - the opportunity existed, just as the 11 jurists noted, to 'sleep on it' for one more night. JSS accepted their consideration, the jury continued the next day until the deadlock could not be reconsidered by one individual.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-11-2015
Plus' Willmott's statement, She said other jurors were using Facebook when not allowed' I need substantiation, because their the matter of her having unreliable influence on court proceedings, that would be unique' do to the fact that she was on the record in chambers and not being a attorney (not under oath) presenting a argument in front of a jury!
Counting'
December #17 was discussed in chambers!
Jury note in deliberations #17 was not deliberating' later improvement was told by jurors, but matter was discussed in chambers!
Before deliberations ended #17's use of Facebook was found by Nurmi who told Martinez and motion to dismiss was filed!
Question #6 amd #7 were asked at the same time and was never answered and has never been revealed, all other questions were revealed. Question #7 resulted in mis-trial!
Their was a dynamite charge' but for second time the verdict form was not used by marking the undecided = DP, Life (for judge to decide) or undecided, Jury had 3 options, and one verdict form!
Edit-in Plus the news sources that #17 was viewing were the ones covering the Jodi trial, theirs no other avenue for going to the sights listed, other than from following the Jodi trial when not allowed, researching was evident!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - NERN - 03-11-2015
So what is being said is that Martinez filed a motion to have #17 removed based on her presumed activity on Facebook NOT because of any issues regarding who she was married to and involvement with the court.
With the statements by Wilmott and Nurmi that other jurors had accessed their social media and after reviewing, JSS did not feel it was sufficient evidence that #17 be dismissed.
That is my point in my earlier postings. It was social media activity that prompted Martinez's motion NOT other information.
I absolutely agree that Martinez did everything within his power to get the DP verdict.
---------------------
ElaineJ-
I too doubt #17's intent but also agree that she does not deserve the treatment that she is now getting.
This will be all sorted out through the proper channels despite how we all feel.
I have also read articles on the privatization of services within the jail/prison system. It just shows that in the end, it is all about money and not providing the safeguards for the public to protect them from manipulating inmates.
---------------
I think everyone, including myself, believe that sentencing could have been done immediately after the verdict.
Because it was not, it has given everyone free rein to continue with speculation and assumptions AND it keeps Arias in the limelight - something I am sure she is enjoying.
Whatever the reason for the 30 day delay in sentencing by JSS - whether to allow for the motion by the defense to dismiss the guilty verdict to be filed, to allow for the formulation of a comprehensive address by JSS to Arias and the court before she hands down her sentence, to allow the Alexander time to put together a possible statement for the court before sentencing and even maybe the Arias family - whatever the reason, it has made it very difficult and prolongs this case.
Arias will be stopped in her tracks once she enters Perryville.
Her supporters will carry on with misinformation and hateful remarks but I believe it will wain once she is locked away.
Until then, any checks that they can put on her need to be done, knowing full well that she will continue to try an circumvent them.
Investigations need to be ongoing on issues that have come to light following the verdict but we must remember that the facts are of the utmost importance, not speculation or what we think should be done.
I reiterate.....
JSS was told that #17 was "ineffective" in deliberations, NOT that she refused to deliberate. this was evident by the minutes posted.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Observer - 03-11-2015
Duluth, I shouldn't have used the word timid in describing Juror No. 17. My point is battered wives usually pick the same kind of men. If she was battered in one relationship, most likely she is controlled and battered in this relationship. Battered wives are afraid of their husbands and are usually subservient and do whatever the husband tells them to do. If her husband wanted her to vote against the death penalty, she would do it rather than face a beating or verbal abuse when she gets home. The way these jurors described this woman, she didn't sound assertive, strong or stubborn.
She sounded like she had an agenda to hang the jury and she was more afraid of her husband than the jurors because she didn't have to live with them. She didn't try to convince the other jurors to vote her way or explain why one mitigating factor: Arias psychological makeup outweighed the 29 stab wounds, slit throat and shot to the head. She wanted to contact the bailiff and declare a mistrial after the first vote and before any deliberations which sounded like she wanted to avoid confrontation and her mind was not open to listen to other people's opinions. She told the judge the jurors were intimidating her and trying to coerce her when they were trying to convince her why she should vote for the death penalty. Jurors are supposed to have an open mind and look at the law and the evidence and listen to other opinions. If her husband had not been encouraging her every night to vote against the death penalty, I believe she would have listened to reason and changed her mind.
No one knows that happened but I believe that is a possibility.