(03-07-2015, 02:27 PM)Observer Wrote:
Here's a video of one of the jurors reacting to learning that Juan Martinez prosecuted Juror No. 17s husband.
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11208848/juror-speaks-out-about-juror-17s-link-to-juan-martinez
_________________________________________________________________________________
There seems to be some confusion over the issue as to whether Juan prosecuted the jurists first husband. Until someone pointed out a distinct difference, I was under the same impression about Juan's actions.
According to the document, her first husband received probation. Juan Martinez was the prosecutor on his case. He accepted the sentence. Prior to the determination, the jurist married the first husband. Some time later, he became tangled in yet another offense and received a heavy sentence as he was in violation of probation. This finding was by a different prosecutor. I believe he is not eligible for parole until 2037. However, he continues to rack up offenses while in the DOC.
At some time post his incarceration, the jurist files for divorce and subsequently marries her now husband who as you note, is also a felon.
Until this muck and mire is sorted, I'll be none the more wiser because I'm wondering what the jurist wrote in her message to JSS that convinced JSS to keep this jurist in deliberations. And in spite of this, I've listened to the jurists interviews and find it interesting that they're all in agreement about the "hold outs" words and actions in the deliberation room. But do her actions and words constitute prosecution? I don't know. For me it remains to be seen.
(03-07-2015, 03:13 PM)Observer Wrote: Elaine, there was a hung jury, so she can't use anything that happened in the retrial as grounds for an appeal. She could have used the allocution issue to appeal a death sentence. She can only appeal a death sentence or the guilty verdict.
She can only get the guilty verdict reversed and a new trial if there was an error in the first trial that would have caused the jurors to vote not guilty. The appellate attorney can only use the issues Nurmi brought up in his mistrial motions in the first trial and those issues have no merit.
She is not going to get another trial period. She will never get a death sentence.
I am sure Arias asked for a 30 day delay so Nurmi has a chance to file a motion asking the judge to overturn the guilty verdict. I believe he has 30 to 60 days to do that. Then as soon as she is sentenced, she can appeal the guilty verdict.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mercy, thank you so much for explaining that to me again!! LOL I'll hold onto my lug nuts until it's time for an overhaul with Arias. She's like an allergy that's never out of season.