Does the judge think they can find new jurors who haven't been watching this trial? Will they move the sentencing phase to a different county? Or maybe a plea deal? What a mess...
When you take this one portion of the penalty phase away from the whole trial, it is a sentence for the Alexander family to be forced to re-experience the brutal horrific torture murder of their brother.
Except for that punishment, the outlook for Jodi Arias is even worse than it was before because of her "Ready for My Closeup" attention-whore interviews where she squatted on her lilypad preening and lashing out at reporters.
Demanding makeup and calling one reporter a "hater" for asking her to finally tell the truth about what happened in that bathroom, then she actually says that she is not dangerous "unless" someone who abuses her or attacks her (or like poor Travis, calls her names and threatens to tell on her).
I don't know if the Alexander family can stand any more. Their victim statements made it clear that a terrible price has already been paid--should they be forced to have psychotic breaks to make sure the twisted, sick excuse for a human being never walks the streets?
I wish they had a choice like the one Vinnie Politan of HLN suggested- a "Life Row" where a person lives like on death row, without working, without being able to interact with the prison population, without phone/internet/worldwide interviews, where they live in a cage for the rest of their lives.
It would save the state a lot of money and would be just punishment for these types of crimes when there is a question of mental illness yet the person is not so ill they don't know right from wrong.Arias' premeditation and coverup afterward testify to her knowledge of right and wrong even if she does suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder.
Settlement Conference June 20th. This is where the prosecution can offer a plea if Juan wants to.
If Arias gets life through a verdict, it is the judge who decides if it is Life With Parole after 25 years (20 years since Arias has already served 5) or Natural Life. If she takes a plea, it would specify that it was LWOP.
So that's where we are.
Anagrammy
PS. Arias was crying because her family wasn't there. Hope she remembers that she didn't let her mother visit her for four years when she lived in a nice house with a swimming pool because her mother "might snoop." She also claimed she had no family support as a mitigating factor--- so if that's true, she wouldn't be expecting Mommy and Auntie now would she?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2013 08:19PM by anagrammy.
Maybe I don't understand the whole juror role. I kind of feel like you check your prejudices at the door and just use your judgment to apply the facts of the case as proven to the penalties provided by law.
Either the mitigating circumstances, in your judgment, outweigh the aggravating circumstances or not.
If you have agreed to apply the law, you are acting as an instrument of public justice, not a mouthpiece for your conscience.
The problem is that the role of the jury is to reflect not the law but the conscience of the community. That is why the accused gets "a jury of your peers," etc. It is also why jury nullification is available. The jury is supposed to be a check on the power of the state. If the state tries to enforce a law that the people of the community consider ridiculous, they can reject even a fool-proof case.
There is always a tension between the instructions to follow the law and leave your prejudices at the door on the one hand, and the obligation to stay true to your conscience on the other. I was once on a jury with somebody who wanted perfect proof on every count. Other people got annoyed and after some time managed to persuade him that by his standards, no one could ever be proved guilty of anything. That was true, but he was right about the need to insist on his own standards, too. The law and the courts never resolve this conflict for juries, which must figure out the proper balance for themselves.
I think that cases like this are the worst, since if one side (the defence) gets literally weeks to throw garbage at the wall, some of it will stick. Jurors then have a perfectly reasonable right to do what they think is correct, even if the failure to get by the "reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" standard is simply a result of fatigue and confusion. The judge has to protect the jury from that problem by limiting the evidence that is admitted. I think the judge blew it this time. If she wants a verdict the second time around, she'll have to impose more discipline.
You make a good point, Televisor, that I had not considered.
Might there not be an aspect of Stockholm syndrome at work when a group of people and a criminal have sat through the same ordeal for months together?
Hmmmm. Product of fatigue and a mental collapse after being held hostage as jurors, unable to leave, kept in a padded room not being told what was going on or when they would get out.
Stockholm Syndrome is a great way to think of it. I feel that is what the defence tried to do: get the jury far enough into Jodi's mind that, hate it though they might, they consider her human and don't want to kill her. Fatigue undoubtedly plays a role in that.
The other side of the coin, though, is sheer confusion. If the judge is Lance Ito and the defendant OJ simpson, the defence can produce so much information that people get lost. When they deliberate, they have doubts. The elements of the crime may have been proved, but if the volume of evidence is too great the jurors may wonder if there is a reasonable doubt somewhere in the haystack. In other words, the more extraneous stuff allowed into the courtroom, the easier it is to get an outcome favorable to the defence.
Now this may not be the case if the state decides to try again. I sort of hope that there will be a different judge, since this one really leaned towards the defence in terms of evidence. If the judge in the next case--either this one or a replacement--insists on order, equal evidence standards, and speed, it will be harder to confuse people and to create the Stockholm effect. The fact that the next event will be only aggravating and extenuating circumstances, the arguments and the evidentiary hearings should be a lot shorter. But the judge will have to be both stricter and fairer.
It'll be hard to find a jury, but it can certainly be done. The law does not require that someone be unfamiliar with the case, only that the person has not reached firm conclusions and has an open mind. That's why other famous cases have been successfully retried.
On Arias's tears, I'm not sure Jodi was weeping because her family was not there. I think she lacks almost all emotion connection to her family. Remember when she was convicted? She looked at her lawyers and at her friends but did not even try to make eye contact with her family. She doesn't give a damn about them. So why did she cry? I think she was upset that she did not get a unanimous decision for life in prison. As shown by her actions in the past but also by her interviews after the conviction, she wants public prominence and public victories. The jury that "betrayed" her by finding her guilty, just "betrayed" her again by refusing to be persuaded that her life was worth saving. For Jodi, this is still about manipluation and dominance.
On the broader question of why everyone is so upset about the lack of a death sentence, I think the media is missing the point. It is not all about bloodlust or the need to exterminate Jodi. It is about justice. If the ultimate penalty in Arizona and the United States was life without parole, that sentence would have satisfied almost everyone. But since the death penalty exists, anything less than that is a rejection of the prosecution and Travis's family. It is hard to imagine anyone closer to evil than Jodi Arias, and if she does not get the ultimate penalty, whatever it is, the result smacks of travesty. There is no justice in giving a person like that a second-worst punsihment.
I respect that jury. They held to what they saw as justice. Four did not, apparently think it raised to the level of death. There is no betrayal. There was a struggle to agree which is the process of the jury. It was more likely they would be a hung jury. Expected by many.
This is how the AZ system works. We'll watch it do it's job.
I refuse to find fault with any of it. I don't have any control over any of it anyhow. The appeal process will deal with that.
Ms. Arias is going to be in prison for the rest of her life. She is done with the media and talking and on 23 hour lock down in jail. No more manipulation. If she is like the rest of the prisoners, her 15 minutes of fame is over.
The death penalty is again, at the forefront which I think is a "good thing."
I missed the part about her not having anymore interviews. Sheriff Joe said it was her right of free speech. I would love it if she couldn't do anymore.
The appeal process will not solve all the problems. Apellate courts only look at certain issues. Appeals in a criminal case will only work in favor of the defendant, which is why a hung jury is a lot better for the Alexanders than a life sentence. Since the jury was "hung," jeopardy never attached and the constitution allows the state to take another shot. But more generally you'll never see an appelate court reverse a verdict of innocence or send an exonerated defendant back for a second trial absent proof that there was jury tampering and hence that jeopardy never attached.
And it is not clear that Arias is going to prison for the rest of her life. There are three possible outcomes at this stage: death, natural life, or life in jail. The third includes the possibility of parole after 20 or 25 years. So until the sentence is decided, we don't know whether Jodi will die in jail or not.
Posted a thorough review and the site shut down. argh.
I would have hoped the attorney for the Alexander family would have well prepared them for the possibility of a hung jury. I didn't see any other possibility. Was surprised it was 8/4 split 8 for death, 4 for life. That's a big split. I guessed: 10/2.
We're onto the status hearing June 20 and the new jury for the sentencing phase July 18. It could be settled with a plea and take death off the table but I doubt that will happen. Personally, I don't think they can get another jury to agree on death, but that's just me. Could have another hung jury.
Appeals will follow. I can't imagine anything being overturned. It's possible, might be some issues, but unlikely in my view.
I'm convinced, that of all the possible outcomes, Ms. Arias will spend the rest of her life in jail - no possibility of parole. It's a guess but I think a realistic one. Even on death row, they have not executed anyone since 1930 I heard.
I have heard dozens of people doing analysis - hundreds of hours of it is available. Some of it is really bizarre.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2013 02:20PM by SusieQ#1.