Opinions on the Jodi Arias trial? Jury questions

[normiss 635]

Dead locked.

New jury selection starts in July.

[lawrocket 3]

Just the penalty phase, right?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 635]

Yessir.

Will the jury poll be released publicly?

[jcd11235 0]

normiss

Will the jury poll be released publicly?

Does it matter? The jury were far better informed than any member of the general public watching the case through the lens of sensationalist media.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 635]

Yes it matters.

If it was a single hold out, the state would be inclined to empanel another jury.

If the numbers were more evenly split, they may make an offer.

What really would suck? Life.
She's already served 5 years.
To think someone that murdered that violently would be let out of prison in under 20 years is unacceptable.

[jcd11235 0]

normiss

To think someone that murdered that violently would be let out of prison in under 20 years is unacceptable.

If that's the decision at which the justice system ultimately arrives, it is absolutely acceptable.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 635]

Sadly true.

[kallend 1,666]

There are over ten thousand homicides in the USA every year.

Why all the interest in this one? Media circus!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

There are over ten thousand homicides in the USA every year.

Why all the interest in this one? Media circus!

Because this one has it all. Murder, anal sex and Mormons.

Plus, this obe actually has any guy who has ever had wild sex with an emotionally unstable woman paying very close attention. Any other guys out there saying, "I can totally see that as having been me?". Normiss???? Paying very close attention, aren't you??? [Sly]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 635]

Thankfully I've only had a few psychos.
None violent. That I saw.


This case is also very interesting given AZ law.
After hearing the foreman speak this morning, I'm really confused. How do you find someone guilty of felony 1st, find cruel murder, then not be able to connect a heinous crime to her?
Seriously?

Maybe we are getting to the no death penalty point.
Except in TX and FL anyway.

[linebckr83 3]

I hope she doesn't get the death penalty. That's what she wants because it is the easy way out. Let her rot in prison.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[ryoder 1,404]

lawrocket

Because this one has it all. Murder, anal sex and Mormons.

Plus, this obe actually has any guy who has ever had wild sex with an emotionally unstable woman paying very close attention. Any other guys out there saying, "I can totally see that as having been me?". Normiss???? Paying very close attention, aren't you??? [Sly]

Did she have an affinity for the music of Erroll Garner, e.g. "Misty"?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,666]

lawrocket

...with an emotionally unstable woman

Redundant language.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I was thinking more along the lines of Rod Stewart...

♫ The first cut is the deepest... ♫

Or a particular Nilsson song about breaking a heart and tering it apart...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[masterrig 1]

She's probably the most self-centered, self-indulgent, narcissistic person I've ever seen... and she talks too much.


Chuck

[Skyrad 0]

lawrocket

Just the penalty phase, right?

It works different over here so help me out, what does this mean? Will there be a retrial? How would a new jury be able to come to a decision without having sat through the trial?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Kennedy 0]

She was found guilty by jury. So the trial phase is over. They are now in the sentencing phase where the jury decides what possible penalty to apply. Since the jury deadlocked on which sentence to apply, the state is allowed to empanel a new jury and offer the same possible penalties, or to take death penalty off the table. (AZ law)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skyrad 0]

Thanks, but I don't understand how they can make a decision when they haven't sat through the whole trial?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 0]

Skyrad

Thanks, but I don't understand how they can make a decision when they haven't sat through the whole trial?

In many (most?) US states, when a jury is hopelessly deadlocked in the penalty phase of a capital case, the judge automatically imposes a life sentence. (That's in the 64% of US states that have not abolished capital punishment.) Not so in Arizona; there, they can re-try the penalty phase.

So how can this be done if the new jury hasn't sat thru the trial, you ask? Simple: they hold a new sentencing hearing - a new trial, essentially - from scratch, on factual issues relevant to the sentencing phase, before the new jury.

Mind you, this is in Arizona, where, for example, deliberately medieval and degrading treatment of prison inmates is considered 21st Century civilization, and DWW (Driving While Wetback) is part of the Traffic Code.

[Skyrad 0]

In the UK there are reporting restrictions on cases going through the judicial process until the verdict has been passed. Surely any new jury would be prejudiced because of the media circus around the trial which the original jury should have been protected from. OK so she is guilty but the gratuitous detail and sensationalism of the media coverage can only have biased any new jury. Its impossible to un-hear and see what the new jury have seen so even though this is about the punishment I fail to see how it will be possible to have a fair and unbiased retrial.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 0]

Skyrad

In the UK there are reporting restrictions on cases going through the judicial process until the verdict has been passed. Surely any new jury would be prejudiced because of the media circus around the trial which the original jury should have been protected from. OK so she is guilty but the gratuitous detail and sensationalism of the media coverage can only have biased any new jury. Its impossible to un-hear and see what the new jury have seen so even though this is about the punishment I fail to see how it will be possible to have a fair and unbiased retrial.

Even with a "gag order" imposed upon the parties and attorneys, any such reporting restrictions imposed upon the news media would be unconstitutional in the US. Yes, selecting an impartial jury in a highly-sensationalized case is always a difficult issue; I imagine the defense attorneys will probably make the record of asking the judge to rule it impossible in this instance (which request will very probably be denied).

[kallend 1,666]

Andy9o8

***In the UK there are reporting restrictions on cases going through the judicial process until the verdict has been passed. Surely any new jury would be prejudiced because of the media circus around the trial which the original jury should have been protected from. OK so she is guilty but the gratuitous detail and sensationalism of the media coverage can only have biased any new jury. Its impossible to un-hear and see what the new jury have seen so even though this is about the punishment I fail to see how it will be possible to have a fair and unbiased retrial.

Even with a "gag order" imposed upon the parties and attorneys, any such reporting restrictions imposed upon the news media would be unconstitutional in the US. Yes, selecting an impartial jury in a highly-sensationalized case is always a difficult issue; I imagine the defense attorneys will probably make the record of asking the judge to rule it impossible in this instance (which request will very probably be denied).

Clearly it's more important for the media to have their circus than for the defendant's guilt (or not) to be evaluated by an unbiased jury.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

kallend

******In the UK there are reporting restrictions on cases going through the judicial process until the verdict has been passed. Surely any new jury would be prejudiced because of the media circus around the trial which the original jury should have been protected from. OK so she is guilty but the gratuitous detail and sensationalism of the media coverage can only have biased any new jury. Its impossible to un-hear and see what the new jury have seen so even though this is about the punishment I fail to see how it will be possible to have a fair and unbiased retrial.

Even with a "gag order" imposed upon the parties and attorneys, any such reporting restrictions imposed upon the news media would be unconstitutional in the US. Yes, selecting an impartial jury in a highly-sensationalized case is always a difficult issue; I imagine the defense attorneys will probably make the record of asking the judge to rule it impossible in this instance (which request will very probably be denied).

Clearly it's more important for the media to have their circus than for the defendant's guilt (or not) to be evaluated by an unbiased jury.

Aside from the idea of amending the Constitution to carve-out an applicable exception to the First Amendment, this is not simply a matter of journalistic ethics, or lack thereof, and not simply a matter of how the news media report the details of trials, or not. An increasing number of states are amending their court rules to expressly allow video recording of trials for use in the public domain (notably, TV broadcast). Even many JUDGES have spoken out in favor of this, as a matter of public policy; the idea being that keeping the public well-informed about the most inner workings of the judicial branch of THEIR government, by recording and broadcasting court proceedings, helps assure and preserve participatory democracy. So this is a dynamic that has a lot of energy driving it from all segments of American society.

Your concerns about unbiased juries are well-taken, but the other factors must also be considered in the mix.

[kallend 1,666]

Andy9o8

Aside from the idea of amending the Constitution to carve-out an applicable exception to the First Amendment, this is not simply a matter of journalistic ethics, or lack thereof, and not simply a matter of how the news media report the details of trials, or not. An increasing number of states are amending their court rules to expressly allow video recording of trials for use in the public domain (notably, TV broadcast). Even many JUDGES have spoken out in favor of this, as a matter of public policy; the idea being that keeping the public well-informed about the most inner workings of the judicial branch of THEIR government, by recording and broadcasting court proceedings, helps assure and preserve participatory democracy. So this is a dynamic that has a lot of energy driving it from all segments of American society.

Your concerns about unbiased juries are well-taken, but the other factors must also be considered in the mix.

Unfortunately, as this trial shows, informing the public is more likely to be done in the style of Fox News than in the style of C-SPAN.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 635]

You clearly meant to reference the OJ trial, no?

This isn't the first criminal proceeding with these challenges.

I am still surprised this jury wasn't sequestered.
We are mostly all almost constantly connected to media of some sort these days, how could a jury NOT hear or see something about the case they are sitting on???