Jodi Arias Penalty

[testarosa]

Miss you.

Weekend break coming up!!

 

[SantaFeWay]

Jury breakdown:

DP=8
Life=4

 

[wavingrl]

You are saying you don't think she killed him? Huh? She admitted it! They have proof she did it, other than her saying it.

She's convicted of M1 (1st degree murder).

Docket: Criminal Court Case History

First, I would not have agreed to serve on this jury.

Someone on an HLN panel just said something that made sense to me. He theorized that some jurors may have had concerns about the mitigating factors. It is frequently said that she has 'mental issues'. I think that might have been a concern for me.

There were other theories but that one made more sense to me.

I can see how a second jury might come to the same conclusions. I also wonder if another panel is seated if there is inherently grounds for an appeal of any decision made because of the notoriety of this case.

I didn't follow the case closely but have heard enough that I wouldn't be able to give an unbiased opinion. fwiw

Yep. Big grounds for appeal on unbiased jury. And if this jury couldn't agree, I have a hard time believing another would. The reality is she will never see the needle even with a dp sentence. Juries aren't going to decide on real life "she'll never actually see the needle" though. That's not in the instructions

Someone already asked if AZ's approach was constitutional--and it is, according to the Supreme Court.

There is something about selecting a second panel for the penalty phase that seems off, jmo. It has been done before and I suppose it can be done again.

I am tired of hearing the passionate opinions from media commentators which have actually caused me to feel that LWOP would be as close to justice as we can come in this case.

With my few remaining brain cells --since JA admitted to the murder I really don't pay much attention to analyses of her manipulative and deviant behaviors.

I think the media needs to be less involved. There are several commentators that I cannot stand and that affects my response to whatever opinion they may provide.

This could be true of others?

 

[A_LittleFeisty]

Jury breakdown:

DP=8
Life=4

I just heard that. All I can say is wow.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Yes he can. He can call it quits or press on. So I'm curious what happened in his other dp. He's a bulldog and already spent/invested this much so wth press on! Or is he going to call it a day. Defensw has nothing to do with it. It would be like the M1 coming up mistrial and prosecution office deciding to retry or not retry. Same thing as penalty phase.

I agree on taint/appeal/money of calling a second jury. So Juan has to weigh possibility of dp sentence against pretty much sure bet of Judge S not granting parole and doing lwop. Hence the records of the 3 out of 5 do women that got dp on second jury are so very interesting.

Just announced - 8 jurors for death, 4 for life

Martinez's Cases:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=548632208509699&story_fbid=594827383879719

 

[A_LittleFeisty]

First, I would not have agreed to serve on this jury.

Someone on an HLN panel just said something that made sense to me. He theorized that some jurors may have had concerns about the mitigating factors. It is frequently said that she has 'mental issues'. I think that might have been a concern for me.

There were other theories but that one made more sense to me.

I can see how a second jury might come to the same conclusions. I also wonder if another panel is seated if there is inherently grounds for an appeal of any decision made because of the notoriety of this case.

I didn't follow the case closely but have heard enough that I wouldn't be able to give an unbiased opinion. fwiw

Yep. Big grounds for appeal on unbiased jury. And if this jury couldn't agree, I have a hard time believing another would. The reality is she will never see the needle even with a dp sentence. Juries aren't going to decide on real life "she'll never actually see the needle" though. That's not in the instructions

Someone already asked if AZ's approach was constitutional--and it is, according to the Supreme Court.

There is something about selecting a second panel for the penalty phase that seems off, jmo. It has been done before and I suppose it can be done again.

I am tired of hearing the passionate opinions from media commentators which have actually caused me to feel that LWOP would be as close to justice as we can come in this case.

With my few remaining brain cells --since JA admitted to the murder I really don't pay much attention to analyses of her manipulative and deviant behaviors.

I think the media needs to be less involved. There are several commentators that I cannot stand and that affects my response to whatever opinion they may provide.

This could be true of others?

I don't like how the media gets all into a trial and stretch the story to distortion. They are not reporting the facts.

 

[testarosa]

Jury breakdown:

DP=8
Life=4

almost the felony break. Wasnt that 7/5?

 

[A_LittleFeisty]

Jury breakdown:

DP=8
Life=4

almost the felony break. Wasnt that 7/5?

It sure was. I was saying yesterday that it was more then likely the felony and non felony was the reason for hung jury.

 

[wavingrl]

Yep. Big grounds for appeal on unbiased jury. And if this jury couldn't agree, I have a hard time believing another would. The reality is she will never see the needle even with a dp sentence. Juries aren't going to decide on real life "she'll never actually see the needle" though. That's not in the instructions

Someone already asked if AZ's approach was constitutional--and it is, according to the Supreme Court.

There is something about selecting a second panel for the penalty phase that seems off, jmo. It has been done before and I suppose it can be done again.

I am tired of hearing the passionate opinions from media commentators which have actually caused me to feel that LWOP would be as close to justice as we can come in this case.

With my few remaining brain cells --since JA admitted to the murder I really don't pay much attention to analyses of her manipulative and deviant behaviors.

I think the media needs to be less involved. There are several commentators that I cannot stand and that affects my response to whatever opinion they may provide.

This could be true of others?

I don't like how the media gets all into a trial and stretch the story to distortion. They are not reporting the facts.

I don't know about others but when they go into orbit over how JA is eager to give interviews and analyze her demeanor so dramatically I think they sound like 'kids'--unprofessional, etc. and lol--if they are so opposed to these interviews why are they there?

Someone asked her --'Have you thought about how you will feel if a needle is placed in your arm?' I thought that was over the top/out of line. I really couldn't find much fault with her response--'No, I haven't gotten that far' but much discussion followed--'Her mental disorders'. That alone makes me think they have 'tainted' the minds of a large segment of the population.

I would think that there is some high powered defense attorney somewhere that is going to address this at some point. This could be the case to set a precedent?

At times I think Greta Van Sustern is the only journalist who is consistently professional. At least I can listen to what she has to say and reflect upon it.

What an interesting panel the next one will be. I would certainly ask --'Do you have cable service? and related questions. Not certain I could accept jurors with cable--more than likely they tuned in at some point.

 

[A_LittleFeisty]

Someone already asked if AZ's approach was constitutional--and it is, according to the Supreme Court.

There is something about selecting a second panel for the penalty phase that seems off, jmo. It has been done before and I suppose it can be done again.

I am tired of hearing the passionate opinions from media commentators which have actually caused me to feel that LWOP would be as close to justice as we can come in this case.

With my few remaining brain cells --since JA admitted to the murder I really don't pay much attention to analyses of her manipulative and deviant behaviors.

I think the media needs to be less involved. There are several commentators that I cannot stand and that affects my response to whatever opinion they may provide.

This could be true of others?

I don't like how the media gets all into a trial and stretch the story to distortion. They are not reporting the facts.

I don't know about others but when they go into orbit over how JA is eager to give interviews and analyze her demeanor so dramatically I think they sound like 'kids'--unprofessional, etc.

I would think that there is some high powered defense attorney somewhere that is going to address this at some point. This could be the case to set a precedent?

At times I think Greta Van Sustern is the only journalist who is consistently professional. At least I can listen to what she has to say and reflect upon it.

What an interesting panel the next one will be. I would certainly ask --'Do you have cable service? and related questions. Not certain I could accept jurors with cable--more than likely they tuned in at some point.

I am sure that this case was plastered on most every channel in AZ. It could have been like with the first OJ case. I remember that you could not turn the TV without seeing OJ's trial.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Media will be involved as long as trials are televised. I believe the public deserves, and benefits from, seeing our justice system at work. For better or worse. It's our choice to blindly accept what the media says, or to use our own intelligence to make our own decisions. Some trials are purely sensational, like this one. Others have far reaching consequenses, like Zimmerman has the potential to. The public should have the opportunity to judge for themselves. It's up to the network honchos, based purely on potential revenue projections, whether to televise a trial and how much airtime they choose to devote to it. But it is up to us, the public, which trials we feel hold the greatest impact on our lives as we see it.

Personally, I feel I've devoted enough time to Msssss Arias. It's time for her to go away. There are greater debates to be had regarding laws on the books and other issues to explore. Arias' life or death is inconsequential to me. I'll always be interested in how this case eventually ends. But I'm done caring about anything she says cuz she will never change. Sad but true. Hopefully the decision will be made to give her LWOP and the Alexander family can move on feeling Travis' death has been vindicated.

 

[wavingrl]

I don't like how the media gets all into a trial and stretch the story to distortion. They are not reporting the facts.

I don't know about others but when they go into orbit over how JA is eager to give interviews and analyze her demeanor so dramatically I think they sound like 'kids'--unprofessional, etc.

I would think that there is some high powered defense attorney somewhere that is going to address this at some point. This could be the case to set a precedent?

At times I think Greta Van Sustern is the only journalist who is consistently professional. At least I can listen to what she has to say and reflect upon it.

What an interesting panel the next one will be. I would certainly ask --'Do you have cable service? and related questions. Not certain I could accept jurors with cable--more than likely they tuned in at some point.

I am sure that this case was plastered on most every channel in AZ. It could have been like with the first OJ case. I remember that you could not turn the TV without seeing OJ's trial.

hmmm--I'm in Atlanta. I conclude that anyone with cable has heard 'something'.

A panel of legal experts--is that what it will take? I'm certain there is a lengthy questionaire but still I think minds have been 'polluted' anywhere there is cable and for that matter the internet.

oh well. Just a very sad situation for all concerned. If anyone is deterred from a similar act because of this that is the only 'good' I can find.

 

[A_LittleFeisty]

I am going to go to bed all. I have a bad headache.
Good night see you all tomorrow.

 

[testarosa]

One note - I don't have cable and look what I've been doing lately

 

[FeatherDuster]

I am going to go to bed all. I have a bad headache.
Good night see you all tomorrow.

Feisty feel better, ttyl~Feathers

 

[FeatherDuster]

One note - I don't have cable and look what I've been doing lately

show off
(lucky you)

 

[wavingrl]

Media will be involved as long as trials are televised. I believe the public deserves, and benefits from, seeing our justice system at work. For better or worse. It's our choice to blindly accept what the media says, or to use our own intelligence to make our own decisions. Some trials are purely sensational, like this one. Others have far reaching consequenses, like Zimmerman has the potential to. The public should have the opportunity to judge for themselves. It's up to the network honchos, based purely on potential revenue projections, whether to televise a trial and how much airtime they choose to devote to it. But it is up to us, the public, which trials we feel hold the greatest impact on our lives as we see it.

Personally, I feel I've devoted enough time to Msssss Arias. It's time for her to go away. There are greater debates to be had regarding laws on the books and other issues to explore. Arias' life or death is inconsequential to me. I'll always be interested in how this case eventually ends. But I'm done caring about anything she says cuz she will never change. Sad but true. Hopefully the decision will be made to give her LWOP and the Alexander family can move on feeling Travis' death has been vindicated.

It is just not 'helpful' to me the way the media dramatizes aspects of the trial.

The issue of mental competence has been hashed and rehashed. I no longer know what I think about that--CO shooter--not competent --so LWOP?


Tsarnaev---I think DP for him but assume there will a number of mitigators.

Dragging out appeals --I have issues with that but that is how it is.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Goodnight Feisty...feel better.

wavingrl...I think that's what I said. The media muddies the waters. On the matter of mental incompetence, this isn't the case with the Arias case. Regarding the CO theater clown killer, is there even a DP in CO? If so, then I do not believe in executing mentally insane people. LWOP is the way to go, for the reason that these people can be examined and learned from.

Tsarnaev is a terrorist. Unfortunately he was probably led by his older brother but he is an adult. He knows better. Don't know my DP states. Does MA have a DP? If so, then he should receive it without a doubt. He is a mass murderer. What mitigators exist for his atrocities? Take a look at the bloody limbs his bomb caused to be left on the sidewalk and then I'll be glad to consider his mitigators.

I don't mean to be rude. But the outcome is so clear to me it makes me crazy. I'm sure you feel likewise. But let's just call it like it is.

 

[wavingrl]

Goodnight Feisty...feel better.

wavingrl...I think that's what I said. The media muddies the waters. On the matter of mental incompetence, this isn't the case with the Arias case. Regarding the CO theater clown killer, is there even a DP in CO? If so, then I do not believe in executing mentally insane people. LWOP is the way to go, for the reason that these people can be examined and learned from.

Tsarnaev is a terrorist. Unfortunately he was probably led by his older brother but he is an adult. He knows better. Don't know my DP states. Does MA have a DP? If so, then he should receive it without a doubt. He is a mass murderer. What mitigators exist for his atrocities? Take a look at the bloody limbs his bomb caused to be left on the sidewalk and then I'll be glad to consider his mitigators.

I don't mean to be rude. But the outcome is so clear to me it makes me crazy. I'm sure you feel likewise. But let's just call it like it is.

If I had a point about the Arias case--it was in agreement with yours. When the media harps on and on and on about her 'mental disorders' that raises some concerns for me. The CO shooter---no doubt about his--but 'others'--I don't even want to 'go there'/can of worms.
Gray area and all of that. It would seem prudent to refrain from such labels--I think that is what I wanted to say.

Tsarnaev--I think he faces federal charges. I created a new thread for him--years away from trial I am certain. 'Some sort of political/religious' mitigators--too complicated for me to understand--I assume. No need for the legal media to get involved. This unfolded before our very eyes.
But--think of it--the US executing unfairly--I don't think we 'dare'?

 

[animallover]

One note - I don't have cable and look what I've been doing lately

hey testarosa I'm on my way in the morning. Lol can't wait to be at the beach! PCB here o come...