Jodi Arias Penalty

[TW]

I *think* that's exactly how it would go too, but Juan is like a bull dog with this, depends on how done HE is too. He may try to stick it to her.

How can a second jury decide without knowing what the case was? This last mini trial lacked any substantial information, if you didn't know anything about the case.

They have to go through everything all over again. Guilt would stand but they have to have all evidence. It would take a very long time.

 

[25Caliber]

It's going to eventually end up @ LWOP. Chance of parole in 25 years is crazy for a crime like this with no remorse.

Yeah...especially when she has already served 5....that 25 drops immediately goes to 20...she would be out at 53.

 

[Tink]

WAIT! There are alternates! Beth Karas just said that, if all the jurors are joining in the debate, then they can hang. BUT, if someone just steadfastly refuses to discuss options, then that juror(s) can be replaced by an alternate(s).

Sooooo.....there's still a possibility with this jury, depending on the split. If there are only 1 or 2 who just will not budge or discuss, they may be replaced.

That doesn't seem fair. I mean it's like oh ok so you feel differently we'll just get someone who agrees.

 

[TW]

She said her mom wrote a letter and wanted to speak and her dad too but defense said no.

I don't believe that, do you?

It's hard to believe anything JA says. But I do believe her mother would have wanted to speak and write a letter. She has written one before and it is her daughter. What mother wouldn't? And her dad idk but he was there yesterday which is unusual

No, No. I meant that the defense said "no". Like she listens.

 

[TW]

WAIT! There are alternates! Beth Karas just said that, if all the jurors are joining in the debate, then they can hang. BUT, if someone just steadfastly refuses to discuss options, then that juror(s) can be replaced by an alternate(s).

Sooooo.....there's still a possibility with this jury, depending on the split. If there are only 1 or 2 who just will not budge or discuss, they may be replaced.

That doesn't seem fair. I mean it's like oh ok so you feel differently we'll just get someone who agrees.

Tink, it doesn't mean that the alternatives would necessarily agree with the other jurors. But at least they would have listened to the entire case, without having to do it over. If they would be hung, again, at least it would be over faster.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Also, any new jury would need to accept the guilty verdict. Does anyone know if they also need to accept the finding of especially cruel? Or would that need to be relitigated?

 

[testarosa]

Yes. It would be nice not to hear anything from/about Jodi Arias for a long time, although I'll miss the people here. Only downside.

I *think* that's exactly how it would go too, but Juan is like a bull dog with this, depends on how done HE is too. He may try to stick it to her.

How can a second jury decide without knowing what the case was? This last mini trial lacked any substantial information, if you didn't know anything about the case.

IDK but that's how it works - Penalty phase is like it's own little mini-trial.

 

[TW]

Also, any new jury would need to accept the guilty verdict. Does anyone know if they also need to accept the finding of especially cruel? Or would that need to be relitigated?

That's what I don't get. Strange system there in AZ.

 

[FeatherDuster]

WAIT! There are alternates! Beth Karas just said that, if all the jurors are joining in the debate, then they can hang. BUT, if someone just steadfastly refuses to discuss options, then that juror(s) can be replaced by an alternate(s).

Sooooo.....there's still a possibility with this jury, depending on the split. If there are only 1 or 2 who just will not budge or discuss, they may be replaced.

That doesn't seem fair. I mean it's like oh ok so you feel differently we'll just get someone who agrees.

No that doesn't seem fair, the alternates are there to replace someone who can not continue their duties as a juror.

 

[Politico]

Wow going just like I said it would. Still batting 1000 lol.

 

[SantaFeWay]

WAIT! There are alternates! Beth Karas just said that, if all the jurors are joining in the debate, then they can hang. BUT, if someone just steadfastly refuses to discuss options, then that juror(s) can be replaced by an alternate(s).

Sooooo.....there's still a possibility with this jury, depending on the split. If there are only 1 or 2 who just will not budge or discuss, they may be replaced.

That doesn't seem fair. I mean it's like oh ok so you feel differently we'll just get someone who agrees.

Tink, it doesn't mean that the alternatives would necessarily agree with the other jurors. But at least they would have listened to the entire case, without having to do it over. If they would be hung, again, at least it would be over faster.

Yes, but only the jurors who refused to discuss and debate would be removed. Not saying any of them are doing that. But if you just steadfastly refuse to consider both options without a rationale, then you should not be in a group of people whose job it is to come to an unanimous consensus. IMO

 

[TW]

That doesn't seem fair. I mean it's like oh ok so you feel differently we'll just get someone who agrees.

Tink, it doesn't mean that the alternatives would necessarily agree with the other jurors. But at least they would have listened to the entire case, without having to do it over. If they would be hung, again, at least it would be over faster.

Yes, but only the jurors who refused to discuss and debate would be removed. Not saying any of them are doing that. But if you just steadfastly refuse to consider both options without a rationale, then you should not be in a group of people whose job it is to come to an unanimous consensus. IMO

These poor jurors have been through so much.

 

[Politico]

No one is refusing both options. That wasn't even part of the requirements.

 

[25Caliber]

Also, any new jury would need to accept the guilty verdict. Does anyone know if they also need to accept the finding of especially cruel? Or would that need to be relitigated?

That's what I don't get. Strange system there in AZ.

According to what I read. If this jury cannot come to a unanimous decision, then they will be replaced by a new jury and that jury will only decide on the penalty phase. They will not decide on especially cruel....that has already been decided.

It would simply be up to the next jury to come to a unanimous decision on Life, LWOP or death. If they cannot come to a unanimous decision then the judge will take it and decide on Life or LWOP...no death penalty.

"At the penalty phase, if the trier of fact is a jury and the jury is unable to reach a verdict, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall impanel a new jury," reads A.R.S. § 13-752 K. "The new jury shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt or the issue regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first jury found by unanimous verdict to be proved or not proved. If the new jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the court shall impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant."

~AZFamily.com

 

[SantaFeWay]

I keep repeating..."Feed the turtles. Don't feed the trolls." "Feed the turtles. Don't feed the trolls."

 

[testarosa]

Okay, I sweet talked and IO something or another to DH, he's calling the judge for the details on hung in penalty phase. I gave him a list of questions, he'd better not forget one or I'll make him call back! lol

 

[testarosa]

WAIT! There are alternates! Beth Karas just said that, if all the jurors are joining in the debate, then they can hang. BUT, if someone just steadfastly refuses to discuss options, then that juror(s) can be replaced by an alternate(s).

Sooooo.....there's still a possibility with this jury, depending on the split. If there are only 1 or 2 who just will not budge or discuss, they may be replaced.

YAY Beth! our solid source for info.

 

[testarosa]

Also, any new jury would need to accept the guilty verdict. Does anyone know if they also need to accept the finding of especially cruel? Or would that need to be relitigated?

That's what I don't get. Strange system there in AZ.

According to what I read. If this jury cannot come to a unanimous decision, then they will be replaced by a new jury and that jury will only decide on the penalty phase. They will not decide on especially cruel....that has already been decided.

It would simply be up to the next jury to come to a unanimous decision on Life, LWOP or death. If they cannot come to a unanimous decision then the judge will take it and decide on Life or LWOP...no death penalty.

"At the penalty phase, if the trier of fact is a jury and the jury is unable to reach a verdict, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall impanel a new jury," reads A.R.S. § 13-752 K. "The new jury shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt or the issue regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first jury found by unanimous verdict to be proved or not proved. If the new jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the court shall impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant."

~AZFamily.com

I thougt AZ says can impanel up to a 3rd jury.

 

[testarosa]

It's 1 more jury, then the judge decides.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to go through this penalty phase again. Not JM or even the Alexander family, once they have a chance to think about it. Nor would the people of AZ want to prolong this further with a 2nd jury and all the $$ that would entail.

I agree that if they're hung, then JM will, begrudgingly perhaps, take DP off the table and let the judge decide the sentence, LWOP or LWP. I think she would sentence her to LWOP.

Yes. It would be nice not to hear anything from/about Jodi Arias for a long time, although I'll miss the people here. Only downside.

We'll hook up in The Tavern and talk about Star Trek and Sheldon.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Thanks, 25!