Jodi Arias Trial Part 4, starting with redirect of "expert" Dr Samuels, March 19

[Brit17]

I understood that none of them saw anything.

Great, I was really hoping they didn't ... But now that they were questioned, wouldn't that possibly intrigue their curiosity of what exactly they were being questioned about and then maybe prompting some of them to sneak a peek at a newspaper, tv or Internet? ... Maybe the judge should have just asked the jury as a whole whether they saw, heard or were approached by anyone about the case like she has already been doing instead of asking them individually which could raise their suspicion, KWiM? ... Ugh, I am just a bit paranoid that this thing will end up taking a turn for the worse somehow ...

 

[crz4mm2]

Not to worry! I'm good! Just saying that for me, I'm stepping back. As we near the end, it's occurring to me that I better stop making assumptions about how strong a case I feel this is for the prosecution. BTDT

Me too. A few weeks ago I was certain she would be found guilty of 1st degree..... Now I am PRAYING she is and PRAYING if not, it is 2nd degree....

Great, I was really hoping they didn't ... But now that they were questioned, wouldn't that possibly intrigue their curiosity of what exactly they were being questioned about and then maybe prompting some of them to sneak a peek at a newspaper, tv or Internet? ... Maybe the judge should have just asked the jury as a whole whether they saw, heard or were approached by anyone about the case like she has already been doing instead of asking them individually which could raise their suspicion, KWiM? ... Ugh, I am just a bit paranoid that this thing will end up taking a turn for the worse somehow ...

MTE.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Ruh Roh ... If true, I really hope that this doesn't cause a real issue now ... But can't the one juror just be replaced with an alternate and the issue will be solved? ...

And on a side note, I highly doubt that none of these jurors have seen or heard anything about this case outside of the courtroom prior to this autograph-photo-gate drama anyway ... And if the juror who allegedly witnessed it says it won't interfere with his/her verdict, shouldn't the entire matter be over with? ...

ETA: Sorry for the alarm folks ... This was tweeted while I was posting ...

Phew ... I really hope a juror didn't see anything ...

Great, I was really hoping they didn't ... But now that they were questioned, wouldn't that possibly intrigue their curiosity of what exactly they were being questioned about and then maybe prompting some of them to sneak a peek at a newspaper, tv or Internet? ... Maybe the judge should have just asked the jury as a whole whether they saw, heard or were approached by anyone about the case like she has already been doing instead of asking them individually which could raise their suspicion, KWiM? ... Ugh, I am just a bit paranoid that this thing will end up taking a turn for the worse somehow ...

If a juror had seen anything, the judge would probably ask exactly what they saw and if it would affect their ability to give a fair and impartial verdict. We saw this during voir dire for the Casey Anthony case. Can't remember specifics, but I remember Judge Perry asking just that type of thing..."Based on ______ , could you be impartial..." Now, will a juror be honest? Are jurors not watching anything on TV, the Internet, or in newspapers? But the jury system is what it is. You have to have some trust in the system, because there's really no other choice.

If I were on this jury, I think, because this is the way I am, that I would be so paranoid about seeing something and not being able to honestly say "Nope, didn't see a thing" that I wouldn't leave the house. I mean, I've barely left it now! I'd probably spend my down time at home watching DVDs while on the treadmill and end up nice and skinny by the end.

I also think they have to question them separately, because if you're asking jurors to respond, then their response might influence the other jurors, and the whole pack of them might have to go, and then what?! I think jurors understand at this point that there are a lot of quirky rules and procedures and that they just have to go with the flow. Being questioned separately about what they might have seen only means that someone might have seen something, but if they didn't, then no big deal.

 

[momrek06]

Good Morning, everyone.

Sorry I have been missing in action BUT I have been doing my best to keep up.

And my 2cents on all this is WHY ON EARTH was this Jury not sequestered?

This is a HUGE case and I belived I remember reading that the Courts knew it would be big. Its also the Judge's first DP case.

WHY did they not sequester the Jury and then I highly doubt any Jurors would have seen anything like the DT is claiming. I am guessing the Jury would have been all taken out a back court room door to a waiting bus to shuttle them off to their hotel. Hence, not getting to see any attorneys leaving the building.

Just a thought.



HAPPY EASTER, everyone!!!

 

[usnuzuloose]

Great, I was really hoping they didn't ... But now that they were questioned, wouldn't that possibly intrigue their curiosity of what exactly they were being questioned about and then maybe prompting some of them to sneak a peek at a newspaper, tv or Internet? ... Maybe the judge should have just asked the jury as a whole whether they saw, heard or were approached by anyone about the case like she has already been doing instead of asking them individually which could raise their suspicion, KWiM? ... Ugh, I am just a bit paranoid that this thing will end up taking a turn for the worse somehow ...

For some of these jurors I don't know how they could not see things, they still have to live and do errands. What about the ones who may not have anyone to do their grocery shopping or pay bills just every day living. You can't avoid everything. I think it is an unfair question from the judge every day, I know she has to ask.

It is the same with Juan he has to live and do the every day things outside of work as well. I mean what if he were out doing stuff and people grouped around him and the media was out and a juror happened to see that. Then what? Who ever made the decision not to sequester this jury made a wrong decision. There have been pictures on WS of JW, KN , and BBB lady walking out the front door and posing for pictures and smiling as well.

I truly think that this is the defense's last chance to stop this trial at all costs.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Good Morning, everyone.

Sorry I have been missing in action BUT I have been doing my best to keep up.

And my 2cents on all this is WHY ON EARTH was this Jury not sequestered?

This is a HUGE case and I belived I remember reading that the Courts knew it would be big. Its also the Judge's first DP case.

WHY did they not sequester the Jury and then I highly doubt any Jurors would have seen anything like the DT is claiming. I am guessing the Jury would have been all taken out a back court room door to a waiting bus to shuttle them off to their hotel. Hence, not getting to see any attorneys leaving the building.

Just a thought.



HAPPY EASTER, everyone!!!

I posted this back on page 144 when the topic came up.

For 4 months?? No way. I think that's one of the reasons the CA trial ended the way it did. They bonded! There are studies (don't ask me to quote them...I'll sound like Samuels) about the impact of sequestering a jury.

I think sequestering this jury would have been a nightmare. There's no court on Friday, which gives them one more day a week to languish in a hotel room for 4 - 5 MONTHS. (Speculation on HLN that Violet will be on the stand ALL NEXT WEEK, and closing arguments might not be until the week of April 15, and I think that's being optimistic.) There was a 2 week break for some reason a while back. I can't even begin to really list the negative impact sequestering would have. I think one of the reasons the CA jurors didn't spend ANY time deliberating is that they wanted to get the hell out of there. CA's trial was 6 WEEKS. I would have walked out of this trial a long time ago if I were a sequestered juror.

 

[Brit17]

For some of these jurors I don't know how they could not see things, they still have to live and do errands. What about the ones who may not have anyone to do their grocery shopping or pay bills just every day living. You can't avoid everything. I think it is an unfair question from the judge every day, I know she has to ask.

It is the same with Juan he has to live and do the every day things outside of work as well. I mean what if he were out doing stuff and people grouped around him and the media was out and a juror happened to see that. Then what? Who ever made the decision not to sequester this jury made a wrong decision. There have been pictures on WS of JW, KN , and BBB lady walking out the front door and posing for pictures and smiling as well.

I truly think that this is the defense's last chance to stop this trial at all costs.

I hope someone will bring that to the Judge's attention now too ... Geesh, this DT is giving me a real ...

 

[reelmom]

I noticed that necklace yesterday. I was like whaaaaat?!? Maybe the DT told her to wear it. Maybe it's to make herself feel better. Maybe she liked the design. Maybe it was on sale. Who knows.

I was thinking that maybe one of jodi's siblings gave her the necklace. Maybe to say that in their eyes, she was a #1 Mom due to the fact that she goes to court everyday knowing how JA treated her and everybody else in her life.

 

[momrek06]

I posted this back on page 144 when the topic came up.I think sequestering this jury would have been a nightmare. There's no court on Friday, which gives them one more day a week to languish in a hotel room for 4 - 5 MONTHS. (Speculation on HLN that Violet will be on the stand ALL NEXT WEEK, and closing arguments might not be until the week of April 15, and I think that's being optimistic.) There was a 2 week break for some reason a while back. I can't even begin to really list the negative impact sequestering would have. I think one of the reasons the CA jurors didn't spend ANY time deliberating is that they wanted to get the hell out of there. CA's trial was 6 WEEKS. I would have walked out of this trial a long time ago if I were a sequestered juror.

But Mare, don't you think the trial would go differently had they decided from the beginning that this would be a SJ. By that I mean HOLD court on Friday's. Why is there is no Court on Friday anyway? If this Judge was busy with other court pending issues on Fridays (before she was even selected) then maybe the Courts should have gone to the next Judge in the 'que' as I understand it is a que when it comes to deciding who will hear a trial.

Also, like the PTSD, I am getting really tired of JA and all this migraine talk. As the mom of a DS who suffers with migraines, I am very doubtful that JA has a migraine. Remember, JA kept a journal of her daily life and NOT ONCE is there a mention of her having a bad day due to migraines. OR seeking help for her migraines. AT ALL.
As far as Willie saying JA needs to take her medication; its simply an aspirin, I am so sure. The Courts are so tight about every thing I highly doubt she is taking prescription medication in the Courtroom or that her DT is now in charge of 'scripts for JA. (I personally think its all a SHOW for the cameras.)

I have watched allot of trials on TRU and I really do not recall watching a trial that had this much ……. #1) the number of sidebars. #2) how late this trial starts daily. #3) how often the Jury is sent in and out of the courtroom. #4) how often the trial is abruptly recessed for the day. #5) having to hear about the defendents meals or lack there of.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I posted this back on page 144 when the topic came up.I think sequestering this jury would have been a nightmare. There's no court on Friday, which gives them one more day a week to languish in a hotel room for 4 - 5 MONTHS. (Speculation on HLN that Violet will be on the stand ALL NEXT WEEK, and closing arguments might not be until the week of April 15, and I think that's being optimistic.) There was a 2 week break for some reason a while back. I can't even begin to really list the negative impact sequestering would have. I think one of the reasons the CA jurors didn't spend ANY time deliberating is that they wanted to get the hell out of there. CA's trial was 6 WEEKS. I would have walked out of this trial a long time ago if I were a sequestered juror.

I agree with you to an extent , they should have gotten a judge that had the time for this trial. There are so many goings on. This poor jury some days ( feels like poptarts ) In and out. The jury would have really enclosed on the days of no court. But this judge needs more control and move this trial along.

 

[WPack911]

So final word is none of jurors saw anything then?

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

But Mare, don't you think the trial would go differently had they decided from the beginning that this would be a SJ. By that I mean HOLD court on Friday's. Why is there is no Court on Friday anyway? If this Judge was busy with other court pending issues on Fridays (before she was even selected) then maybe the Courts should have gone to the next Judge in the 'que' as I understand it is a que when it comes to deciding who will hear a trial.

I have absolutely no idea why they don't hold court on Fridays, or if they could have made changes to schedules so they could. This case got pushed out and pushed out, so that maybe by the time they finally came up with a viable start date, there were so many other things scheduled. I have no idea. To rearrange other cases could have taken away the rights of those other defendants. Even with Fridays (and I only mentioned Fridays in the first place as one issue of many), this trial has already gone about 40 days of testimony, I think I heard, with Lord only knows how many days to come.

Sequestering costs a ton of money and people are already boohooing about the cost of the trial as it is. Housing and food and whatever other expenses for 18 people for ____ days, including round the clock supervision to whatever extent is necessary. And as a sequestered juror, there's a lot of psychology involved in basically being cut off from the rest of the world and spending day and night with people not of your choosing. Probably some of these jurors could not have served because they need that time on the weekends for work and family.

I remember Judge Perry had to jump through hoops to figure out and try to arrange for all the necessary people involved to hold court on Saturdays. Just because it worked out in that case, doesn't mean it was easy or that it might have been impossible.

There are certainly reasons why THIS particular jury should be sequestered, but there are lots of considerations, and lots of negatives.

Found this info/study about sequestration:
http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_privacy_sequester.asp

Sequestering a jury means keeping all the jurors together in a location separate from their normal abodes, under the care of court authorities, throughout some or all of the trial. Surprisingly, there is not much legal scholarship about sequestration—in fact, there is only one major article on the topic in the last decade: Marcy Strauss, "Sequestration," 24 Am. J. Crim. L. 63 (1996). Fortunately, it is a very thorough one. Some of Professor Strauss’ conclusions are set forth below.

Although the number of cases in which sequestration is ordered is relatively small, the dread thought of being on a sequestered jury looms large in the public’s mind.

Sequestration is governed by statute in the federal and all state systems. Statutes are of four types:

• Most jurisdictions do not require sequestration during either the trial or deliberation stages in any kind of case but give the trial judge discretion to order sequestration in any case.
• Some states require sequestration in certain kinds of cases, but give discretion to the trial judge in all other kinds of cases. The most common kind of case in which sequestration is required is death penalty cases.
• A few states require sequestration for deliberations but give discretion to the judge concerning whether to order sequestration prior to deliberations.
• A couple of states require sequestration in certain cases for either the whole trial, or for deliberations, if either litigant requests it.

The reasons for requiring sequestration are some or all of the following:

• Preventing exposure of the jurors to prejudicial publicity
• Minimizing pressure from non-jurors for a particular verdict
• Ensuring juror safety from harassment, threats, or actual violence
• Promoting a perception of fairness because of assurance of no outside influence

The reasons for not requiring sequestration are:

• It is financially costly to the government.
• It risks psychological harm to the jurors if the sequestration period is long.
• It may be counter to truth-seeking because it:
  • Can lead to a non-representative jury because only limited categories of people are available for a jury that will be sequestered.
  • Can cause jurors to rush to judgment to escape sequestration.
  • Can cause the jurors to identify with the government (as the jury’s caretaker) or against the government (as the jury’s jailer).
  • Can cause lawyers and judges to try to rush the case along to avoid the possibility that the jury will align against the party that seems to be prolonging the case.

Prof. Strauss concludes that the costs of sequestration outweigh its benefits, and that the practice should be abolished.

I'm not necessarily saying that I believe that NO WAY should this jury have been sequestered. (And I don't know if either side requested it and it was denied, or if there was a request for change of venue and it was denied.) What I'm saying is that it's a huge undertaking, with potentially (and likely?) negative consequences. I would absolutely do whatever I had to do NOT to serve on a sequestered jury...it would drive me insane. I do believe, however, that I would be a very good, conscientious juror if not sequestered.

I would not be surprised if they are sequestered during deliberations. And I wouldn't be surprised if they're not.

 

[usnuzuloose]

This is what is baffeling, I don't think there is any other case being held in there on Fiday, So hopefully we get 3 days this week.

 

[crazymama]

Hi everyone,
I have been lurking and really enjoying all the conversation around this gong show of a trial (oops... inside voice again!) I have been trying to not get as wrapped up in this trial as I was for the Anthony trial... that was a tough pill to swallow. But, I have been following to some degree and have a really basic question that someone can hopefully answer. As I was watching a bit of the special show on the Jodi footage today I got to wondering just how they got those phone sex tapes? Did Jodi tape them for her own kinky pleasure? What the heck? How does one even tape their phone conversations? Do you use an answering machine? It is bugging me.
Also, it has probably been mentioned somewhere in the hundreds of prior posts but does it not seem weird that Jodi chronically wipes her nose but NEVER wipes a tear away??? She was always pawing at her nose but I have never seen that tissue go to her eyes. It is so ridiculous. If your nose is truly running from crying... there should be tears to match.
Just had to get that off my chest!! Thanks for indulging me...

 

[momrek06]

I have absolutely no idea why they don't hold court on Fridays, or if they could have made changes to schedules so they could. This case got pushed out and pushed out, so that maybe by the time they finally came up with a viable start date, there were so many other things scheduled. I have no idea. To rearrange other cases could have taken away the rights of those other defendants. Even with Fridays (and I only mentioned Fridays in the first place as one issue of many), this trial has already gone about 40 days of testimony, I think I heard, with Lord only knows how many days to come.

Sequestering costs a ton of money and people are already boohooing about the cost of the trial as it is. Housing and food and whatever other expenses for 18 people for ____ days, including round the clock supervision to whatever extent is necessary. And as a sequestered juror, there's a lot of psychology involved in basically being cut off from the rest of the world and spending day and night with people not of your choosing. Probably some of these jurors could not have served because they need that time on the weekends for work and family.

I remember Judge Perry had to jump through hoops to figure out and try to arrange for all the necessary people involved to hold court on Saturdays. Just because it worked out in that case, doesn't mean it was easy or that it might have been impossible.

There are certainly reasons why THIS particular jury should be sequestered, but there are lots of considerations, and lots of negatives.

Found this info/study about sequestration:
http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_privacy_sequester.asp I'm not necessarily saying that I believe that NO WAY should this jury have been sequestered. (And I don't know if either side requested it and it was denied, or if there was a request for change of venue and it was denied.) What I'm saying is that it's a huge undertaking, with potentially (and likely?) negative consequences. I would absolutely do whatever I had to do NOT to serve on a sequestered jury...it would drive me insane. I do believe, however, that I would be a very good, conscientious juror if not sequestered.

I would not be surprised if they are sequestered during deliberations. And I wouldn't be surprised if they're not.

Thanks so much, Mare for looking all that up ^^^ and posting it.

Yes, I definitely see the PLUS and the MINUS of SJ! I just worry when someone is as GUILTY as JA, that any inappropriate behavior from either a juror or say what the DT is now saying about JM and that a juror witnessed it, could have consequences on the out come scares the crap out of me. Like I said I watched CA and I was in so much pain after that trial ended. I have no clue what I will feel like if THIS trial does not turn out a guilty verdict. Gawd. I would hate the reason JA is not found guilty is because of something totally unrelated to what she did to Travis and something that happened DURING the trial.

Am I making any sense at all here? Ugh. I hope so.

But lately I have been feeling unsure about things and now we have crap like this coming out with JM and migraines and lack of lunch/food and people in the audience shouting out things that cause disruptions. Gawd.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Thanks so much, Mare for looking all that up ^^^ and posting it.

Yes, I definitely see the PLUS and the MINUS of SJ! I just worry when someone is as GUILTY as JA, that any inappropriate behavior from either a juror or say what the DT is now saying about JM and that a juror witnessed it, could have consequences on the out come scares the crap out of me. Like I said I watched CA and I was in so much pain after that trial ended. I have no clue what I will feel like if THIS trial does not turn out a guilty verdict. Gawd. I would hate the reason JA is not found guilty is because of something totally unrelated to what she did to Travis and something that happened DURING the trial.

Am I making any sense at all here? Ugh. I hope so.

But lately I have been feeling unsure about things and now we have crap like this coming out with JM and migraines and lack of lunch/food and people in the audience shouting out things that cause disruptions. Gawd.

I understand a juror needs to go home, but this person put themselves out there knowing that even media alone could approach them. Sometimes media needs to stay away from things that they know could have a huge affect. If someone does that maybe they should bill the media for the cost.

 

[momrek06]

Hi everyone,
I have been lurking and really enjoying all the conversation around this gong show of a trial (oops... inside voice again!) I have been trying to not get as wrapped up in this trial as I was for the Anthony trial... that was a tough pill to swallow. But, I have been following to some degree and have a really basic question that someone can hopefully answer. As I was watching a bit of the special show on the Jodi footage today I got to wondering just how they got those phone sex tapes? Did Jodi tape them for her own kinky pleasure? What the heck? How does one even tape their phone conversations? Do you use an answering machine? It is bugging me.
Also, it has probably been mentioned somewhere in the hundreds of prior posts but does it not seem weird that Jodi chronically wipes her nose but NEVER wipes a tear away??? She was always pawing at her nose but I have never seen that tissue go to her eyes. It is so ridiculous. If your nose is truly running from crying... there should be tears to match.
Just had to get that off my chest!! Thanks for indulging me...

Ok on the phone sex tapes, (I think?) no they did not tape them but that Verizon or their phone company they had cell service with was able to go back into JA and TA's phones and retrieve these conversations. Like I said (I think?) At the beginning of the trial, there were Verizon witnesses on the stand and they explained it. There were several phone personnel that took the stand.

There are so many DISer's on here that will come by and answer you properly!!!

As far as the crying and lack there of tears, she is an actress. Period.

Oh and

 

[usnuzuloose]

Ok on the phone sex tapes, (I think?) no they did not tape them but that Verizon or their phone company they had cell service with was able to go back into JA and TA's phones and retrieve these conversations. Like I said (I think?) At the beginning of the trial, there were Verizon witnesses on the stand and they explained it. There were several phone personnel that took the stand.

There are so many DISer's on here that will come by and answer you properly!!!

As far as the crying and lack there of tears, she is an actress. Period.

Oh and

She said she recorded them on her phone. She was in Yreka at the time. Yeah, actress is right, but I don't think she will be around for the red carpet....

 

[crazymama]

It has just been bugging me.. thanks for all your input! Well she may be an actress but hasn't obviously thought it all out. Watching her makes my flesh crawl. Yes Travis was a bit "freaky leaky" but Jodi was enjoying it ALL THE WAY! For her to play this modest, uncomfortable card is so irritating. I think I have been holding it in for too long. I'm like a geyser ready to blow!

 

[momrek06]

She said she recorded them on her phone. She was in Yreka at the time.

Thanks, usnuz!

Was there some testimony that JM was able to get past TEXT messages between JA and TA?

Oh as I recall, I don't think JM wanted that phone sex tape aired in Court because of some of the dialogue of TA's, am I right on that? It would be damaging to TA's character?