Good morning peoples! We're getting closer! (*gives me an instant stomach rumbling*)
This is from The State vs Jodi Arias (below), about the woman JM put on Death Row (Wendi Andriano). One of the things that struck me, and that I had wondered about, is that the jurors discussed the fact that if they gave her LIFE, it would be up to the judge to determine what "LIFE" meant...LWOP, or 25 years to life. I had thought when we started following the Jodi Arias case that LWOP would be the alternative to the Death Penalty, but when I put the verdict/sentences in the First Post last week, it was unnerving to see that THE JUDGE determines exactly what "life" means. (Goes along with the concerns that Brit posted above...can't go to a higher verdict later on.) So, what I had wondered about was...what exactly do the jurors know going into deliberations about how the sentence is applied? KWIM? Do they know the whole process beforehand?
RE: Wendi Andriano case | Prosecuted by Juan Martinez
After they reached the guilty verdict, jurors heard a week of testimony on why Andriano should be executed, the aggravating factors that go into a death penalty decision.
They deliberated for four hours before finding the slaying was especially cruel, qualifying her for the death sentence.
They then heard six days of testimony on mitigating factors, reasons her life should be spared.
They gathered in the jury room Dec. 16 to consider whether there were reasons for sparing Andriano's life.
It took four days.
The sometimes-heated deliberations dramatically changed the case's outcome, with a split jury gradually shifting toward the death verdict.
When the deliberations began, the nine women and three men took a vote. Only three supported a death sentence, with four favoring a life sentence and the others undecided, said juror Mary Fobes, 74, of Mesa.
Catalano said he wasn't sure.
"I still hadn't made up my mind. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt," he said.
After one day, the jury went home for a three-day weekend that some called full of soul searching.
When they reconvened, Catalano gave a pivotal speech outlining his reasons for supporting a death sentence, and the vote swung to 11-1 in favor of execution, Fobes said.
"It was very passionate on why he thought she deserved the death penalty," Fobes said. "The more I thought about it, how could she be so brutal? She must have totally flipped her wig. I don't know how anyone could do that."
But the jury was on the verge of a deadlock, with one holdout, a senior citizen from Gilbert, saying he was adamantly against the death penalty.
On the third day of deliberations, jurors took turns discussing each of 23 reasons listed by the defense for sparing Andriano's life, the mitigating factors, weighing whether they were sufficient cause for leniency.
They included that Andriano was a good mother to her children and had signed up at age 19 for missionary work when in Mexicali, Mexico, for the 91st Psalm Church, now the Harvest Family Church in Casa Grande.
Catalano said he gave all the mitigating factors some weight, but in the end, they were not enough.
"Does a good mother brutally murder her husband?" he said.
Percy said she also considered the arguments against execution, but on balance, "we could not find mitigating factors that overwhelmed the cruelty. To me, to everybody there, the knife wound was the crowning blow. She had three chances to back off."
While jurors were discussing whether to execute Andriano, they considered that they would have no control over whether the trial judge, Brian Ishikawa, would give her life in prison with or without parole, she said.
Jurors did not want to see a 25 years to life sentence.
"We also knew with the death penalty that she has an automatic appeal," Percy said.
Different parts of the case resonated with jurors. Some said they were moved by Andriano's plea for life during the mitigation phase on Dec. 16, just before the final deliberations, while others considered it an Academy Award acting job.
"I just thought, 'What an act you're putting on, honey,' " Fobes said. "She was such a liar. How could you believe anything she told you?"
The emotional impact of Andriano's 45-minute plea, in which she admitting making "a horrible choice that night" but insisted her cancer-stricken husband wanted to commit suicide, may have waned as days passed and jurors focused on the details of the case, Fobes said.
Erke was moved.
"Her speech was heartfelt. It teared me up," he said. But "I thought she was more sorry for the consequences of what she did than for the actions."
Others cited a videotape recording of the police interview with Andriano, only a few hours after the murder, as among the most incriminating evidence. The tape showed a relaxed Andriano talking to a Phoenix police detective, casually holding her knees against her chest.
"I can't imagine being so calm and collected and having no emotions," Percy said. "She never cried, she never asked about her kids, she seemed flirtatious."
As the third day of deliberations ended, Fobes said she told the holdout juror, a Gilbert senior citizen, "Wendi has manipulated you. He said, 'Yes, I know.' "
The next day, the holdout gave a short speech saying he changed his mind. He declined two requests for an interview.
The jury delivered the death penalty verdict Dec. 22.
"Walking in there with that verdict, I was shaking like a leaf," Erke said, the daunting power of deciding if someone lives or dies overwhelming him. "It's 'Oh, my God, it's really happened.' "
Most are still mulling over their decision, but only one juror, a young nurse, expressed doubts.
"Sometimes, I think I'm too hard-hearted," Fobes said. "But she didn't feel any sympathy for him (the husband)."
Percy said a telling look from Andriano was reassuring after a clerk read the verdict.
"She gave us a look like, 'How dare you?' " Percy said. "I thought, 'I made the right decision.' "
... I'm paraphrasing, but Chris said that the email said so much more than Violet testified about and she totally misconstrued it and she only focused on the one sentence where he wrote the word "abuse" ... He also said that further on in the email he even retracted the word "abuse" saying it was too harsh of a word to even use ... He also said that he and his wife threw JA out of their home in April 2007 and told her she was no longer welcomed there because she freaked them out ... Skye Hughes will be on the show tomorrow ... So many important facts the jury will never hear 
...
... My thoughts and prayers are with the young man, your daughter and all those affected by this tragedy 
...
, the prosecution doesn't get any opportunity for an appeal whatsoever because of double jeopardy ... That's it, it's over, no do-overs ... So I don't think it's necessarily fair to the prosecution that a judge may get swayed a little bit into letting things in or not just because they may be afraid of a possible appeal down the road, KWIM? ... ugh ... I just really hope the jury got all the evidence they need to render the appropriate verdict in this case ... I guess we will soon find out 
...
I totally understand! 
Had to fix that problem with my $2.50 box of Revlon! 
