Luke Skywalker
Super Moderator
{vb:raw ozzmodz_postquote}:
Jodi Arias, right, with her attorney, watches the jury enter the courtroom before hearing the hung jury verdict in the sentencing phase retrial Thursday, March 5, 2015 in Maricopa County Superior Court.(Photo: Tom Tingle, The Arizona Republic)
PHOENIX — In the wake of the Jodi Arias mistrial, trial watchers on social media have demanded that the lone juror who kept Arias from death row be investigated for juror misconduct. And Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has said that his office will "review the matter."
But Juror 17, the holdout for a life sentence, may have the legal upper hand.
Her attorney, Tom Ryan, calls a probe conducted by the prosecutor during jury deliberations "an abuse of the office, and it's shameful."
In the wake of the post-mistrial outing of her name and address on social media, Ryan said, "I believe a crime was committed by the release of confidential juror information, and we're going to the FBI to investigate."
Juror 17 has been threatened, harassed and lives under police protection. She told The Arizona Republic, "No one else is being researched but the holdout. It's upsetting and it makes you lose faith.
USA TODAY
Juror who saved Jodi Arias' life speaks out for first time
"I feel that as a juror I should have been protected."
The Republic will not print the woman's name, even though it has been disseminated elsewhere.
“When I find out who outed her, it is at least a civil case of invasion of privacy. Whoever did this did it with intent to harm.”
Tom Ryan, Juror 17's attorney
Legal experts are split as to whether prosecutor Juan Martinez acted appropriately by conducting an investigation into Juror 17 near the end of the Arias sentencing retrial, when it was revealed to the court that she was the only juror blocking a unanimous verdict.
Martinez presented a screen grab of the woman's Facebook page with her name on it as evidence of perceived bias, but Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens refused to remove her from the jury. The case proceeded to mistrial by hung jury.
Minutes after the mistrial was declared, the same piece of evidence — the Facebook screen shot — was posted online and sent to journalists waiting in the courthouse to interview the 11 jurors who wanted to send Arias to her death.
Juror identities are supposed to be protected. It is a crime to reveal them against their will.
It is a short list of people who were in the sealed court hearing where Martinez presented the evidence: the judge and her staff; the prosecutor; the case detective; defense attorneys; Jodi Arias; and victim Travis Alexander's family.
"When I find out who outed her, it is at least a civil case of invasion of privacy," Ryan said. "Whoever did this did it with intent to harm."
USA TODAY
Arias records show turmoil over juror
Or it could be a federal case, possibly with civil-rights implications.
"There is a constitutional obligation and a right to serve on jury duty," said Larry Hammond, a prominent defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.
"To interfere with someone's privacy while they are serving on a jury may be actionable," Hammond said.
“I was so emotional, I was sobbing.”
Juror 17
The effect is chilling.
"I think we all should be concerned with the integrity of the legal process if the prosecutors are allowed to investigate jurors simply because they don't agree with them," said Arias' defense attorney, Jennifer Willmott.
"If the jury ends up saying that the community wants things a certain way, that may keep you from voting your conscience. Will you do jury duty if you will need police protection or if you need to hire a lawyer?"
It is a felony to influence, coerce or threaten a juror to change his or her vote, but those Arizona laws presuppose a verdict has not already been decided.
It is also in state law that juror names and biographical information are to be kept confidential unless ordered disclosed by the court.
According to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the guidelines for conducting trials, jurors may not be forced to disclose their reasoning, "the subjective motives or mental processes" that led them to vote one way or another.
USA TODAY
Authorities provide security for juror in Jodi Arias case
And in capital-case jury instructions, jurors are informed that they do not have to come to unanimous decisions as to the weight of mitigating evidence that may persuade them to vote for or against a death verdict.
In fact, jurors are told repeatedly during instructions to vote their conscience.
But the Arias case has blazed new trails, with trial watchers in cyberspace, both pro-Arias and anti-Arias, trying to bully, insult and influence media coverage and the outcome of the trial.
Juror 17 is now essentially in hiding.
"I'm not the person I was when I went into this," she said in a recent interview.
'NOT AN IMPARTIAL JURY'
In June 2008, Arias killed her lover, Travis Alexander, who was found in the shower of his Mesa, Ariz., home with a bullet in his head, nearly 30 stab wounds and a slit throat. Arias eventually confessed to the murder, but she claimed self-defense.
In May 2013, after a 21-week trial, she was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury found the murder had been committed in an especially cruel manner, making Arias eligible for the death penalty.
The jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict on whether to sentence Arias to death or to life in prison, however.
USA TODAY
Angry Jodi Arias jurors say holdout had 'agenda'
A new jury was impaneled in October 2014, not to redetermine guilt or innocence, but only to determine whether she should get a life or death sentence.
Their initial vote on a sentence was split, with seven wanting death, four undecided, and Juror 17 opting for life.
As they discussed the case, Juror 17 brought up the made-for-TV movie.
There were words thrown around.
"Right away I got the feeling that they were not an impartial jury," she said.
TWO NOTES SENT TO JUDGE
Two notes went to the judge which ultimately identified how the jury was leaning.
Prosecutor Martinez asked that Juror 17 be removed in accord with other jurors' complaints. But Stephens noted that Juror 17 had disclosed having seen the film about Arias' case, and other things, on her juror questionnaire.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez presents his final arguments during the sentencing phase retrial of Jodi Arias at Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix on Feb. 24, 2015. Legal experts are split as to whether Martinez acted appropriately by conducting an investigation into Juror 17 near the end of the sentencing retrial.<span style="color: Red;">*</span>(Photo: Mark Henle, The Arizona Republic)
Later that day, Martinez produced the Facebook page, which identified Juror 17 by name, and asked that she be removed.
Martinez again asked Stephens on March 4, to consider removing Juror 17. She would not. The next day, Stephens declared a mistrial.
Under state law, Arias could not be tried again. She would get life.
"I was so emotional, I was sobbing," Juror 17 said. She claimed she had gone home crying several nights. For the last three nights of the trial, she was escorted out separately from the other jurors.
IDENTITY MADE PUBLIC
When jurors met with reporters, they lambasted Juror 17.
They would not identify themselves. But Juror 17 had already been warned by the court that the public knew her name.
USA TODAY
Jodi Arias spared death as jury deadlocks on sentence
"I deactivated all my social-media accounts," she said. But her relatives were caught unaware.
Meanwhile, tweets and Facebook posts were going viral, listing her name and asking that it be passed on.
"My phone started ringing off the hook, so I changed my number," she said.
Her relatives started receiving threats and doctored photos. The trial watchers began scouring the Internet and revealing details of her life, including the convictions of her husband and ex-husband — and the surprise that the first husband had been prosecuted by none other than Martinez. That fueled speculation that she had been a "stealth juror" intent on undermining the prosecution's case.
She now has police protection.
"This woman is living in fear of her life," Ryan said. "And for what?"
LEGAL COMMUNITY DIVIDED
County Attorney Bill Montgomery would not comment on Juror 17 beyond a written statement issued last week.
"In instances where there is credible information of misconduct, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office will review the matter, request an independent investigation, and then seek an independent review for any potential charges and then for prosecution," he said. He also called on trial watchers for reason.
Whether Montgomery intends to pursue allegations of misconduct against Juror 17 remains to be seen.
The legal community is split on whether Martinez should have investigated a juror keeping him from getting the verdict he wanted.
USA TODAY
Jury starts deliberating in Jodi Arias sentencing trial
"You're telling people that their opinion really matters and that they should consult their consciences and understand that this is one of the most important decisions you can make," said Hammond, the defense attorney. "But please be forewarned that the prosecutor can conduct an investigation into your private dealings while you're doing that."
“I don't know if a lawyer does anything wrong by checking it out. It's what you do with the information later.”
Michael Terribile, a defense attorney
Michael Terribile, a defense attorney who says outright that he is not a Martinez fan, thinks it's OK for a lawyer to investigate a juror.
"I don't know if a lawyer does anything wrong by checking it out. It's what you do with the information later," Terribile said. "Where it broke down is, the judge didn't tell the other jurors that nobody has a right to tell anyone they're wrong."
But there was no debate about revealing the juror's name and personal information.
"That's more than troubling," said former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton. "If someone disclosed that information to intimidate her, that is of extraordinary concern. If it was done intentionally, then someone needs to answer for that."
Juror 17, meanwhile, wants no more part of jury duty.
"I don't ever want to do it again," she said. "You're asked to take an oath that you're going to be impartial and you're going to take everything under consideration. And you do, and get punished."
Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed