Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Appeals court: Jodi Arias testimony must be made public


Appeals judges said they did not doubt the volume or malicious nature of Arias' jail mail, "her concern does not, as a matter of law, amount to an extremely serious substantive evil warranting closing the trial to the public and press."


Media story:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/16/court-jodi-arias-testimony-public/20485865/





 ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS RULING:  
 
http://cdn-static.wildabouttrial.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CourtOfAppeals.pdf

“BOULDER OF EVIDENCE” Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Retrial: A Juror’s Perspective
DAY 17
“BOULDER OF EVIDENCE”
This is the third phase of the Death Penalty Retrial of Jodi Arias for the premeditated and heinous murder of Travis Alexander. The third phase is sometimes called the sentencing or penalty phase. It can also be called the aggravation and mitigation phase. This phase is different from the first two phases for a Jury. In the prior two phases, they reach a decision “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and this is done collectively and requires a unanimous vote. The verdict in the first phase determines the type of murder. The agreement of a verdict in the second phase is the death penalty qualifying phase.
The third phase requires a Juror to come to his or her own decision in deciding life or death for the defendant. Their path of knowledge and experience does not have to be agreed upon by the Jury as a whole. Each Juror makes their decision influenced by their own personal experiences. It is usually those same experiences that are drawn out of the Voir Dire Questionnaire prior to their final selection.
One of those questions read, “Have you ever experienced Domestic Violence in your direct household? Please explain:”
In the mitigation phase, a Juror must ultimately decide if there is a preponderance of evidence, or it is more likely than not, that mitigating factors will reduce the culpability of the Defendant’s act. For the Juror to give abuse weight as a mitigating factor, they must determine that it was more likely to have existed than not. The Juror may decide that some abuse may have existed but it is not enough to reduce culpability. Or, they may decide it did exist and should be considered as a mitigating factor There is a specific law addendum that focuses on Domestic Violence that the Jury is given.
Juan Martinez has to convince twelve Jurors that the Defendant’s aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors in this case.
The Defense team only has to convince one and they win the best possible scenario in their case: the life of the Defendant.
Sometimes, when I go to the Jodi Arias Retrial, I feel like I am walking down a slightly unfamiliar path but know exactly what is around the corner. I spent six months as a Juror the similar case of the brutal killing of Dale Harrell by Marissa DeVault. Our case had similarities that extend to this Jury. It had a similar path of testimony and it required twelve of us to pass through all three phases separated by deliberation periods. The longest period we deliberated was in the third phase of the trial. We deliberated over three and a half weeks to reach a decision in the sentencing phase. It is the most difficult phase of all. The difficulty is entrenched in “a preponderance of evidence” as opposed to a “shadow of a doubt”. It is the decision that requires truth from the soul as well as experiences of life.
Our Jury had three Domestic Violence survivors on it. This Jury is more likely than not, to have two to four Jurors who have experienced Domestic Violence. I am one of the three Domestic Violence survivors. It is not a fact I am proud of and it is not a badge. It is a life experience that requires soul searching in determining if someone else was a victim of a similar experience. There are rarely witnesses. There are rarely those who will stand up and admit they were abusers. There are the people who look away and pretend it does not exist.
I know that the Jurors who admitted on the Voir Dire that they had experienced Domestic Violence all regretted writing the experience down while they were driving home. A Juror completes the Voir Dire without any notice that a question like that will appear. The answer to that question was a big reason they were qualified for the Jury. Its importance will be realized in the deliberation phase and the law recognizes its challenges.
The day opened with Dr. Geffner on the witness stand being questioned by Jennifer Willmott. It was not the most exciting day for many because the day was spent mostly on the education of the Jury on Domestic Violence. It began with some loose and sloppy evidence when Jennifer Willmott put Dr. Geffner’s DAPS (Detailed Assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress) Report on all the screen for the Jury to see.
The Jury saw what I saw. The paper displayed on the screen had been copied about twenty times with little gray flecks all over the documentation. There were a bunch of scribbled dates on the top of the sheet done in Sharpie. The dates were scribbled out and changed. The Doctor claimed he got his paperwork mixed up. The graphs on the screen did not look computer generated although they may have been.
The center of the graph has a thin line going through it. It is the “mean” or average results. Jodi Arias’ results featured a bar graph that was at the very top of the graph. Dr. Geffner stated that her results “profile is extreme with some exaggeration.”
The Jury won’t look at that document in the deliberation room. It impeached itself by its presentation so all the words that may have been spoken to the Jury may as well have been the same white noise we hear in the Gallery when the Judge has a bench conference.
He and Jennifer Willmott continued the education of the Jury on Domestic Violence by putting up a chart that was circular with pie slices.
“If you look at it as a pie,” Dr. Geffner said in a professorial tone, “You will see that each piece is has a name for it and represents a segment of Domestic Violence. Consider the entirety of the pie as power and control. One piece of it is physical abuse. This covers such things as hitting, hair pulling, slapping and generally violent physical behavior.”
The Jury looked at him and I saw two or three taking notes. I would have expected more taking notes. I remember as a Juror that I took notes on everything because I did not have the knowledge to discern what was important or not. There were times I did not take notes because we had either heard it before or the testimony was valueless because the witness had impeached him or herself.
In my book, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale”, one such witness was Stanley Cook who was a direct witness to the murder of Dale Harrell. One would think a Juror would be a voracious note taker when that witness was on the stand. Once you meet the witness in the book, you’ll understand why none of us wasted our time with notes.
The fact that few are note taking tells me many are not appreciating the weight of his testimony as the Defense would like.
The Doctor continued, “There is emotional abuse which includes putting a person down, calling a person names and blaming the other person for many things. We can see another slice enumerating isolation as a form of abuse. The abuser will keep a person hidden away from family and friends.”
Although it was simple to follow, it became tireless in its unending detail of the complete rainbow of the abuse spectrum such as sexual abuse, intimidation, economic abuse, using male privilege to control and threats of suicide.
I felt the air change when Jennifer Willmott began pursuing how these attributes applied to Travis Alexander. I thought this Psychologist affable yesterday and my opinion changed with each question that Willmott asked. I did not feel that this was a foundation of what Travis Alexander was as a person and I did not agree with the Doctor “making the pieces” fit. I don’t think the Jury liked it either because we were back on Travis Alexander with only one day of respite in his character assassination.
The Jury wants to know about Jodi Arias and this argument was deflected in the wrong direction. Juan Martinez objected to much of this testimony’s relevance throughout the day.
The Jurors who have experienced Domestic Violence were not relieved when the Doctor’s focus changed to the upbringing of Jodi Arias.
The Doctor spoke in long paragraphs about the Psychological reactions to being an abused child and how it manifests itself in adulthood. He talked of the loss of identity a victim goes through. He speaks of the fears, guilt, shame, self-blame, depression and suicidal thoughts of victims of child abuse. He was not afraid to speak of the dependency, emotional instability and host of other ramifications of abuse that appear in adulthood.
The Doctor drizzled the knowledge he was conveying to the Jury by randomly connecting it to Jodi Arias and the abuse she allegedly suffered. He spoke of the wooden spoon incident about seven times throughout the day emphasizing its welts. It was because of her upbringing that she became the introverted victim that she was. The results of abuse were conveyed in her cognitive, emotional and social character of being a victim of intimate partner violence.
Jodi Arias’ mother sat in the front row. I wonder what the Jury searched for on her face.
Juan is going to have a field day on this Psychologist. I noticed that the Doctor brought up incidents between Arias and Travis Alexander from 2006, 2007 and 2008. He used these dates more than once. The Jury is wondering how that is possible if they only dated for four months.
The Jury was also introduced to a new “memory gap” from Dr. Geffner. He claimed she had issues remembering anything from when she was twelve to fourteen years of age. I don’t think it got past the Jury to see that it coincidentally lined up with when she was caught growing Marijuana in her room in the seventh or eighth grade. The Doctor offered that she could not remember the trauma she must have suffered.
We are in the middle of the afternoon and no one on the Jury is taking notes.
Her second memory gap surrounds the murder of Travis Alexander but the Doctor does say she is “remembering bits and pieces”. I looked toward the Prosecution table and thought about what Juan Martinez might do with that tasty morsel. Juan loves dates. Dr. Fonseca remembers that much of her interrogation.
This Jury does not care to see this Doctor any more. His evidence is like an artificial boulder made from Styrofoam. It looks big and heavy and when lifted it is weightless.
Those who have survived Domestic Violence, a most horrific thing to go through, can see straight through this Red Herring. There is nothing there and its value lost in paperwork somewhere. Somebody forgot to prove that Jodi Arias experienced abuse whether it was in her childhood or by the hands of Travis Alexander. The rest of the Jurors will dismiss it far faster than those who have experienced it.
The feigning of abuse by partner or parent is particularly personal to those who have been persecuted by an abuser. It makes us angry because it diminishes its great importance and reality that it exists. It exists behind closed doors and to the deaf ears of neighbors. It has many forms and its damage is real. Many survive and some do not survive its effects. We have heard stories of feigned abuse all of our lives which is survivors reminder, and it upsets us.
There is a line between discipline and abuse. If the discipline is physical to a child, the line is defined by the presence of a mark.
The Jury will have an impossible time trying to link abuse to Jodi Arias.
Jodi wore her “poor little me” face all day. I did not see her look at her mother once…
“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the Spirit of Travis Alexander.”
Justice 4 Travis Alexander…
Justice for Dale…
Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Picture of ja in court. Showing a bit too much for court.

Here she is, once again, trying to use her body to manipulate male jurors by wearing a shirt that doesn't cover up her entire chest.  The Judge needs to take her aside and tell her and Maria De La Rosa what kind of clothing is appropriate attire inside of a courtroom.  Apparently, neither ja or Maria get it.   


ja's attempt to try and manipulate the court.

Reposting:  The motion JM filed to object to ja's request that the court reconsider its order denying dismissal of the State's notice seeking imposition of the death penalty.  

Filed on Dec. 1, 2014 by Juan Martinez.


ja's CLAIMS that her "alleged" witnesses are refusing to testify unless the court proceedings are closed to the public while they are testifying.  ja tried to make up her own "legal reasoning" where no law applies to her BS. JM made it pretty clear that ja's attorneys can subpoena her witnesses and that it'll be the DT's own fault if they don't. Also that the jury can't be faulted for not hearing any evidence that the DT doesn't put out there for them to see/hear.  
   


http://karasoncrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/States-Objection-to-Motion-to-Reconsider.pdf

ja tried using this same game of manipulation before during the retrial of her sentencing phase when she took the stand.  The only differences is that before she implicated herself as being the "uncooperative" witness.  Judge SS isn't stupid.  She has got to see the game of manipulation that ja has been playing.  Judge SS needs to put a stop to ja's and the DT stall tactics and BS reasons that ja and the DT come up with in an attempt to take the DP off of the table.     


azfamily.com
Posted on December 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM
Updated today at 1:06 PM



The opinion said Arias did not feel she would be "able to fully communicate what she wants to say, communicate her remorse and go through all the mitigating factors and get them out there in front of the jury with the public here," her lawyers told the judge.

The judge suggested that the public and press be moved to an overflow room, and Arias objected to that alternative despite the judge expressing concern that she was being manipulative. She objected "because of the pressure that I would feel because of these threats," according to the opinion.

Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Court-reveals-why-Arias-wanted-testimony-private-285980661.html#ixzz3M69enS00



"FLAW IN FOUNDATION” Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter

The Jodi Arias Retrial: A Juror’s Perspective
DAY 16
“FLAW IN FOUNDATION”
The Jury came in today looking crisp and sharp. They filed in and the first row had to back step slightly in their row to account for the empty seat of Juror # 3. The seats are assigned by Juror numbers and those seats remain that way until the end. We are missing sit # 3 and # 9 in the first row and seat # 14 in the top row. Sixteen remain on the Jury and the four alternates will be chosen just before the Jury goes into the deliberation phase. There is not one Juror that wants to be an alternate and at least they won’t have to worry about it during the Holiday break.
We had one witness for the duration of the day and the Jury was happy not to see Dr. Fonseca.
Dr. Robert Geffner was called to the witness stand with Jennifer Willmott in charge of his questioning. It was a nice change of pace after the long period of time with Kirk Nurmi. There were a lot of things the Jury would have liked about today aside from it being a new witness on the stand. As I have mentioned before, Juries love evidence that they can touch and feel. Even though this was psychological testimony, the Jurors liked having evidence to look at. They were able to see a plethora of documentation of test results. 
Dr. Geffner was dressed sharply yet comfortably in a black suit with a white shirt complimented with a diamond pattern tie. His hair was trimmed and his face was accented by a salt and pepper mustache. He engaged well with Jennifer Willmott and he seemed to involve the Jury without the artificial behaviors that Dr. Fonseca endowed upon them. They felt they were being spoken to instead of being spoken at. I may not have seen a lot of note taking but I did see that many lacked the long faces displayed during the latter days of Fonseca being on the stand. They seemed to be leaning forward slightly and they looked at him and the displayed multiplicity of test results on the screens with keen interest.
The Jury is hungry for information and evidence and they are starving for forward progress. They liked that this Psychologist’s evidence focused solely on Jodi Arias instead of on Travis Alexander. I say this as a former Juror on the Death Penalty Trial of Marissa DeVault. We saw this same sequence of Psychological evidence and we, too, begged to know about the defendant. Instead of Dr. Geffner, our trial featured Dr, Cheryl Carp who spoke of the same battery of tests given to DeVault in her evaluations.
The MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) was explained by Dr. Geffner as having been one of the oldest and most tested of all examinations in the field of Psychology. This trusted examination has been used for nearly fifty years It has an updated version that was used in this case by both himself and Dr. DeMarte. Generally, this test is most valuable when taken a number of times over a span of years to track changing results and trends.
The Doctor spoke in a very affable manner as he discussed the things that came up as red flags for Jodi Arias. He said the test results revealed that she had a low self-esteem and was subject to anxiety and depression. Her personality traits showed under average signs of aggressiveness and hostility which she kept inside as she was more introverted than extroverted.
There was a point when the Doctor said that many personality disorders are actually signs of mental illness. He spoke specifically that she had a high range score in anxiety, paranoia and Schizophrenia. She fell into the category of a Psychopathic Deviate as she felt generally alienated from authority and society.
I watched Juan Martinez as he sat as his desk. He had his cheek cradled in the crook of his arm. He would look at the results of the test scores on the large screen directly across from the Jury. He looked at each presentation without emotion. Every once in a while, he would jot notes on his legal pad and then resume his position and look at the screen. I swear I could feel the wheels turning in his head. He was remarkably free of objections today.
I felt sorry for this nice and affable witness, for one day soon he would have to answer to Mr. Martinez. 
The Doctor spent the day covering such tests as the TSI (Traumatic System Inventory) in both the older and newer version, the PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory), the IBS (Interpersonal Behavioral Study), and the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test). Results were put on the screen in the form of graphs showing high levels, normal levels and below average levels. Numbers and abbreviations were used flowingly. It was fairly easy to follow and track his results and perceptions based on those results. It had the look and feel of evidence and all Juries like that. 
I remember feeling the same way when Dr. Carp walked us through the identical test results of Marissa DeVault. The evidence looked good. The test results looked tangible. A Juror rarely knows much about Psychology or its tests and applications. There is a greater trust when you can see it front of you.
Jennifer Willmott spent significant time on each piece of Psychological evidence by directing Dr. Geffner to show that each test had an embedded validity test. The scale is a computer interpretation of these test answers to detect flaws in patterns of answers and their consistency to each other. Each test showed a validity test that verified these results were sound.
I will say that Jennifer Willmott did a respectable job in handling her witness throughout the day. She asked questions that she seemed to know the answers to before she asked, she carried herself comfortably with fluid motion and one felt forward progress in moving through testimony.
“Let me ask you, Doctor,” she said with pointed interest toward him, “How can you tell if someone is lying or not on these examinations?”
Whether anyone new it or not, this was the most important question of the day.
In that moment, I realized that I had heard the very same question of Dr. Carp in the DeVault Trial. I also wrote about this in creating one of my favorite chapters in, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale (available on Amazon.com). Those who have read the book remember a chapter by the same title, “Malingering Problems”.
Malingering is a term used by Psychologists assigned to test answers that are maligned to be “Faking Good” (“I am an angel, I wouldn’t do that.”), or “Faking Bad”, (“I like to kill small animals because I am screwed up in the head”). The answers are manipulated by the subject to fit to what they think is the best answer to their situation as opposed to what the real answer is. 
I thought it interesting that Dr. Geffner found all the tests to be objective. I found it curious that the results of the tests of her personality do not match the horrific killing of Travis Alexander. The Jury will have just as hard a time matching her face to the crime as well as trying to match Psychological test results to the premeditation and cruelness of the crime.
At some point, the Jury will look at this evidence in the deliberation room as we looked at it in the DeVault Trial. A Jury judges the validity of witnesses before they ever start looking at evidence. In our case, we knew that the murderer was adept at lying and well versed in manipulation. There are few that are better than she was. As a Jury, we tossed anything she said or did out as useless. She spent hours and hours with Psychologists taking examinations. We spent hours as a Jury looking through test results during the trial. It was amazing how fast we discounted the evidence in the deliberation room because Marissa DeVault had provided the answers. She was a liar so her test results were not worth the dirt on the bottom of someone’s shoes. It is a Juror’s right to dismiss all or part of evidence and witness testimony.
Malingering is another word for lying. Jodi Arias is a proven liar. Kirk Nurmi stated to the Jury that, “We know Jodi Arias is a liar”, during the time when Dr. Fonseca was on the stand. I do not believe this Jury will be able to use any of this as evidence. It is inherently flawed because the test subject is inherently flawed.
The Jury may not figure it out right away. Some may even be going home tonight thinking there was some good evidence to work with. Others will give it little value.
We know something that the Jury doesn’t.
Dr. DeMarte is on the horizon. It may not be until January but she is coming. She knows what malingering is and the Jury will know what it is by the time she leaves the witness stand.
Her rebuttal testimony will render the conversation short in the deliberation room…
The oddest thing happened today. It is the first time that I have not heard the name of Travis Alexander during proceedings.
None of us have forgotten that he was there in each of our hearts.
“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the spirit of Travis Alexander.”
Justice 4 Travis Alexander…
Justice for Dale…
Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter

ja trial 12/15 Morning Session

http://tamaratattles.com/2014/12/15/jodi-arias-trial-1215-morning-session/

Posts made by some of the "crazies" that support ja.


^A Lonely, pathetic creature, whose mind is in the wrong place.  

^^^This one has their crap all twisted.          

Someone posted:  "She admitted, and the evidence clearly showed, that she brutally killed Alexander."  matken copied and pasted their comment into his/her own comment and posted the MESS underneath that sentence.  smh....It is CRAZY that matken actually posted the mess that he/she posted, let a lone that he/she actually believes it!   

^^^This gave me a headache when I read this mess.  There are no words to describe this person's babbling, except that this person is so far from the truth that it's not even funny.  

^^^This is just straight up FILTH.  Facebook ALLOWS the BS that he(possibly a she) spews.  

^^^Trash and stupidity!  


    

^^^Stupidity in it's truest form.  


^^^Disgusting TRASH!  

^^^More vomit spewed by this very disturbed and attention seeking idiot.

^^^More stupidity.  Like they are going to set a murderer free because some idiots claim to be in love with a murderer.  

^^^Crazy talk.  

^^^In denial and believes the lies that ja spews.

UNLIKE Team Tra$h, (Team ja), the money that some of TA's family members and/or friends  received/receives is NOT going to a murderer(ja), some of her family members(that are NOT the victims in this case), or to any other undesirables($cammers.)  
Unlike Team Tra$h, (Team ja), that are scamming, lying to, and begging people to get money from them, the money that some of TA's family members and/or friends are receiving or will receive are going about things in an honest and legal way.  Team Travis has done, is doing, and will continue to do some great things for a lot of people.   

^^^This is a comment that was posted below the original posting about TA's book that "GIVE ja a fair trial" posted on their page.  This comment is the type of GARBAGE that some of ja's supporters find acceptable.  TRASH!  
       

It appears that the administrator of the FB page "GIVE Jodi Arias A FAIR TRIAL" is racist against "American Whites."     

Jodi Arias retrial: More X-rated testimony

Posted: Nov 24, 2014 6:52 PM ESTUpdated: Nov 25, 2014 1:53 PM EST







http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27472280/2014/11/24/jodi-arias-sentencing-retrial-more-x-rated-testimony

"Twin Towers, Twin Trials, Twin Jurors" Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

TWIN TOWERS, TWIN TRIALS, TWIN JURORS
“The first thing that you realize after you are sworn in and sit in the Jury Box, is the enormity of it all. There is this huge Courtroom and you see the Judge, the Defendant and her attorneys, the Prosecution Team, the Jurors seated next to you and all the people in the Gallery. It is almost surreal.
The second thing that you realize is that everything that has happened since is a direct result of the Defendant’s horrific act…” Juror # 3
You will see an attached picture of what I call the “Twin Towers”. In the back, on the right, is the South Tower, which houses part of the Arizona Superior Court. The building has thirteen floors and each floor has at least two Courtrooms. The top floor of the building is where we tried, convicted and sentenced Marissa DeVault to life in prison without parole. It was on the thirteenth floor that I was Juror # 13 from January through June of 2014. My book, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale”, is the story of that trial and the search for Justice in the brutal killing of Dale Harrell.
The center of the picture features a pedestrian walkway that runs between the South Tower and the Central Tower which is the dark building on the left. This walkway is the same walkway that Juan Martinez used to go to the trial of Marissa DeVault. He was doing his homework. He was preparing for the retrial of Jodi Arias which is being held on the fifth floor of the building on the left.
I had the opportunity to meet Juan Martinez this past fall. I went to the Prosecutor’s office to meet Eric Basta, the Prosecutor in the DeVault case. I met with him so that I could fact check my book. At the same time, I was also attending the preliminary hearings prior to the start of the Arias Retrial including when Jodi Arias was acting as her own attorney. We were concluding my visit and as we walked out of Eric Basta’s office, we ran into Juan Martinez.
“Speak of the devil,” Eric said as he saw Juan.
I extended my hand and introduced myself.
“Didn’t I see you in my Courtroom this morning?” Juan queried of me.
“Yes, Sir,” I answered. “Didn’t I see you in my Courtroom in the DeVault Trial?”
He looked at me kind of funny as if he didn’t quite understand me when Mr. Basta explained to him that I had been a Juror for the DeVault Trial.
I think in that moment his perception of me changed. There was a sense of respect he had for the position of being a Juror. I think it paled in comparison to the respect I had for this soft-spoken warm gentleman. He was certainly not the person we see on the Courtroom floor. I was honored to be in his company.
So, it is through Juan Martinez that I find myself connected to this Trial.
I would like to take you on a journey as I see the Courthouse and some of what we will see comes from fifteen hours spent with Juror #3. We spent three hours on line, nine hours on the phone and three hours in person. There is nothing like two Death Penalty Jurors having a conversation. There is a bond that only Jurors can understand. It is sad, it is humorous, it is heartbreaking and it is humbling. It also paints a picture that I would like to share. This picture is colored by my acumen as an experienced Juror in the remarkably similar case of DeVault. These are my interpretations as it relates to my experience as a Juror. We did not discuss evidence and these opinions are expressly through my eyes. We only talked as bonded veterans of a unique experience.
For a moment, let’s pretend that everything is frozen in time. It is the last day that the Jury was present. We can see the people around us but nothing moves but us. We are standing on a block long walkway in the center of the picture. On the right is the building of the DeVault Trial I was on and on the left is where the Arias Retrial is being held.
We see the Courthouse where Arias is being retried on the sentencing phase, the third phase of the trial where the last Jury hung. We will walk up the same steps that the family of Travis Alexander walks up every day of trial. If you look to our left, you can see the two metal benches with people gathered about. Typically, that is where the trial watchers go to smoke and talk. They are all supporters of the Alexander family and the path to justice. You can see the “Cane Lady”, Kathy Brown, the girl with the long blond hair. Her cane is signed by Juan Martinez, an interesting story from the last Trial. She is the number one supporter of Justice for Travis and the Alexander family.
We will now walk through the glass doors. We see metal stantions and a “weave your way ribbon” to security. Guards are stationed at the metal detectors while others are monitoring the conveyor belt and security cameras. This is the very spot where Juror # 9 asked Beth Karas if she was Nancy Grace. A Juror is not to interact with the media. This was her fatal error and she was the second Juror dismissed by the second day of trial.
The Jury suffered mightily for this Juror's mistake. The day that this happened, each Juror was summarily interrogated in the Judge’s Chambers. The Jurors were brought in one by one. The Judge sat behind her desk while Juan Martinez and the Prosecution team sat on one side while Kirk Nurmi and his team sat of the other side. The Court Reporter studiously recorded the interrogation of each Juror, his fingers tapping keys in the background. The Court wanted to ensure that the Jury had not been contaminated by the media. It was a difficult seat for each Juror to be in as it was only the second day of trial and was followed by the disappearance of Juror # 9.
We are still standing at the security area and I want you to look at the long wall the runs adjacent to the entrance and you can see two words written the length of the wall. I wonder how many pass through without seeing those two, very important words. It is why we are here. “Truth” runs half the length of the wall followed by the word, “Justice”.
We walk the tiled walkway and the sounds of our shoes make that crisp echo. This Jury calls the tiled areas, “The Green Mile”, especially in regards to their being lined up in order before entering the Jury Box.
If we pass the elevator area, you will see a room designated as “Arias Public Room”. It is a small room with a Live Stream projection screen for any to see. It is the room where the public gathers before they are allowed to the Courtroom. Heads are counted and sometimes lotteries are done to determine who will fill the twenty one seats available. A guard stands post at the doorway.
Janet is in charge of this room. She also is in charge of those who go to the trial to watch from the Gallery. As I suspected, she is also in charge of the Jury. She is very polite to the Jury and even friendly. Some see her as a ‘tree hugger” in her past and they like her.
Ironically, it is Randy they are afraid of. Randy sits in the Courtroom on the right side, straight across from the Jury. I don’t think I am wrong in saying he is the Court Bailiff. The Jury has learned quickly not to be in a situation where Randy has to admonish them. This is interesting to me because Randy seems like an affable sort of gentleman in Court. He is the one who calls for the Jury when the Court is ready. He walks with confidence and his head is always held high. He takes his work seriously but can be seen smiling as he interacts with Court personnel. He does n’t seem like a tough guy although he is perceived that way by the Jury. I get the feeling that Janet is the “good cop” in the Jury scenario even though she is the “bad cop” with the public. This Jury doesn't say a word about the Trial to anyone including themselves. Ever.
We walk to the elevators, of which there are eight or ten. Did you know a full jury can fit in one? We have done it many a time just as this Jury has learned. We ensure no one gets on the elevator with us whenever we can. Most of us have found the way to exit the building by exits other than where we came in. Our Jury did it and this Jury does it as well. All of us want to minimize any contact with the public or media. Each of us feels that our phones are bugged and we are being watched. It is the nature of a high profile trial and its inherent paranoia is brought to the forefront every time a Juror disappears off the island, such as the disappearance of Juror # 3.
We go up the elevator and get off on the fifth floor. There is a central lobby enveloped on two sides by large, paned windows. On one side, one can see the streets of downtown Phoenix while the other side shows a spectacular view of the Mountain range lined valley. In the center of the Courtroom lobby are metal mesh polished benches. These are the same benches that the public and media sat upon when we were evicted from Court for two days. This is the area we sat in while Jodi Arias was on the witness stand.
We will go to our right and enter through the large, oak grained Courtroom doors into a sort of vestibule. To our right, you can see the room where the next witness waits before going on the witness stand. This is where Dr. Fonseca sat while waiting to be called to the stand. On the opposite side is the room where the media puts their camera gear.
We enter the expansive Courtroom through the next set of doors. As we walk down the center aisle, the right is where the public sits in the last three rows. I usually sit on the aisle. You can recognize me by my signature Jerry Garcia tie. I suspect that the Jury thinks I am from the media.
The first three rows in front of me are where the family of the Defendant sits. It is rarely filled with more than four or five people. The public does not interact with them at all. The mother of Arias can always be seen attending.
If we look to our left, we see the last three rows filled with media. One can see Troy Hayden of Fox News, Michael Kiefer of the Arizona Republic, Beth Karas from Karas On Crime, Jen Wood of Trial Talk Live and a host of others. They have laptops in their laps and cell phones in their hands. They are a great group of professionals that I am proud to know. They are here to work and they work hard.
The three rows in front of them are filled by the Travis Alexander family. Sometimes Jurors from the previous Arias Trial can be seen sitting in the family rows. We treat the family with the utmost of respect as does the Court.
We will walk up past Juan Martinez, Esteban Flores and Juan’s boss on the left while Kirk Nurmi, Jennifer Willmott and Jodi Arias are seated to our right. We walk up to the witness stand. There is no one on the witness stand as Dr. Fonseca has completed her testimony the last day we were in Court with a Jury. If we look up to the right, we can see Judge Stevens. If we turn to our left, we can see the Jury.
There are sixteen people on the Jury. This is the number that my Jury began with in the Capital Murder case of DeVault. The three dismissed Jurors in this trial can be looked at as bonus Jurors since most trials of this size begin with sixteen. There is an empty seat where Juror #3 sat. The other Jurors have no idea why their Jury is down another one. This increases tension in the Jury room and also reminds them that they are being watched at all times.
This Jury is an intelligent Jury and has learned to bond during this ordeal. Since they cannot talk about the Trial to each other, they speak of their personal lives. They worry most about being late. Our Jury had one Juror who always arrives with three minutes to spare. It would not surprise to hear there was one like this on every Jury. For the most part, the Jury is assembled thirty minutes prior. They feel the stress of the delays in the trial. They are in a difficult position with both their personal lives and professional lives. They feel the financial stress that being on a long term Jury entails. Some Jurors give up on the extensive paperwork for long term Jury duty pay and take the base pay of $12 a day. It is akin to preparing paperwork for an IRS audit.
The Jury is not paid for the days they are not in the building. It is difficult on their work life because they cannot anticipate the delays. Most will choose not to work during the trial. Every Jury has someone who only works part time to find they have no job when they return to work.
Our Jury suffered at work, as well. One of us lost full time benefits because they were only available part time with their job while another was taken off their work schedule. It came to the attention of Judge Steinle III and he made some phone calls and suddenly those employees punished for doing their Jury became the best employees their employers ever had. The Judge announced in Court that he was tired of employer improprieties in how Jurors are treated when they are taken away from their regular employment schedule. These are the challenges each Juror has to work through and each of the Jurors in front of us is going through this challenge in one way or another.
I will bet that Judge Stevens had to call an employer or two.
One Juror has a mother who is a Psychologist by profession. One Juror is retired. Most of the Jurors have a family waiting at home. Some Jurors are single mothers. One Juror works for the Postal service and another works for the Department of Homeland Security. Still others are “techies” who work in the IT industry.
I am sure that there are at least two or three of the Jurors are directly familiar with Domestic Violence. The similarities between both trials make it more than probable. I am sure I was picked for my Jury due to my experience with Domestic Violence along with two others. All of us felt we were selected by the defense. We, like the Arias Jury, should not be under estimated. We are not weak. We can see the difference between abuse and discipline. We are not easily sold on the merest of whims and long winded arguments of nothingness. We understand the pain and complexities of Domestic Violence. We survived and this is the first time we have realized a positive value in our shared experience. We have little empathy for those who feign abuse.
If the Jury looks to their right, they see the family of Travis Alexander seated every day. They feel the responsibility of Justice. This Jury is very clear on the fact that Jodi Arias has been convicted of First Degree Murder with the aggravating circumstance of being cruel and heinous. Many Jurors are realizing that this is the most difficult phase of the Death Penalty trial and secretly wish that the first Jury had come to an agreement. It makes this Jury more attuned to reaching a collective decision as opposed to failing in disagreement. They want to reach the right decision for the family that waits for Justice. They want to reach a decision for Travis Alexander.
Juror # 3 spoke of Travis Alexander and the pictures that will forever be ingrained in her memory. Those pictures carry a pain that only a Juror can understand as that pain is tied with responsibility. It is about finding the correct resolution as the law dictates while balancing the empathy that is in our human nature..
These Jurors are all rookies, never having served on a Jury before. Many could not figure out Court terminology such as, “Sustained”, “Over-ruled” and “Please approach”. The Jury is not given a handbook. They do not understand the process of “Redirect”, “Cross” or “Re-Cross”. It is “On The Job” training with terminology and systems figured out along the way.
The Jury sees the media seated behind the family and they avoid anyone from the media, as trained by the loss of Juror # 9 and the Nancy Grace incident. They do not go on the internet because they feel they are being watched.
The Jury can also see the other side where the public is seated. The Travis Alexander Supporters are nicknamed “Gypsies”.
This Jury sees the Prosecution table and they like the direct approach of Juan Martinez. It can be felt by the energy level every time they go back to the Jury room.
I am comfortable in saying that the Jury may not be quite as excited when Kirk Nurmi is presenting evidence.
They look at Jodi Arias but sparingly. They wonder why Jodi Arias stares straight ahead when the horrific pictures of Travis Alexander are displayed but when sounds of her sex tape plays, she covers her ears. The biggest thing that plays a part in the Jurors eyes is that she looks normal in a lot of ways. It may have been said that she was homely…and creepy. It is difficult to match the crime to the face.
They saw Jodi Arias on the stand. They saw her crocodile tears fall, wet but missing emotion. They heard her tell the wooden spoon story as Jennifer Willmott repeatedly asked her, “But how does that make you feel?” They further heard Arias tells stories of sex with Travis and Jennifer Willmott further asking her to clarify by asking again, “How does that make you feel?”
This Jury is hungry. They are starving for information. They are getting information from Juan Martinez. He is making forward progress and he makes them think.
They have to work hard to find merit in any of the Defense Team’s arguments. They certainly did not appreciate the antics and childish behavior of Dr. Fonseca. She was, as I mentioned in a prior Perspective, difficult testimony to plow through. She impeached herself in not only behavior but in her foggy lack of detail and research.
This Jury is struggling to find mitigating factors because the two most important ones have not been seen by the Jury. The most critical in mitigating factors is remorse. There has been none shown and this is frustrating for a Jury. The next most critical factor in mitigation is the Defendant taking ownership of the crime.
Since Arias will not take ownership of the crime, she cannot show remorse as it would be an implied admission to the crime. It is the lack of these two factors that will put her on death row.
These Jurors see the pictures of Travis Alexander in their minds at all times including before they go to bed and the moment they wake up. There will come a point when this Jury will become twelve and I am confident that this Jury is dug in. They carry Travis Alexander with them and they want Justice not only because it is their duty but because of the family that watches them every day.
I will always carry the picture of Dale Harrell, the victim in my trial, with me to my grave. I understand the great weight of finding that Justice. I also clearly remember our fervent desire to find the Justice due Mindi Artrup, Dale Harrell’s twin sister. More than anything, we wanted to make the right decision.
This Jury will feel exactly the same way. As each day goes by, they feel the pressure of knowing it is one more day without Justice for Travis Alexander.
Finally, as we look up to our right, we see Judge Stevens. Jurors always respect the Judge because the Judge is their boss. The Judge is experienced and the Juror trusts that experience. They see the Judge with a loose leash with both the Defense and Prosecution. There is frustration, though. This frustration is tied to the Court delays. Our Jury felt the same frustration. It is a strain on their personal lives as well as their professional lives. In spite of this, they respect Judge Stevens and show great tolerance.
I look at the picture of the Twin Towers of Courthouses and I see two very different results. One trial is completed while the second Trial is probably half way through the process.
Our Jury, with Judge Steinle III, gave Marissa DeVault life in prison without the possibility of parole. My book, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale” (available on Amazon.com), details the reasons why our Defendant received life instead of death. This case showed the existence of mitigating factors, those factors that impact the culpability of the Defendant. In our case, those factors included sexual abuse at a young age, the failure of the Prosecution to prove that motivation of the crime was due to pecuniary (financial) reasons and Dale Harrell’s children. We chose life over death and some of us will carry the doubt of wondering if we made the right decision.
This Jury remembers Juan Martinez closing his opening arguments with the objected to phrase, “You will find there are no mitigating factors in this case.”
I am confident that the Jury heard his words clearly and understood their depth.
It is becoming clear to them that Travis Alexander and the family that sits post in Court every day needs Justice. It is becoming abundantly clear that there are no mitigating factors.
If no mitigating factors exist, then they have no choice but to vote for the Death Penalty. At this point, grateful for my extensive conversations with Juror # 3, I believe this Jury can align, unite and call for the punishment deserved – that the Defendant should lose her life in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona.
With that, we will depart the Courtroom in anticipation of tomorrow’s proceedings and I thank you for accompanying me on this Juror’s Perspective. I am grateful for the immense amount of support I have received in our collective search for Justice for Travis Alexander and his family.
The Jury heads to Court for Day 16 on Monday. They do not know who the next witness is. They are ready to move forward. They want information and they want resolution. Most of all, they want Justice.
Monday is one step closer to Justice.....
“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the spirit of Travis Alexander.”
Justice 4 Travis Alexander…
Justice for Dale…
Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

One of the MANY Youtube videos that Team Tra$h made...smh...disgusting!!!!






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcKUgAV7MCg&feature=youtu.be