Day 7 - "A Juror's Perspective". Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Retrial (Sentencing) - Day 7 - "A Juror's Perspective".

Today was really an amazing day in our justice system. 

I came in today knowing that the public and media would probably still be locked out of the courtroom. That did not change my resolve to be there because we knew that this might change at any moment.

We left on Thursday, Day 6, with a secret witness on the witness stand. This witness was testifying in private because it was alleged loosely that this person may not otherwise testify if cameras and the public were present. Judge Stevens made the decision that proceedings would be closed, there would be a Jury present and a witness would testify.

Many of us believe it was Jodi Arias on the stand. A door had been opened to the Courtroom and someone saw her on the stand. We may not know for some time who the mystery witness was.

Seventeen Jurors came in today stepping away from their jobs, families and maybe even retirement to be here on time. They dressed for the day, parked in Jury parking and took the Jury bus to the South Tower. They were each accounted for and were probably in the Jury box by 10:00 AM. I expect they did not hear any testimony due to an Appellate Court Hearing to be held at 11:00 AM. It is possible they were sent home for the day due to waiting on the ruling. I further imagine that they were given the day off on Tuesday so they they could vote.

Sometimes, to a Jury, the Court can remove remarkably slow but the Court goes to great lengths to respect their sacrifice. The Jury would not know what the issue was today except that it was a Court function where they would not be needed. To a Juror, it will be a secret. Jurors learn to accept the filtration process and, sometimes, are happy to have the day off. They usually come without warning and are, oftentimes, a pleasant surprise.

I happened to hitch a ride to the Arizona Appellate Court about a mile and a half down the road. This hearing was about the right for the media and the public to be present at the Jodi Arias retrial. 

The building is about three quarters of a block long and made of yellow granite. The area outside lacks the hustle and bustle of the Courthouse I was used to. The building is seated across the street from a square block cemetery. The stones are granite and the ground looks hard and rocky. There is no grass and no flowers. It is a cemetery in an odd spot with the city surrounding it. It looks out of place but reminds me that this is a death penalty trial that we are seeing.

The first thing I noticed in walking into this Courthouse was its warmth as well as its silence. It was like being inside a funeral home. One did not hear the echo of feet walking down tile hallways. There was no soft chitter and chatter one might hear as people went about their business. There were no sounds of elevators making pinging sounds. It was as if we were in a greater Courthouse which, I ultimately learned, we were.

We were seated in a much smaller Courtroom but it was expansive with a ceiling. The walls were deep Walnut would with gold or brass accents. The seating was set up as much as one might find a pew in a cathedral. The seats had long, blue, faux velvet cushions that were very comfortable.

In front of the head of the courtroom, we could see where the Judge was going to sit. Upon a closer look, I realized there were three high-back chairs. The nameplates of each Judge were at the head of the bench reading Judge Portley, Judge Orozco and Judge Howe.

I looked to the right and saw Juan Martinez, Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Wilmont seated at the same table. The defense nor the prosecution ever exchanged words between each other throughout the hearing and it was odd seeing them together on the same side of the courtroom. Elsewhere in the room, I saw Detective Flores, Jodi Arias' Mitigation Specialist and a host of media that I was coming to know.

In the center of the courtroom, facing the bench, was a podium which had two LED Clocks set at ten minutes a piece which I thought was curious.

We stood as all three Judges came in and had their seats at the front. The proceedings can be seen on my timeline as well as youtube. It is quite fascinating to watch and even more fascinating to see it live. This is the kind of thing a Juror would never get to see.

The rules were different from "normal" court. The Judges spoke whenever they wanted to. An attorney would be speaking and a Judge would tell and ask his or her thoughts. Each attorney was only allowed to speak a total of ten minutes including rebuttal time. 

David Bodney, the Lawyer Petitioner representing both the media and the public, presented his case.

He finished his argument with one minute and thirty eight seconds left for his rebuttal. His argument was clear, concise and logical. His style was smooth, unhurried and point driven. I found myself nodding in agreement while I was taking notes. He was really spectacular and graceful.

Kirk Nurmi spoke for the defense and the reasons that the media and public should not be present. At one point, he said, "the rights of Jodi Arias are higher than that of the public and media."

I had to work to keep from shaking my head vehemently.

In the end, only hours later, the Appellate Court of Arizona ruled that the rights of Jodi Arias are not greater than the rights of the public, in my own words.

I was listening to the banter of the Judges identifying the weaknesses in the defense argument when I realized that I was in the unique position of being in this great court and was the only representative of "the public". It felt much like being a Juror and representing "the public" in a more secret sense. I felt that way until a guy showed up in shorts, T-shirt and beach thongs about twenty minutes late. I thought he made the public look bad.

This segment of the Arias Trial is quite possibly precedent setting for high profile cases. It also spoke to our Constitution of which many have died defending. It spoke to a Court that must be transparent to the Public as well as the media. We do not hold trials in private.

It was a great victory for the American citizen. I was proud to have seen our Court process work swiftly and logically. 

We will find out at 1:30 today what the ramifications were of this decision because Judge Stevens has been given the flexibility to create boundaries. The Public may have to be in the overflow room instead of seeing the trial. The media may or may not be in the same room. Judge Stevens could decide that there is to be no "Tweeting" in the Courtroom. She may decide that no cameras are to be on.

I wonder if Janet, the Court Assistant, will be gritting her teeth when she has to reopen the Public Seating door. 

Anyway around it, the doors have to be opened to the public and the media because it is part of our Constitutional Right. 

People have died for us to keep that right.

They have also died for our right to vote.

Don't forget to vote...

Justice for Travis.

Justice for Dale.

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Author of "Brain Damage: A Juror's Tale - The Hammer Killing Trial"
Available on Amazon.com (Copy and Paste below listed link)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Brain+Damage+Paul+Sanders

Day 8 - A Juror's Perspective" Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

"The Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial - Day 8 - A Juror's Perspective"

It was day 8 of the retrial. I only count those days when the Jury is present. Theoretically, the complete Jury was not assembled due to one Juror being extremely late. The Judge recessed the Jury until next Wednesday.

If you are ever on a Jury, you don't want to be the late one, regardless of circumstances. It is the stuff of Juror nightmares...

I was a Juror on the Marissa DeVault Hammer Killing Trial. My commitment in the search for justice in the brutal murder of Dale Harrell began upon my receipt of a Jury summons notice on January 23, 2014 and concluded on June 6, 2014. It was a six month commitment that put my personal life on hold and it's responsibility held my brain hostage the entire length of time. I can comfortably say that fifteen of us felt the same for even the alternates remain "On Call" during the duration of the trial. (The alternates are chosen by lottery prior to deliberations leaving the standard twelve to make the ultimate decision).

These Juror's are happy to have the week off from duty. Many will not tell their place of employment that they are not working. Some will take the opportunity to work their regular jobs because Jury Duty pay is typically a pittance, pennies to the dollar of their regular income. This is usual as many employers do not pay Jurors their full time pay during Court appointed duty.

My employer readily signed a form saying that I would not be compensated during Jury Duty. I was then allowed the option of being paid by the Court under a "Long Term Jury Fund". The fund is said to pay jurors up to three hundred dollars a day to make up for lost employer pay. I learned quickly that this was somewhat deceiving. A Juror must submit proof of income to the Jury Commissioners Office to receive funds from the Court. The process is long and tedious. It is not unlike an IRS Audit where every penny of income must be accounted for. 

I, like the Jurors in this retrial, submitted my proof of all sources of income. I calculated that I was making about $100 a day prior to the trial. The Jury Commissioners Office decided, based on the same numbers I submitted, that I would receive forty dollars per day. By their best calculations, I was making $5 an hour prior to Jury duty.

This is only part of the sacrifice that these Jurors will make in their Civic Duty. Each individual Juror will be happy to make more than the standard twelve dollars a day but will struggle to make ends meet.

Their time off will be advantageous to them. As I said, some will work. Others will make time to enjoy with their family. Some will get housework done and some will get yard work done. Still others will take this time to relax.

The one thing that will not take time off is the Gerbil wheel in their brain as they think of the evidence and events thus far. They have seen Jurors dismissed because of integrity issues. They will see another Juror dismissed because of a family emergency. They have seen Jurors held back and will never know the reason why as Jurors can say nothing about the case to each other until the deliberation room.

These Jurors will not be able to watch the news about the trial during their time off. They will not be able to talk to their friends or family about it. They will not be able to discuss this on Facebook, Tweet about it nor use any other site to talk about the case. Each of them knows that in a high profile case such as this, it is probable and likely that both the defense and prosecution check their activities on line so that the integrity of the Jury is kept safe.

Seventeen Jurors will have pictures of the brutal death of Travis Alexander going through their minds. They will see that it is not only premeditated but it was also Cruel and Heinous thus making this case Death Penalty qualified. Their time off will be marked by the prosecution's case because the defense has barely started presenting their case.

This Jury has seen a "mystery" witness. 

I speculate that this mystery witness was Jodi Arias. This witness is the first witness presented by the defense. At most, they have seen this mystery witness for a day to a day and a half, the period when the public and media was illegally locked out (as determined by an Appellate Court this past week).

Some may say that the Jury has seen a flurry of activity in the Gallery. The Gallery refers to the seating where the family of the victim, Travis Alexander, sits. The Gallery has two rows reserved for that of the family of the defendant, Jodi Arias. The rest of the Gallery is filled on one side (the family's side) by the media and the remaining 21 seats are filled by the public.

I spent many months in a Jury box along with fourteen others. We did look at the Gallery but it was of very little concern to us. The Gallery, and the activity of the Gallery, were really off limits for us. We would look at the nuances of those who sat in the Gallery but any thoughts beyond who was in the Gallery would be speculation.

A Juror learns quickly that one cannot speculate. One also cannot let feelings of empathy or sympathy enter their minds. Jurors see the Gallery but it is immaterial to them. They only care about what the prosecution has put before them, what the defense lays on their table and what the Judge instructs them to think or disregard.

All Jurors will search the face of the defendant daily, as if the defendant might reveal something of importance.

I remember in the trial of Marissa DeVault, we searched the defendant's face. We were shocked when we saw her drawing pictures, much like Arias did in her first trial, during testimony.

We could not speculate or hold against her what she did at the defense table. It was not a topic of discussion in the deliberation room because it only would have been speculation. We were glad we followed the Court instructions not to speculate on her activities because we learned at the conclusion of the trial that she was drawing pictures because she was told to keep her hands busy. Prior to her artistic activities, she was interrupting the defense team so much that it was distracting their focus. It was better to keep her distracted.

The time off for the Jury will be a welcome relief to the horrific details they have seen. The time off will go by in a nano-second. For those Jurors who have taken the time to relax, each will find that they can never relax until the conclusion of the trial. They will hope that they are not selected as an alternate down the road. They will wonder what they will collectively decide. They are dying to talk to other Jurors and anyone they can.

The jurors that decide to work during this time will have the challenge of fellow employees asking them tirelessly about the trial. Each Juror will do all they can to make sure the do not discuss the trial. They will be annoyed by those who continue to pursue their thoughts.

The Jury's time off will be marked by their memories of 158 pieces of evidence they saw on the second day. They will carry those last images of Travis Alexander on their back and the monkey will not be released until the end of the trial.

It is an awesome burden. It is a frightening responsibility. It is a test of truth and Justice.

Each juror will spend a week thinking more about Travis Alexander than they will of Jodi Arias because they will feel a greater responsibility for Justice for Travis than Justice for the Defendant.

The Jury is made up of seventeen reasonable human beings.These reasonable people have a great weight on their shoulders.

We will find out who the mystery witness is eventually. The mystery witness will be cross examined by Team Juan Martinez.

We will know who the mystery witness is and I believe it was Jodi Arias herself.

Until next week, have a pleasant week and say a prayer for the family of Travis Alexander because they will carry this burden with them the rest of their lives...

It has been decided. These Facebook Diaries will become my follow up book to "Brain Damage: A Juror's Tale." It will be called, "Brain Damage, Too: A Juror's Perspective - The Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial". Thank you all for your support as we search for justice.

Justice for Travis.

Justice for Dale.

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Brain+Damage+Paul+Sanders

Day 9 "A Juror's Perspective" Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @ The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial (Sentencing): Day 9 "A Juror's Perspective"

We returned to the Superior Court in downtown Phoenix, AZ for the resumption of the Jodi Arias Retrial (Phase 3) the day after Veteran's Day, after a week respite. I went to the Jodi Arias Public Seating room and was happy to see Kathy Brown, a Travis Alexander family supporter whom some call the 'Cane Lady'. I call her a friend. I saw many of the regulars who had been coming to this retrial along with many who had attended the original trial. Most of the talk we shared was of the legal drama that had happened in between sessions.

We were still wondering who the "mystery witness" was prior to the media and public being allowed back in after an Appellate Court ruled that Judge Stevens Sanctions had other alternatives available. Most of us believed that this witness was Jodi Arias. There was a buzz about a motion that Kirk Nurmi had filed alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of Travis Alexander's computer. Files were allegedly deleted with pornography roots. None of us believed that the prosecution team would risk their case with improprieties. It seemed extremely odd that this information was coming out 5 - 6 years after the event. Ironically, there is a thought that the defense had this computer and the thought is they did not follow protocol in turning on the computer and the mystery files may have been deleted by an anti-virus program.

It remains to be seen what the results of this side investigation will be.

We were greeted by Janet, the court assistant, who would lead us up to the courtroom. She gave us the usual rules about behavior in the courtroom. There were to be no beverages or food allowed barring capped bottled water. We were to be silent during Sidebars as well as throughout the proceedings. Additionally, we were told that there was to be no talking whatsoever in the Public Seating Room. We were also told not to discuss the trial and opinions outside the courtroom and we had to be aware of Juror's walking about. If we had to discuss something, we were to walk out of earshot of anyone as our behavior could lead to a mistrial.

The latter were two new rules and we agreed that we would abide by them.

We were escorted to the fifth floor and given our seating arrangements. We were also told that the seats we had were for the day and we had to return to the exact seat we were assigned. The Jury lived by the same rules in the Jury box. It was clear that two original Jurors were missing by the empty seats that none of them were allowed to sit in.

Before the Jury was brought in,Kirk Nurmi presented some arguments to the court. The first was that witnesses were going to be presented out of order which he felt put the defense at a disadvantage. 

I can say that as a Juror on the Marissa DeVault Hammer Killing Trial, we saw witnesses out of order more than once and it had no impact on us whatsoever. We took notes on every witness and used the evidence in no particular order. Evidence is referred to when needed and it is definitely not in the order that evidence is presented. One learns that Court proceedings have an aspect of drama to them but, at the same time, it is not laid out for a Jury as one might expect in a movie. 

The second motion that Kirk Nurmi discussed was in regards to the sanctions of the media and what he felt was inappropriate filming of Jodi Arias and her mitigation specialist. The Judge watched the short clip from the bench.

Judge Stevens was not prepared to rule on this evidence and ordered the proceedings to continue.

Kirk Nurmi said he would again appeal decisions made by the Court.

At the conclusion of these arguments, the Jury was allowed in. They looked refreshed and ready to proceed. I noted that they were all wearing their Juror badges and seemed to be dressed with care noting dresses and pressed shirts.

The defense presented Dr. Fonseca, a clinical Psychologist specializing in sexual proclivities with 35 years of experience. Her voice sounded remarkably similar to that of Dr. LaViolette from the previous trial. She would speak to the dynamics of the relationship between Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander. She had reviewed a "Voluminous" amount of documentation on their relationship via letters, testimony, videos, phone calls, text messages and emails.

I mentioned in an earlier perspective that Juries like things that they can see, touch, feel and hear. Juries like forensics because it is concrete. They like evidence.

The difficulty with Psychological testimony is that it is inherently difficult for a Juror to interpret because it is subjective in nature. It is an opinion that can be interpreted by different experts in may different ways. It is difficult for a Juror to grasp without questioning its validity. 

We spent the day seeing a line by line opinion of Dr. Fonseca on the letters of Sky and Chris Hughes to Travis Alexander and his communications back to them. It was tedious and laborious. I watched the Jury intently throughout the day. I felt that the male Jurors were losing interest in the testimony. This is not to say that the testimony did not have their attention but I felt I knew what they were thinking as the day wore on.

There was a point where Kirk Nurmi put an indecent picture of Travis on the screen at the same time that he had a picture of Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias dressed in religious garb. In the end, I think the point was that Travis was conflicted and it was in direct conflict of church teachings.

Travis Alexander was a young man. I can comfortably say that the person I present myself as in church is not always the same as I might present in 'real life'.

Travis Alexander was a human being who was subject to the pitfalls that many young men go through at that age.

I can see that the Jury will struggle with the thought that this human behavior cannot be countered with the horrific death he suffered. I find, as I found in the DeVault Trial, that the Psychological testimony has a very small bearing against the death of the victim. In my case, it was the cruel death of Dale Harrell. In this case, it is the cruel death of Travis Alexander. 

The Jury will struggle with the Psychological testimony...that is until they meet Dr. DeMarte. I refer to her as the Psycho-Killer in my book. The Jury doesn't know she is coming and I believe she will greatly minimize the testimony of Dr. Fonseca.

I don't believe the Jury will be able to see past the multitude of evidence of the murder. I don't believe they can qualify his cruel death with this testimony.

I willl post Day 10 tomorrow...Thank you for reading, liking and sharing.

Justice for Travis.

Justice for Dale.

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @ The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Day 10: "A Juror's Perspective". Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Retrial (Sentencing Phase) - Day 10: "A Juror's Perspective".

I had a kaleidoscope of emotions and observations throughout the day. Dr. Fonseca, a Psychologist specializing in sexual proclivity, was on the stand for the second day in a row. I mentioned that in day 9, listening to testimony of this kind is difficult for a Jury because of its subjective nature. It is also tedious and slow. 

I spend time watching the Jury. The empty seats where the dismissed Jurors sat are still vacant. I still believe that most do not take a lot of notes. One rarely sees emotion on their faces, which is to be expected. I search their faces for emotions to determine what may or may not have impact on them. It is similar to the way a Juror will scrutinize a Defendant sitting at the defense table. I spent four months looking for answers on the face of Marissa DeVault and why she, with premeditation and in a cruel and heinous nature, killed her husband, Dale Harrell (Note: Scorned airs tonight on ID Discovery Channel at 8 PM: a dramatization of this Hammer Killing story).

I, with eleven other Jurors, never got an answer by looking at the defendant. Even her drawing pictures during testimony, was not allowed to impact us in the deliberation room. It is the same with looking at Juror's faces. Their faces do not yield answers....

But, I saw a collective emotion today. The Jury had listened to another two hours of the testimony of Dr. Fonseca and those opinions one could call subjective. Kirk Nurmi left her on the stand while he readied a visual aid of the prior testimony of Daniel Freeman.

Normally, court proceedings will not go longer than an hour and a half due to OSHA regulations regarding the Court Reporter, the person who tediously documents testimony. The Court Reporter must be given a break every 90 minutes as explained by Judge Steinle III in the DeVault proceedings In most instances, the Judge will recess the Jury and Court for at least ten minutes and the lunch recess will be an hour to an hour and a half.

Today, though, Judge Stevens did not excuse the Jury for a break but instead told them that they could stand in place and stretch for five minutes. I was taken aback. The Jury was still on stage and was forced to stretch in front of the court. It is a nuance more than irritant and it was not protocol for normal proceedings. After the stretch, the Jury sat down while Kirk Nurmi put in a CD at the defense table for the court and Jury to see and hear.

The court was silent as he fiddled and dinked around with the equipment. Randy, the Bailiff, hurried over to assist when the CD showed a visual but lacked sound. The silence in the courtroom changed ever so perceptibly to an uncomfortable silence. He turned the machine on and off and still there was no sound. Personally, I was embarrassed for the man. It would seem like they might have thought to test the exhibit before presenting it in open court.

I looked over at the Jury. There were not merely looking at Kirk Nurmi, they were staring and glaring him down. I saw arms crossed on chests. I saw their stationary eyes fixed on the defense and the computer mis-machinations. The time wore on as the unmoving glares of the Jury stayed fixed on the inept defense team.

I know this feeling. There was a point in the Marissa DeVault Hammer Killing Trial where the prosecution played a CD that had only sound but not visual. The CD featured multiple recordings of DeVault calling home from the Buckeye Jail manipulating her semi-co-conspirator (if there is such a thing). The recordings were awful and almost unintelligible. We had to listen to hours of these tape fragments.

We were understandably upset as a collective unit. We were upset for two reasons. The first was that we would have thought that the Prosecution should have known that this was a poor medium for us to hear the evidence and that it should have been tested before it's presentation. It felt like we wasted hours listening to unintelligible mumbo jumbo. It made the Prosecution look amateur.

The second reason we were upset was simply because the evidence was overkill and unnecessary. We had enough evidence and this seemed like "filler". Eventually, we did spend hours in the deliberation room going through the CD and we were able to hear it with clarity. Not unexpected, the CD recordings had no effect on our eventual decisions.

When I saw the faces of the Jurors in the Arias proceeding, I felt they felt the same way. They were tired of Dr. Fonseca and she was to remain on the stand during the Freeman's prior testimony. When the defense couldn't get the equipment to work properly, the Jury's faces told me they had enough. Emotion and face reading is an intangible thing but their faces spoke volumes.

The Judge was smart enough to dismiss for lunch recess. It was a bad moment for the defense. It is nothing that can be carried into the deliberation room but the general countenance of the Jury is starting to tell me that they are not buying the defense argument just as I felt the Prosecution in our case was overkill.

Oftentimes, I sit next to Kathy Brown in The Gallery or public seating. Kathy is well versed in court ethics, is the number one supporter for the Travis family, has been to the previous trial and knows everyone. She gives me tidbits of information that I usually lock in the back of my head or make a note about. During a recess, sho pointed out a Jodi Arias Supporter. She noted to me that she was wearing an armband that read "Free Jodi".

I still cannot get my head wrapped around this concept. The killer is a convicted of premeditated murder. The killing was cruel and heinous. We are on the path to either life or death for the defendant.

It is my feeling, with her not being of the family of the defendant, that this support is akin to supporting first degree murder. It is as if to say, it is okay to premeditate killing someone and we should have empathy for her. We should support murder.

Since I am not a Juror and can have an opinion from The Gallery, I have no empathy for Jodi Arias especially given the convictions on the prior two phases from a prior Jury. 

I only have empathy for the victim, Travis Alexander, and I only have empathy for his friends and family.

The Death Penalty was created for people like Jodi Arias..

Justice for Travis.

Justice for Dale.

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Day 11 - "A Juror's Perspective." Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @ The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial (Sentencing): Day 11 - "A Juror's Perspective."

I have empathy for the Jury.

It is an emotion I was not allowed as a Juror on the Marissa DeVault Hammer Killing Trial earlier this year. I, along with eleven others, were not allowed to feel empathy or sympathy.

I sit in the Gallery as an observer for the Jodi Arias Trial on the days when the Jury is present. I am allowed to have sympathy and empathy and I do my best to stay away from bias although in this case, however, I know how I feel about the defendant and her premeditated and heinous killing of Travis Alexander. 

I have empathy for the Jury after 3 days of listening to the testimony of Dr. Fonseca. 

In the trial for the search for Justice in the death of Dale Harrell, we, the Jury suffered through 9 days of Psychologists on the witness stand spread over Phase one and Phase three of the trial. In the first phase, the Psychologists were presented by the defense to show that Dale Harrell abused and raped his wife.

We spent a full day with Dr. Websdale and Dr. Conti "educating" the Jury on what abuse is and where it comes from. None of the evidence had a direct correlation to the victim or the defendant. I remember when we were finally dispatched to the Jury room to discuss the case, all of us felt that the time could have been better spent. We were a note taking Jury and multiple pages of notes accounted for about an hour of discussion in our deciding if the victim, Dale Harrell, was a person who abused his wife. We determined unanimously and quickly, that Dale never laid a finger on anyone much less his wife.

We also determined, through the damaging testimony of Dr. DeMarte, that the evidence presented by the defense was damaged material due to the fact that DeVault's answers on various Psychological Examinations were tainted heavily by "malingering". Malingering is that type of answer on an exam that can be swayed as "faking good" (e.g., I'm an Angel and would not do such a thing) or "faking bad" (e.g.,I am screwed up in the head because I was abused and that's why I did it). 

We determined that the defendant was a liar, could not be trusted and had faked her answers so that it would benefit her.

It sounds exactly like someone we know. 

I remember our frustration at sitting through hours and hours of this type of testimony. In my book, Brain Damage: A Juror's Tale (Amazon.com), I said that going through this testimony in a Jury box felt like we plowed through it. It was tedious and long and only a few tidbits were actually used in our eventual determinations.

We also learned that these experts are paid $250 - $300 an hour.

The day started with seven Jurors in the Arias Retrial furiously taking notes. I noticed some improvement a few days ago when Judge Stevens encouraged the Jury to take notes during the playing of the Freeman testimony of the previous trial. This particular piece would not be allowed back in the Jury Room. 

Today, the day ended with one Juror taking notes.

This Jury felt the torture we felt in the DeVault Trial. The only Psychological witness that we liked was Dr. DeMarte. We liked her because her testimony made forward progress. She was able to use actual documentation to prove her case. She was endearing as well as she was smart. We loved her.

In this Trial, It has taken the defense three days of repeatedly telling the Jury that Travis' sex life was against the precepts of the church. I heard Juan Martinez object 9 times on the basis of "Already asked and answered".

I can comfortably say that the Jury is irritated and not only at what happened at the conclusion of the day. Seventeen people were selected because they are reasonable. A reasonable man or woman in a Jury box is not looking for information on Travis Alexander. 

They want to know why Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander in cold blood (as predetermined by the first Jury) and what made Jodi Arias do this cruel and heinous act. 

The defense is working against itself and the Jury is annoyed. I can see it by their squirming in their seats. I can see it by their getting a cup of water from the pitcher in front of them just to give them something to do. I can see it by one remaining Juror taking notes by the end of the day.

Just when the Jury thought it couldn't get worse, it was announced that Court would be recessed for an additional two days due to an "emergency situation". These things happen and it is useless to speculate why. We went through a good number of delays in the DeVault Trial and never found out why.

These delays strain the Jury financially because they are not compensated for "Dark" days. They won't complain as everyone knows the process of Justice can be slow. The unexpected delay breaks the rhythm of the trial for the Juror. The delays wear on the Jury especially in light of the Holidays around the corner. They have families and trips to prepare for but are starting to realize this Trial may go past the Holidays. This will irritate them.

These delays are dangerous not as much for the inconvenience but because of their eventual impact in the Jury room. Their lives have been put on hold. The longer the delays, the greater the possibility of Jurors "rushing to Judgement". Jurors are human and at some point, this frustration does boil over in the Jury room.

I know as I have been there.

The Jury will take their two days off and they will think: Why are we destroying the victim, Travis Alexander? Is the defense trying to say that Travis was somehow responsible for his own murder? 

They don't believe Travis was responsible in any way for his murder because there has been no evidence presented that supports this idea.

They want to know why Jodi Arias did it, what made her do it and, most importantly, is she remorseful for her act.

None of those questions have been answered and this is going to bother every single member on the Jury for the next two days.

The saddest part is that we will probably never know the answer as to the why and what.

We also know she is not remorseful and that will damage her the most in the end. 

Trust me on that.

Thanks for reading and feel free to share, comment and like.

Also, Scorned aired on Discovery ID this week which is a dramatization of the events of the trial I was on. I think you'll find it interesting...but the book is better... 

http://www.investigationdiscovery.com/…/vid…/strippercam.htm

Justice 4 Travis Alexander.

Justice for Dale Harrell.

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @ The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Day 12 - "A Juror's Perspective" Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial (Sentencing): Day 12 - "A Juror's Perspective"

This Jury is going to do everything it can to connect the dots despite what the prior Jury has ruled in the previous two phases. This Jury knows that Jodi Arias was convicted of premeditated murder and that this case is death penalty qualified in that the murder was determined to be cruel and heinous. In spite of those decisions, they will need to understand the premeditation and why this crime was as cruel and heinous as it was. It is human instinct.

The Jurors become detectives in the deliberation room as they try to recreate the murder and the reasons that it happened. I speak as a Juror from the recent conviction of Marissa DeVault in the premeditated and cruel and heinous killing of Dale Harrell. She was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. The death penalty was on the table and we were able to weigh mitigating factors that in no way excused the killing. Some of us will always wonder if the death penalty would have been the appropriate sentence.

These Jurors will eventually step into the deliberation room and will, at this point, have over two hundred pieces of evidence. They will look at pictures of the cruel death of Travis Alexander. They will see the gas can receipts as well as Jodi Arias' hand print on the wall and her behavior after the killing. The behavior before a killing is important but the behavior after the killing is just as important. It is of merit because it shows consciousness of guilt.

Our Jury spent days discussing Marissa DeVault's behavior after the killing of Dale Harrell because we were searching for answers prior to the killing. For example, we spent a significant amount of time discussing whether DeVault had yanked the shorts off of Dale Harrell just after she bludgeoned him with a hammer multiple times. We saw shin burns on his legs and Eric Basta, the Prosecutor, pointed to this as evidence she took the shorts off of Dale to show that he was nude which went toward the idea that DeVault was saying that he was raping her at the time of the assault.

We concluded that Dale was not raping her and we concluded that the murder was premeditated. We were not able to find that the evidence was strong enough to say that she ripped the shorts from him even though many of us believed it possible. We tried to connect the dots but some would always remain unconnected.

Similar to the Arias Trial, we suffered through days of Psychological testimony. As I mentioned in a previous posted Perspective, the testimony of Psychologists is difficult for a Jury because of its subjective nature. It is no different in this case. This Jury has seen days of Dr. Fonseca on the stand and will be able to glean very little evidence of what she has said...it is subjective and opinions can vary on what one Psychologist says to what another Psychologist might say.

We witnessed Dr.DeMarte in action at the DeVault Trial and her opinion will be far different from that of Dr. Fonseca.

We were gathered in the hallway outside the Courtroom for day 12 of the Arias Trial and we saw Dr. Fonseca walk by. I saw her and dreaded the fact that she would be on the stand again. I know the Jury felt the same way upon seeing her step up to the witness chair. The testimony is tedious and slow. It is difficult to grasp.

This won't stop the Jury for looking for answers. They will not get a Court Transcript. They will only get evidence as accepted by the Court.

Dr. Fonseca was on the stand discussing a line by line detail of an email between Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias written on May 26, 2008. This heated email is only 9 days before the death of Travis Alexander. This piece of evidence, numbered as 741, will go back to the Jury room and they will read it line by line. They will play Detective and try to understand the motivations and what is said in between the lines. They will see this as Travis Alexander speaking from the grave.

This letter was posted on various screens for all to see around the Courtroom. Although Dr. Fonseca was speaking, I can tell you that each Jury was reading the email in their own process of discovery.

Travis Alexander writes to Jodi, "...you have been more a cause of pain than the death of my father. You are relentless in your torture of people that have loved you and protected you and served you. What do you do? You try to destroy them. You are the lowest of the low. You are sick and evil and knowing you makes me want to kill myself in punishment."

He says, "I don't even know if you are human...even when you are telling the truth, you are lying."

The Jury will be able to review some of her evilness and lack of respect in his burning words when he speaks, "I know you got into my computer and erased a letter I sent to Lisa. I know you did."

Arias responds innocently, "What? No."

"Shut up," Travis says, "I know you slashed my tires...I don't want any more lies. You slashed my tires, you stole my journals. God, I know it."

"I may be a liar, I may be a whore. I may be evil. I may not be worth all the air that I breathe. I may be like the most horrible person you have ever had the misfortune of knowing," Jodi Arias defends, "but the one thing I am NOT is violent. I did not and would not slash your tires...you deserve so much more than the crap I have given you. You deserve a wealth that is beyond this world..."

Dr. Fonseca speaks but the Jury is reading words on the screen. They are seeing Travis Alexander and they will look at Jodi Arias in the Defendant's seat. Their minds are processing. They continue to read while listening to Fonseca drone in the background.

Travis Alexander writes, "Tell me the truth: I hate you. Say it. I want the truth just once and then tell me why you hate me and desire to destroy my life. Why did you manipulate me into loving you? I was a good guy. Why did you have to do it to me? ...What was your objective? What was the point?...Even now you only talk but your actions show that you hate me."

"What do you want me to say? Whatever the purpose is. It's not marriage. It's not sex....you are like an Angel that gets snared by my evil influence," Jodi writes prophetically.

This Jury will try to decipher these words and connect the dots to his horrific murder. They will have a hard time doing it. They will more than likely get into heated discussions how this incident happened, despite a Jury's prior ruling. They may never find an answer but they will look at and read these documents over and over again.

Kirk Nurmi completed his questioning of Dr. Fonseca. She sat on the stand and waited for Juan Martinez. She may even have been content with her testimony and opinions.

Juan stood up and began pacing. It was as if a thunderstorm were over our heads as the hail began to rain down. He was a tornado of passion as he attacked Dr. Fonseca and her credibility. There was a point when Dr. Fonseca said that she could not hear him and that he must speak up. Juan Martinez gladly obliged.

Some Jurors might feel empathy for Dr. Fonseca as he destroyed her credibility. He did not destroy her thirty-five years of experience in sexual deviancy but instead went after her basis of conclusions. Did she interview anyone else in this case? Did she interview the victim's family? Did she speak with Jodi Arias' family? Was she aware of the dates of documents she reviewed and the importance of sequencing? Did she think it important that Jodi Arias reported her phone stolen and then it reappeared for the recordings just in time for the trial?

Juan Martinez showed passion for the victim, Travis Alexander, and for his family who sit in the front row every day as they have the length of both trials. He was aggressive. He showed no mercy. He was a booming voice in a Courtroom that had been otherwise cluttered with what some might call nonsense.

There were objections by the defense all afternoon long. Dr. Fonseca was on the defense. Her rambling seemed unimportant and non-scientific. It was fuzzy and loose. It no longer felt like evidence and Juries love evidence they can touch and feel.

The Jury watched in rapt attention as Juan pursued his prey. I saw the seven note takers writing furiously. It is one of those note takers that the Foreperson will arise from.

I saw the Jury act more interested in the events on the floor than I had seen in all the days of Dr. Fonseca on the stand.

The path to Justice is not easy. The path to Justice requires genuine passion. Juan Martinez showed more passion in one day than the defense has throughout the length of the trial.

These Jurors will not have answers, yet. There is still a long path to walk. They will not have formulated an answer in their mind. 

But, they will be impacted as they go home for the weekend.

They have not seen Dr. DeMarte. They don't know that Dr. DeMarte will finish the execution of Dr. Fonseca. I call her the "Psycho-Killer" in my book, Brain Damage: A Juror's Tale", for a reason.

Finally, I feel as if we are making forward progress in our collective search for Justice for Travis and his family...

Justice 4 Travis Alexander.

Justice for Dale.

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Day 13 - "A Juror's Perspective". Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial (Sentencing): Day 13 - "A Juror's Perspective".

The Courtroom is seated as soon as the Jury sits down. It is quiet. I look to my left and see only eight or nine reporters present. Normally, the media seating is very full. I took that as a bad sign after seeing Dr. Fonseca walk past me. It was a sign that she would be on the stand most of the day. There was no camera on the left side, it's telephoto lens normally jutting outward.

Juan Martinez was dressed in a dark gray suit with a light blue shirt complimented with a gray patterned tie. His hair was perfect. He looked focused. Expectations were high after his pursuit of Dr. Fonseca at the close of Day 12. 

He walked over to his table and looked at his legal pad, waiting a moment for Dr. Fonseca to get settled. She always looked over to the Jury as if they were good friends. She nodded her head at them and straightened her clothes. She looked ready to tackle this Prosecutor named Mr. Martinez.

Juan walks in short steps back and forth as he questions her. He does not look at the Jury but does face toward them at times. He paces four feet forward and then four feet back. Sometimes, his hands are in his pockets, his suit coat folds resting over his wrists. He looks to the ground a lot. Other times, he crosses his arms across his chest as he asks questions. Sometimes, while he is waiting for an answer, he rests his chin in the crook of his hand. His brow is slightly furled in intensity.

He speaks clearly and succinctly. His questioning is pointed and directional. He does not show empathy for anyone he questions. Even his own witnesses are not spared empathy. He is sharp and quick witted. His questions are a foundation to a piercing question. He knows the answers to the questions he asks. He is direct. He goes after the truth. He always gets the answer he expects. He never goes down a dark hallway into unknown territory and always goes up a lighted stairwell toward the sunlight of information. 

He is like watching a great tennis player as he serves the ball.

He imperceptibly takes a breath, looks at his target and swings with his eyes in the distance at where the ball will land. The snap of the ball on the racket is much like when he fires a question. It is crisp, clean and directional.

Dr. Fonseca reminded me of someone on the stand today and I couldn't put my finger on who it was.

"You were able to review all the documents in this case?" Juan Martinez asks her.

"I reviewed voluminous amounts of information," she answers. "I saw video tapes, read documents and studied...."

Juan cut her off. "You went on the internet? Am I correct?"

"Well," she said looking at the Jury instead of him. "In my line of work, you have to consider a lot of information. Now what I found..."

"Yes or no!" Juan barked.

"Well, yes," she answered.

"You reviewed some photographs?"

"Yes."

"You also reviewed testimony of witnesses who have testified?"

"Objection," Kirk Nurmi interrupts.

It was the first of many sidebars all day long. Juan would ask a question. There would be a sidebar and the cycle would continue through almost all the ensuing questions. 

"Do you remember when you last testified in Court?" Juan Martinez asks her.

"I really can't respond to that, Mr. Martinez," she answers. She lets the "r" in Martinez roll from her tongue as if to emphasize a Latin influence,a showing respect. She always rolls the "r" to the point where it almost sounds condescending.

She continues while looking at the Jury. "I find that it would be a mis-characterization of what I might say or have said. It is...."

"So, you don't remember when you last testified," Juan remarks as he goes to the Prosecution table and pulls out a document. "Let's listen to what you said."

"Objection!" Nurmi says. 

Back to the sidebar, sometimes called a bench conference. White noise plays over our heads so that we can't hear what is being discussed.

"You did see an interview with the Defendant, did you not?" Juan continues after the break.

Dr. Fonseca curls her brow in thought. The Court waits while she thinks about it. "I think I might have seen two interviews from 2009...."

"You seem to be having problems with your memory," Juan points out.

"Your questions are unclear, Mr. Martinez." She rolls the "r" again.

"I can't be expected to remember everything," she answers. "There were thirty one boxes of evidence. I believe I went through thirty of the boxes. There were the interviews and, at least, twenty to thirty CD's. It's difficult for anyone to remember exact dates. I can give months or dates, more or less, but I can't be accountable to every date and time,"

Juan would let her do that at times. She would ramble on and on about things that had nothing to do with the question. I think he did this to show that if he didn't force an answer, she would ramble on forever. I felt that it drove him crazy to listen to her misdirection and mumblings.

"Would it be important to know when their relationship started? The relationship between the defendant and Travis Alexander?"

"Can you repeat the question, Mr. Martinez?

Juan moved on. "Do you think dates on documents are important?" he asks her.

""Well, Mr. Martinez, that misrepresents my response. You have to understand that the documents were voluminous," she responds looking toward the Jury.

"Are you saying you can't remember if a document is at the beginning or end of month?"

"No, I really can't."

Juan looks at her and crosses his arms on his chest. He has stopped pacing. "Didn't you testify to dates and times on documents?"

Dr. Fonseca goes into a litany of nothingness. They are thoughts spoken aloud that have no end. The Jury looks at her but no one is taking notes. Even the second Juror down is not taking notes and she always can be seen buried in her legal pad, pen scribbling.

"Your research experience is mostly of Juveniles, is it not?" Juan asks.

"No, Mr. Martinez. It is of all ages. The kernel of my research has a substantive base of juveniles but I research all aspects of sexual deviancy and its relevancy in certain situations. There are times when one must take this knowledge and work toward an identifiable goal..."

Juan paces back and forth while she says nothing.

Judge Stevens looks on in rapt interest.

I am in my seat taking notes but there are no notes to be taken on what she says because it is not only subjective, it has no substance. They are meaningless words and answers to questions never asked. I am getting frustrated and I can bet the Jury is doing all they can do not to show an expression.

"You created a risk assessment tool, did you not? You created MEGA?" Juan asks.

"Um, I don't want to go down slime highway," she answers as if Juan had asked some horrific and sleazy question.

Juan shows no emotion despite the answer she gave. He is going in a direction. "Isn't MEGA an acronym for a very long term?"

"It's complicated," she answers. "It stands for Multiplex Empirically Guided Assessment. I just stick with the term MEGA because I find that people can understand it and I don't need to write it all the time because there is a kernel of reasoning that supports using other terminology."

Juan has a look in his eye as if he is wondering when she will complete her thought and hoping it will be sometime before lunch. "Your assessment involves juveniles from the age of 4 - 19?"

"Yes," she answers.

"But Arias and Travis were not of that age, were they? Isn't that assessment your specialty?"

"I wouldn't use that tool," the Doctor answers smartly.

For awhile, we went down "slime alley". 

There were pictures of Travis on the screen at one point. Juan asked her how she knew the said pictures were actually of Travis' anatomy. She didn't have a response worth taking note.

At another point, we read the texts between Travis and Arias pointing to the one where Jodi wanted to be a little girl for him. We got to listen to Arias reach orgasm on a tape. We read more dirty emails.

Dr. Fonseca at one point said that people might find these things as distasteful but collectively, it would not mean the same thing.

I scratched my head while writing it down. 

"You are here to give your professional Psychological opinion, is that correct?" Juan asked.

"Well, I'm not licensed to do that in this state," she answers carefully. "I have limitations to what I can..."

"But didn't you give an opinion on what you thought was going on between Arias and Travis?" he asks.

"I've answered the question," she says.

"So you are not going to answer?"

Sidebar. Dirty Jodi Arias text message. Sidebar. Dirty picture on the screen. Sidebar. Another question. Sidebar. Banter. Rambling. Sidebar.

Still, Dr. Fonseca has managed to say nothing the length of the day. She was like a caged animal going in circles while Juan Martinez toyed with her. He would poke at the cage and she would go in another circle in her cage. 

Juan attacked and she deflected. 

Every time she said "Martinez" with the roll of the "r", it got on my nerves.

I watched the Jury the whole day and by early afternoon, no one was taking any notes.

Juan's questions destroyed her credibility. Her fact finding didn't exist. Her memory was wishy-washy. She would show anger and contempt by responding with such statements as "I couldn't be expected to know everything."

It was interesting that she could remember all the details of the Mormon Church when she had been a witness with Kirk Nurmi only days before. It was odd that she thought nothing of sequencing and the importance of dates such as the fact that behavior of Travis came out long after he had been murdered. It was bizarre that suddenly nothing had anything to do with the dynamic of their relationship.

Dr. Fonseca was combative and hostile throughout the day. She had memory problems. She couldn't understand what Juan Martinez was driving at. She looked at the Jury as if to receive empathy for her position but only saw stoic faces in return.

Juan Martinez continued his tirade the whole of the day. He never let up. He never showed sympathy and he never apologized. He attacked like a shark coming out of water.

Her opinions laid on the floor bleeding and squirming.

The Jury saw all of this. I know they tired of it deep in the afternoon as I saw Juror's rubbing their eyes. Another Juror straightened a crook in his neck. One reached over and got a glass of water from in front of her. Others had their heads facing the witness but their stares were blank. I saw a couple them take sneaky looks toward the clock that is behind us.

There is one thing in Arizona that is different from many states. The Jury is allowed to ask questions via a Juror questionnaire form. They complete the form and it is passed to the empty black mesh basket that is available for them.

I was recently on the DeVault Hammer Killing murder case as a Juror for the first half of this year. We used that box almost everyday. Some questions were asked by the Court, others were disregarded. We filled the box when certain Psychologists were on the stand.

It is a bad sign for the defense that the Jury has not asked Dr. Fonseca one question. 

The box lays empty everyday at the end of her testimony because they have already made up their mind about this witness. She virtually impeached herself with every nonsensical answer that she bantered at Juan Martinez.

We wrapped up for the day as Dr. Fonseca sat reading a document for fifteen minutes in open court. She read it to herself and we all watched and waited. Scant coughs could be heard about the courtroom. It was almost comforting because nobody wanted to hear any more from her.

Judge Stevens looked at her and waited.

At 4:30, Judge Stevens called it a day. 

On the way home, I was trying to think of who Dr. Fonseca reminded me of...

Of course, I thought, she reminded me of when Jodi Arias got on the stand to defend herself in the first trial...

In either case, not one bit of their testimony helped the defense.

At all.

Justice 4 Travis Alexander

Justice for Dale.

Feel free to share, like and comment!

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror MD @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)