Before conviction: I hope to be convicted and die. I want to die. Life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
After conviction, when the death penalty is suddenly an option: NO! I WANT TO LIVE. DO NOT KILL ME! I’LL BE GOOD!
Everyone who says life in prison is worse than the death penalty should see that tape of her statement.
Just curious, did you really think there was a chance I wasn’t making a joke?
Yes. It’s an incredibly common misconception so, absent any other evidence (a rolleyes smiley or perhaps a winky or maybe if I knew you at all), there’s really no reason to assume that you were joking.
I’m a little irritated that they came back in such a short time to say, “Hey, we can’t agree!” I think it possibly means the jury has one or more members who are strictly against capital punishment and won’t be swayed by any argument at all but I can’t reconcile that with the unanimous vote to put the DP on the table at all. If you’re against the death penalty, wouldn’t you vote against the aggravating factors so death wasn’t even an option?
Well, the case was getting a lot of attention before the trial and before it was known she would take the stand. But that’s in large part due to her completely stupid and arrogant decision to freely talk to the police without lawyering up, thinking that she could lie her way out of the breadcrumb-trail of evidence she left behind. Then playing musical alibis. Then, once arrested and charged, her willingness to continue giving interviews to all comers.
After all that *pretrial *testimony, she had little choice but to testify in court, since leaving all her previous statements out there with no further explanation would have made her chances even worse. (if that was even possible!)
Well, the jurors are all DP-qualified - before they were selected, they all swore that they could give the DP if it was shown to be warranted. So they really can’t be “strictly against capital punishment” unless they lied, in which case that’s cause for their dismissal from the jury.
Also, if they followed instructions and haven’t lied about it, they couldn’t “vote against the aggravating factors so death wasn’t even an option” - each phase of the verdict is separate and distinct from the next phase. When deciding whether or not there were aggravating factors, they’re specifically told NOT to consider or make up their mind about whether or not they’d vote for life in prison or for the DP in the next phase. In each step, they’re always supposed to keep an open mind and not make **any **decisions until they’re told to.
I’m sure it was. Sex. Anal sex. Naked pictures. Bizarre filmed interviews. Horrific violence committed by a woman. But I think it really took off when she got on the stand. Thats when it started hitting the main page of websites and other news national news shows other than Nancy Grace. Thats when I heard about it. I wasn’t seeking it out but by then it was hard to miss.
I told my wife about her plea for mercy, and how she said she wanted to help the other prison inmates. My wife asked if the inmates were given any say in the matter.
Heh. I was going to suggest that a scalp could be kept alive in a nutrient bath if all we’re doing is growing hair.
Cracked has an excellent recap of the whole thing.
Bumping this to note that Judge Stephens is now looking at September for Arias’ sentencing trial to begin.
[
Wow, really? I had it in my head that it was resuming tomorrow. Was that ever set and now it’s been delayed or did I make that up?
I don’t recall that a sentencing date was set, but ISTR that when the trial ended, sentencing was expected this month (July). From the linked article, it seems that the defense has filed quite a few motions since the guilty verdict, and of course those need to be sorted out before the penalty phase can begin.
A judge has set a March 17 trial date to decide whether Jodi Arias should be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-sets-trial-date-jodi-arias-21516803
…and thus far [she’s cost the taxpayers of Arizona more than $2 million just in defense costs.
Don’t know the case and don’t care…
Would like to raise a slight hijack for the more knowledgeable…
IF she truly had been suffering from what is known as battered woman syndrome (yes I know there is some controversy about if its even a real thing), wouldn’t a gross over-reaction and using exponentially more force than necessary be consistent with that?
If she were suffering from a condition invented by defense lawyers, would she commit an act that a defense lawyer would say is defensible? Hmm, let’s think on that.
Never heard about the case, but I just googled the woman. She looks very different with blonde hair as opposed to the brunette with glasses at the trial. From hot cakes to innocent librarian.
Remind me to wear glasses if I ever go to trial.
She is going to represent herself at the penalty phase:
Who was it who said:
“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
The sentencing retrial has re-opened:
http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Jodi-Arias-sentencing-retrial-opens-in-Arizona-5837637.php
I can’t understand these jurisdictions that have 5 month trials and 2 month penalty phases. Judges around here would be reaming each attorney’s ass for taking so long. It’s also a terrible prosecution strategy: just use a simple narrative, get in and get out, and paint the defense as trying to bullshit the jurors by dragging things out.