AP reports that the penalty phase retrial jury in the Jodi Arias case was deadlocked at 11-1 for death. Because this was the second attempt, in Arizona that means the view of the 1 prevails over the view of the 11 and Arias will get a life sentence. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. ยง13-752(K)) It will be up to the judge if there will be a possibility of parole.
Most of the jurors said they believed the holdout was biased and opposed to giving the death penalty. The other jurors asked the judge on Tuesday if the woman could be replaced with an alternate, but the request was denied and jury was told to keep deliberating.Is there any jurisdiction in the world using trial by jury where a deadlock of all but one for guilt and one for acquittal results in acquittal? Of course not. Why does any state allow that when it comes to "guilt of the death penalty"?
One male juror said Thursday that he became angry when the holdout indicated the death penalty would be a form of revenge. Jurors also note that the woman had acknowledged seeing a cable TV movie about the Arias case.
Arizona is actually better than many states. In much of the country, a single holdout juror on an initial penalty trial is enough to preclude the death penalty. That is wacko, in my not-so-humble opinion. States that have single-juror-veto on the first trial need to get rid of it.
The alternatives are to accept less-than-unanimous verdicts, as Florida does, or to have an initial deadlock result in a retrial, as California and Arizona do and as every state does for the guilt verdict.
Why allow this for a deadlock upon retrial? Well, just resources. Two attempts is enough, I expect the Legislature felt.
The description of the holdout and her reasons in this case illustrates why we need "death qualified" juries and why perjury in voir dire needs to be prosecuted. Opposing the death penalty on the ground that it is "revenge" is a position some people hold, but that applies to every case. If a juror cannot consider the circumstances of the particular case and reach a verdict on whether the aggravating outweighs mitigating in this case, that juror is not qualified.
Was this juror asked about these views on voir dire? I would expect so. Did she answer honestly? I would like to know.
The alternatives are to accept less-than-unanimous verdicts, as Florida does, or to have an initial deadlock result in a retrial, as California and Arizona do and as every state does for the guilt verdict.
Why allow this for a deadlock upon retrial? Well, just resources. Two attempts is enough, I expect the Legislature felt.
The description of the holdout and her reasons in this case illustrates why we need "death qualified" juries and why perjury in voir dire needs to be prosecuted. Opposing the death penalty on the ground that it is "revenge" is a position some people hold, but that applies to every case. If a juror cannot consider the circumstances of the particular case and reach a verdict on whether the aggravating outweighs mitigating in this case, that juror is not qualified.
Was this juror asked about these views on voir dire? I would expect so. Did she answer honestly? I would like to know.
Leave a comment