A panel of 12 jurors and six alternates were sworn in Thursday for the Jodi Arias murder trial.
Seven women and 11 men, ranging in age from a male who appears to be in his early 20s to several of retirement age will be deciding if Arias is guilty of killing her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander.
During Thursday’s jury selection process, defense attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Wilmott argued that the prosecution was “systematically excluding” women and African-Americans. The jury appears to be all white except for one Hispanic male.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez argued that race and sex had nothing to do with striking the jurors. He cited a couple of women who had previous domestic violence incidents, one female who said she needed to be “100% sure that a person was guilty,” an African-American woman who said she thinks the death penalty is akin to murder, and another woman is married to a preacher.
An African-American man was excused because he recognized one of the defense attorneys as a client at his after-school program.
Judge Sherry Stephens ruled the prosecution showed no bias in their decision to dismiss the potential jurors.
Opening statements are currently scheduled to begin January 2nd.
SJ
I’m not here to bash Jodi. You’ve made some interesting points. I haven’t read everything you’ve written so I am curious on your take on her taking “self defense”? If she didn’t kill him then why bother putting a burden of proving you’re innocent by an affirmative defense of self defense if you’re really innocent? Why not just let the Prosecution bear the burden alone?
Based on what I’ve read, Jody is pleading innocent because the charge is first degree murder. Self defense, if proven, would negate her meeting the criteria for first degree murder.
Actually, Andrea has a valid question. Jodi could’ve plead innocent w/o claiming sd. That would’ve obligated the DA to prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, the DA would the burden of proof alone. Jodi would not be obligated to even mount any defense at all ( only ever done if the state’s case is super weak). Since Jodi is asserting sd, the burden shift to the defense to prove sd. It’s tougher for the defense.If she’s successful on sd, she gets acquitted.
Everyone posting is assuming the law is logical like society non-spoken/non-verbals and verbal rules of order. It is not a matter of self defense or no self defense/innocence. The law says convict if jury finds x, y, z…there are no variables and there is no waiver from what x, y, and z is like societal behavior living day to day. She will then most surely face the death penalty if there is no self defense. Wouldn’t you fight for your life and take every avenue you could? (it’s her attorney’s protecting her with what we are ignorant to)
Moreover, if it is self defense, she may find some legal loopholes to get out later (laws constantly change), file some appeal, and now she is NOT labeled a violent dangerous offender for the rest of her existence; have more privlidges in jail… rather protecting herself.
think about it from the other side. If you were forced to commit murder in self defense in a mugging or to protect a child, is it fair for you to be in jail the rest of your life or face death? Also, if its self defense and you never took that avenue in court..you’d be housed at a maximum security prision with all the other murders, pedophiles…etc… not fair sentence for someone who’s defending himself/herself…