Tags
article, association, attorney, best, chat room, club, court, courtroom, group, hung, jodi arias, judicial, jury trial, justice, law, litigation, opinion, post, social forum, system, the paralegal society, thomas deitman, top
By: Thomas Deitman
Welcome back to the paralegal playground, TPS readers! You ever noticed when Tom stops by to share an insightful post on a controversial topic, he gets us to really stop and ponder a topic more fully? Well, today is certainly no exception! An opinion on the Jodi Arias trial?! Everybody’s got one. I do. You do. And so does Tom. Read today’s post, and let us know if you agree or disagree with Tom’s personal assessment.
My neighbor, Sal, is up in arms! Yep, she is mad as hell. To put it mildly, Sal is a true-crime T.V. junkie. Any hour of the day or night, from the time she gets up tom the time she goes to bed, Sal has her T.V. tuned to either “American Justice,” “Cold Case Files,” “City Confidential” or “48 Hours.” Now, Sal knows that I am a Paralegal, so she always wants to discuss all the legal action. She usually starts these types of conversations by saying, “Whataya think about….?” I know that the rest of the question will have to do with some issue she saw on T.V.
Sal also loves to watch live court proceedings, primarily when the subject is high-profile murder cases. She and I had endless discussions over the Casey Anthony case as it unfolded. Sal was on the prosecution’s side, while I did and I still do, argue that Ms. Anthony was rightly acquitted. This brings me to why Sal is beside herself, two words: Jodi Arias.
Now that the jury deadlocked on the penalty phase, that is the crux of where Sal’s apoplexy lies; she thinks Ms. Arias is going to get less than she deserves, even though she was convicted on the murder charge.
When I tell Sal that I think the jury made the right decision in the penalty phase, she just cannot bring herself to agree with me. She is not alone, I am sure. Most people would agree with Sal. She and the rest are not thinking out of ignorance or prejudice, but they are not considering all the issues. They see that Jodi Arias was found guilty and believe that she automatically deserves the death penalty. They just do not have a complete understanding of how the judicial system works here in the United States. Actually, there is no real reason why they should. The ordinary person never runs afoul of the system, unless a person chooses a career as a paralegal or an attorney, the ordinary person is never educated about the system. In a lot of cases, ordinary people pay too much attention to the “talking heads” that analyses cases like that of Jodi Arias and most people never get to sit on a jury panel in capital case.
The last point, never sitting on a murder trial jury, plays a big part in why people do not understand why the Arias jury ended as it did, hung. To be honest, I have to count myself among those who have never had to make the decision as to whether a person should be put to death for a crime for which they were convicted. I am sure it is a tortuous experience. I am sure it is an experience that most jurors fear as they deliberate. Yet, jurors do face the experience with a deeps sense of duty and, for the most part, jurors make the correct decision.
The Jodi Arias jury made the right decision. They hung. They did not make any decision just for the sake of making a decision. The jury could have done three things after they found that could come to a decision. First, they could have all agreed to vote for the death penalty, just to get it over with and go home; they could have voted for life, just to get it over with and go home, or they could have done the right thing and admitted that they could not reach a decision and hang. To their credit, they choose the third option and, in doing so, maintained the integrity of the jury system.
More people must understand that the integrity of the judicial system is its saving grace. The integrity of the system does not end with the words, “guilty” or “not guilty.” It ends when the jury makes the final decision as to what punishment best fits the crime or, in the case of Jodi Arias, when the jury can admit to all of us that the best decision is no decision at all.
Thomas G. Deitman works as a Paralegal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is the Owner of Amador Paralegal Services, LLC. Thomas is a member of the Delaware County Paralegal Association, American Bar Association, ACLU and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His primary areas of interest are in criminal defense work and death penalty appeals. Thomas also serves as the Secretary and a Board Member for the Amanda Truth Project, which was created to bring educational awareness to the issues surrounding wrongful convictions in cases involving shaken baby syndrome. The group works to educate the community about the potential for pediatric misdiagnosis, helps families, their lawyers and medical experts to find the truth. Mr. Deitman looks forward to joining The Paralegal Society in 2013 as a regular Guest Contributor!
_____
What do you think, TPS readers? We’d love to hear your opinion. We know you’ve got one! So hit that comment button and sound off. We’ll have operators eagerly standing by, sipping black iced teas from Starbucks, and waiting to post your absolutely fascinating comments.
Go!!!
The Paralegal Society™ 
I agree with Tom in that the integrity of the system was maintained by a hung jury and thus the greater good served in said preservation. To go with a decision rooted in popularity or expedience would be to undermine the process and system itself and a travesty regardless of what that decision might have been. The system itself must be preserved, even if it benefits the guilty from time to time. I don’t have to agree with or like a jury’s decisions. However, I DO have to believe it was reached with deeply thoughtful contemplation and steadfast adherence to voting one’s individual conscience. That is the very foundation of our system. The arguments Pro and Con in this case will go on, however; each member of the jury voted their conscience and the jury as a whole could not come to a decision. The system worked in that the jury was not swayed by popular expectation or expedience and that is exactly how a jury is SUPPOSED to behave. Thoughtful and independent.
I have to agree that to come to a knee-jerk decision either way does not do the system justice nor the accused. I hope I never have to weigh a life or death decision on a jury, although since my state recently overturned the death penalty, I probably won’t need to worry about it unless I move.
It reminds me of the OJ trial; most everyone felt he was guilty, including me, but the jury did the right thing in acquitting him because the evidence had been tampered with. They had no other choice. To act any differently would have made a farce out of the system.
Serving life with no chance of parole is no picnic, either. But perhaps Jodi will be able to contribute to society in some way as she has pledged to do. If so, then there is a reason to keep her alive.
I always enjoy reading your posts, Tom. They get me to rethink my own viewpoint, and often, to ponder yours. As a litigation paralegal, I cringe when I see the words “hung jury,” I’m not gonna lie. Anyone who has ever spent weeks/months preparing for a jury trial and then days/weeks in one will tell you the last thing they ever want to end up with is a hung jury in the end. But with that being said, I realize the extreme importance of each individual juror maintaining his or her own integrity (even in the face of an unpopular decision), and in doing so, maintaining the integrity of the jury system itself. You raise some excellent points.
Thanks for sharing this post with us!
Great article. I honestly did not follow that trial or the case very closely at all. Though, I do get all hyped up on the Court TV cases. I agree with Jamie – no one ever wants to see that a jury is hung. It gives the attorneys and paralegals the impression that they have somehow failed to adequately prove their point. But, I also agree with Tom, that for a juror to do anything but maintain his or her own integrity would be a disservice to our justice system, which I happen to think is the best in the world!
I do agree that jury did the right thing because if they did a knee jerk decision some of the jurors would regret the decision. At first I agree with the death penalty, but now I think she should get life.
Jodi was not “found” guilty, she plead guilty (finally). As for the jury’s inability to come to a live or die decision, it is my understanding the jury sentencing instructions presented to them was so complex and difficult to decipher, the last time a jury was faced with the same/similar sentencing guidelines – that jury also deadlocked.
I have sat as a juror and foreperson on a murder trial in state court. The jury hears and sees things the audience/public is not privvy to. It is because of this oftentimes juries decide totally contrary to how the public would decide.
In the Anthony and Arias cases, the jury actually saw the pictures the television viewing public was spared; the jury actually had to sit through the plethora of lurid and explicit telephone messages in the Arias case. I will say this, I don’t think the victim deserved to die, but he was no angel and he was using Arias – IMHO. I believe Arias is unstable, I believe the victim knew she was unstable (I believe he told as much to his friends and family at different times through his relationship with her) but continued to use her. That the victim did not abuse or use the other girlfriend as Arias alleges he did her, why would he, he had Arias to fill all of his deviant sexual needs. Arias plead guilty to his murder, there was no getting away from that – but I believe it was a murder of passion, frustration, anger and temporary insanity.
I have prepared for, assisted and sat through more trials (civil and criminal) than I can remember at this stage of my game. I don’t want to sit through another one if I can help it. It is exhausting, stressful, tense, and that’s the easiest part about them.
However, when I had the opportunity to meet and talk with, on a one-on-one basis. Anthony defense trial consultant, Dr. Amy Singer, I jumped at the chance. I wanted to know WHY Casey was found not guilty. Dr. Singer did an entire presentation to the group, with pictures never seen by the public, on why Casey was found not guilty. It was an eye opener to say the least. When Dr. Singer presented information on the Trayvon Martin case, it was another eye opener and I believe Zimmerman has his work cut out for him to be found innocent of murder.
High profile cases are covered so hard and repetitively by programs such as HLN and (God help me) Nancy Grace, that the public – as Tom says – who are not educated or trained or informed on legal matters – can’t even begin to hope to make their own evaluation/decision. These high profile cases are tried in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. The difference is – in the courtroom you have attorneys and support personnel who have dedicated their professional careers to the understanding of the legal system; and a jury who is receiving ALL of the information put forth by these legal professionals. In the “court of public opinion” you are dealing with legal professionals and anchors (or whatever you call them) – espousing rhetoric to keep the ratings up for their programs!
Certainly the public wants to know and I guess has the right to watch, but thank God the court of public opinion can’t decide the guilt or innocence or sentence of a defendant.
Good article Tom.