Women Criminal Defense Attorneys: One Strong Juror is All It Takes
Just this week Jodi Arias was sentenced to life without parole for the murder of her boyfriend in 2008. Arias has been represented throughout by one of our own, Jennifer Willmott from Phoenix, Arizona who represented Arias in the guilt phase and through two penalty phase trials. Willmott spent many years as a public defender out of law school and is now in private practice. To say that this must have been an all-consuming case for Willmott is an understatement. This is the kind of case that takes everything out of a defense lawyer.
The Arias case has had a media circus surrounding it since the beginning; portions have been televised and it has been all over social media. Like so many other murder trials in the last couple decades the courtroom drama takes on a sort of entertainment quality, somewhat akin to reality TV. The problem with that kind of atmosphere is that it unquestionably has a prejudicial effect on the accused’s right to a fair trial. It is almost impossible to seat a fair and impartial juror in a media obsessed environment which inundates potential jurors with opinions and suggestions rather than evidence. It has a devastating effect on the concept of a public trial and due process.
The law in Arizona prohibits the retrial of Arias after two separate juries hung. The Court had no choice but to sentence Arias to life, but was left to decide whether to sentence her to life with the possibility of parole or a natural life sentence. The jury that found Arias guilty of murder hung during the penalty phase last year and the court granted a mistrial. In October 2014 a second jury was sat to hear the retrial of the penalty phase which finally resulted in a second hung jury mid-March 2015. There was one hold out for life, and eleven verdicts for death. Just one. She faced harassment from her fellow jurors during the deliberation and has been threatened after the trial through social media, and been subject to rumors of misconduct and possible investigation.
No juror, regardless of their verdict, should be subjected to the kind of harassment that Juror 17 has been forced to endure. She had the courage to stand up for what she believed in and what she determined the proper verdict should be after considering the evidence. It is shameful that she had to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny and abuse. Funny how our society doesn’t take a second look at a hold out for death and examine their motives in the same way. In fact, have you seen one article questioning the motives of a juror that voted for guilt or death of an exonerated defendant?
We have to address the devastating effects that the current obsessive media environment has on the fundamental rights of the accused and even on jurors’ rights to privacy. It is time for our Courts to re-examine the concept of a public trial in this new media culture. Something has to change. In the meanwhile, this example is a stunning reminder of the power of one juror.