PHOENIX — In the wake of the Jodi Arias mistrial, trial watchers on social media have demanded that the lone juror who kept Arias from death row be investigated for
juror misconduct. And Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has said that his office will "review the matter."
But Juror 17, the holdout for a life sentence, may have the legal upper hand.
Her attorney, Tom Ryan, calls a probe conducted by the prosecutor during jury deliberations "an abuse of the office, and it's shameful."
In the wake of the post-mistrial outing of her name and address on social media, Ryan said, "I believe a crime was committed by the release of confidential juror information, and we're going to the FBI to investigate."
Juror 17 has been threatened, harassed and lives under police protection. She told
The Arizona Republic, "No one else is being researched but the holdout. It's upsetting and it makes you lose faith.
"I feel that as a juror I should have been protected."
The Republic will not print the woman's name, even though it has been disseminated elsewhere.
Or it could be a federal case, possibly with civil-rights implications.
"There is a constitutional obligation and a right to serve on jury duty," said Larry Hammond, a prominent defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.
"To interfere with someone's privacy while they are serving on a jury may be actionable," Hammond said.
And in capital-case jury instructions, jurors are informed that they do not have to come to unanimous decisions as to the weight of mitigating evidence that may persuade them to vote for or against a death verdict.
In fact, jurors are told repeatedly during instructions to vote their conscience.
But the Arias case has blazed new trails, with trial watchers in cyberspace, both pro-Arias and anti-Arias, trying to bully, insult and influence media coverage and the outcome of the trial.
Juror 17 is now essentially in hiding.
"I'm not the person I was when I went into this," she said in a recent interview.
'NOT AN IMPARTIAL JURY'
In June 2008, Arias killed her lover, Travis Alexander, who was found in the shower of his Mesa, Ariz., home with a bullet in his head, nearly 30 stab wounds and a slit throat. Arias eventually confessed to the murder, but she claimed self-defense.
In May 2013, after a 21-week trial, she was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury found the murder had been committed in an especially cruel manner, making Arias eligible for the death penalty.
The jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict on whether to sentence Arias to death or to life in prison, however.
USA TODAY
Angry Jodi Arias jurors say holdout had 'agenda'
A new jury was impaneled in October 2014, not to redetermine guilt or innocence, but only to determine whether she should get a life or death sentence.
Their initial vote on a sentence was split, with seven wanting death, four undecided, and Juror 17 opting for life.
As they discussed the case, Juror 17 brought up the made-for-TV movie.
There were words thrown around.
"Right away I got the feeling that they were not an impartial jury," she said.
TWO NOTES SENT TO JUDGE
Two notes went to the judge which ultimately identified how the jury was leaning.
Prosecutor Martinez asked that Juror 17 be removed in accord with other jurors' complaints. But Stephens noted that Juror 17 had disclosed having seen the film about Arias' case, and other things, on her juror questionnaire.
"I deactivated all my social-media accounts," she said. But her relatives were caught unaware.
Meanwhile, tweets and Facebook posts were going viral, listing her name and asking that it be passed on.
"My phone started ringing off the hook, so I changed my number," she said.
Her relatives started receiving threats and doctored photos. The trial watchers began scouring the Internet and revealing details of her life, including the convictions of her husband and ex-husband — and the surprise that the first husband had been prosecuted by none other than Martinez. That fueled speculation that she had been a "stealth juror" intent on undermining the prosecution's case.
She now has police protection.
"This woman is living in fear of her life," Ryan said. "And for what?"
LEGAL COMMUNITY DIVIDED
County Attorney Bill Montgomery would not comment on Juror 17 beyond a written statement issued last week.
"In instances where there is credible information of misconduct, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office will review the matter, request an independent investigation, and then seek an independent review for any potential charges and then for prosecution," he said. He also called on trial watchers for reason.
Whether Montgomery intends to pursue allegations of misconduct against Juror 17 remains to be seen.
The legal community is split on whether Martinez should have investigated a juror keeping him from getting the verdict he wanted.
"You're telling people that their opinion really matters and that they should consult their consciences and understand that this is one of the most important decisions you can make," said Hammond, the defense attorney. "But please be forewarned that the prosecutor can conduct an investigation into your private dealings while you're doing that."
“I don't know if a lawyer does anything wrong by checking it out. It's what you do with the information later.”
Michael Terribile, a defense attorney, says outright that he is not a Martinez fan and thinks it's OK for a lawyer to investigate a juror.
"I don't know if a lawyer does anything wrong by checking it out. It's what you do with the information later," Terribile said. "Where it broke down is, the judge didn't tell the other jurors that nobody has a right to tell anyone they're wrong."
But there was no debate about revealing the juror's name and personal information.
"That's more than troubling," said former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton. "If someone disclosed that information to intimidate her, that is of extraordinary concern. If it was done intentionally, then someone needs to answer for that."
Juror 17, meanwhile, wants no more part of jury duty.
"I don't ever want to do it again," she said. "You're asked to take an oath that you're going to be impartial and you're going to take everything under consideration. And you do, and get punished."