Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury

Motion on Arias jurors’ Twitter handles denied

Jodi-Arias-May-8-2013-PhotoAP-The-Arizona-Republic-Rob-Schumacher-Pool2PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona judge is refusing to require jurors in the next phase of the Jodi Arias trial to reveal their Twitter usernames so their accounts can be monitored for communications about the case.

A jury in May convicted Arias of murder in the 2008 death of boyfriend Travis Alexander in his suburban Phoenix home. The same jurors failed to agree on her sentence, setting the stage for a second penalty phase.

Arias’ defense has argued it needs the Twitter usernames of new jurors to ensure they’re not being influenced by outside elements.

However, Judge Sherry Stephens ruled that she’s not going to presume there will be juror misconduct.

Stephens also says some prospective jurors might refuse to serve if they believe the proposed disclosure requirement would violate their privacy rights.

Source: AP

Copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Share this post!
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Pinterest


pamela says:

does anyone know if jodi’s penalty retrial will be streamed live? Also, is retrial set for Jan. 9, 2014?

Angel go says:

My heart goes out to Travis for this selfish and brutal act that was used against him by this insane individual who is quite sick!!!!

This trail is a joke people a man lost his life for being human and yes he is a man, but that does not give her the right to distroge him.

Let this man finally rest in peace Alexander suffered enough.

Angel Go

Pamela Valemont says:

“Judge Sherry Stephens ruled that she’s not going to presume there will be juror misconduct.” – but does this then entail the reverse? Does she then presume there will not be any juror misconduct? The likelihood of that occurring is NIL according to the very naive Judge Sherry Stephens? After all, we had a witness (friend of Travis) during the trial with the live TV coverage turned on while he was talking to Nurmi, stating he DID NOT KNOW that was not allowed. Although expressly forbidden to do it , he was watching everything occurring before him in the courtroom prior to giving his testimony. If a sworn witness will do this, why would we suppose someone with no connection to the case whatsoever would not do the same?

TrudyLynn says:

You only need to go back to what Wurmi himself said when Mr. Martinez motioned for the Judge to order that she not be allowed to tweet. “Everyone has a right to freedom of speech, including “Ms’ed hairyass”


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *