The worst is far from over for Jodi Arias. While the jury was expected to return a sentencing verdict this week, Judge Sherry Stephens announced a mistrial in the penalty phase of the trial Thursday after jurors could not agree whether Arias deserved the death penalty or life in prison.
The jury determined Arias was eligible for the death penalty during the "aggravation phase" of the trial last week; and it only took jurors three hours of deliberation to decide Arias had killed Travis Alexander in a "cruel, heinous, or depraved" manner that would warrant the death penalty; but in a trial that personified the interminable convoluted despair of the American legal system, a clean end may have been nothing more than wishful thinking.
Following more than 13 hours of deliberation, the same eight men and four women who convicted Arias of first-degree murder informed Judge Stephens that the only thing they could agree on, was that they would have to choose "non-unanimous agreement" as a sentencing verdict. An inside source with knowledge of the jury situation said jurors were split 8-4 in favor of the death penalty, CNN reported.
Jurors refused to comment after the verdict was announced, and avoided interviews with media on their way out of the courtroom, but one member of the jury reportedly seemed to mouth "I'm so sorry" to Alexander's family and the prosecution.
A 32-year-old waitress and aspiring photographer from California, Arias was found guilty May 8 in the gruesome premeditated first-degree murder of her ex-boyfriend, 30-year-old Alexander, in June 2008. Arias confessed to killing her former lover, so her guilt wasn't up for debate-but her intent was. Arias' defense revolved around on the beliefs that she could not premeditate murder, or fully comprehend or take responsibility for her actions because Alexander abused her so intensely that it fractured her psyche, and Arias was forced to kill Alexander in self-defense because she feared for her life due to his alleged habitual physical and emotional abuse.
During the 19 weeks of testimony, the defense was unable to produce a single piece of evidence to corroborate its claim that Alexander physically abused Arias. As the state's attorney noted repeatedly, no police reports or any other documents support Arias' portrayal of the couple's supposedly violent relationship.
Medical examiners found that Arias stabbed Alexander 27 times, primarily in the back, as well as the torso and the heart, slit Alexander's throat from ear to ear with so much force it almost decapitated him, shot him in the face, and dragged his bloodied corpse to the shower where she left him crumpled over - all in 106 seconds.
With the jury deadlocked, prosecutors must now decide whether to continue their pursuit of the death penalty for Arias. State's attorney Juan Martinez could possibly offer Arias a plea bargain that wouldn't require a new jury, but that likely depends on just how confident he is in his ability to once again argue for Arias' execution. Prosecutors have not yet announced their plans for the case.
If Martinez demands the death penalty, the trial will enter jury selection all over again for the sentencing phase, which would reportedly begin July 18. If the second batch similarly can't come to a unanimous decision, Judge Stephens would then have two options. Either sentence Arias to life in prison with no possibility of parole, or sentence her to life in prison with parole possible after at least 25 years behind bars. The judge does not possess the authority to sentence Arias to death.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery released a statement vowing to continue the state's fight against Arias, writing that prosecuting attorneys "will proceed with the intent to retry the penalty phase."
"We appreciate the jury's work in the guilt and aggravation phases of the trial and now we will assess, based upon available information, what the next steps will be," Montgomery said.
There were early indications that jurors were having difficulty agreeing on Arias' sentence. After just one day of deliberations, the jury requested help from Judge Stephens in court Wednesday, claiming they were stuck.
Part of the jury's problem might have been weighing various mitigating factors against their ultimate decision.
Mitigating factors include: Arias' age; Arias' capacity to comprehend the inherent "wrongfulness" of her actions or ability to act within the confines of the law was "significantly impaired; Arias could not possibly have "reasonably" understood ahead of time that her behavior during the act of killing Alexander "would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person; While Arias was "legally accountable" for the deeds of another, her involvement was "relatively minor; Arias was suffering "unusual and substantial duress; Arias' alleged rough childhood/family background, and history of domestic abuse as a young girl, and at the hands of Alexander.
Prosecutor Martinez rejected the notion that such factors should play any significant role in the jury's deliberations during his closing arguments.
"Arias' age is not a mitigating factor. She had lived a very full life ... Mr. Alexander was only 30 and will forever be 30 ... the only thing you can do is return a verdict of death," Martinez insisted.
Proceedings in the trial are set for a June 20 status conference. The trial is set to resume the penalty phase July 18.
- Contribute to this Story:
- Send us a tip
- Send us a photo or video
- Suggest a correction
