Real Crime Stories/Paranormal Hauntings

The Jodi Arias Trial (Part II)

Aggravation phase

Following the conviction, the prosecution was required to convince the jury that the murder was "cruel, heinous, or depraved" in order for them to determine that Arias was eligible for the death penalty. The aggravation phase of the trial started on May 15, 2013. The only witness was the medical examiner who performed the autopsy. Arias' attorneys, who had repeatedly asked to step down from the case, gave only brief opening statements and closing arguments, in which they said the adrenaline rushing through Alexander's body may have prevented him from feeling much pain during his death. Prosecutor Martinez showed photos of the corpse and crime scene to the jury and then paused for two minutes of silence to illustrate how long he said it took for Alexander to die at Arias' hands. After less than three hours of consideration, the jury determined that Arias was eligible for the death penalty.

Penalty phase

The penalty phase began on May 16, 2013, when prosecutors called Alexander's family members to offer victim impact statements, in an effort to convince the jury that Arias' crime merited a death sentence.

On May 21, Arias offered an allocution, during which she pleaded for a life sentence. Arias acknowledged that her plea for life was a reversal of remarks she made to a TV reporter shortly after her conviction when she said she preferred the death penalty. "Each time I said that I meant it, but I lacked perspective," she said. "Until very recently, I could not imagine standing before you and asking you to give me life." She said she changed her mind to avoid bringing more pain to members of her family, who were in the courtroom. At one point, she held up a white T-shirt with the word "survivor" written across it, telling the jurors that she would sell the clothing and donate all proceeds to victims of domestic abuse. She also said she would donate her hair to Locks of Love while in prison, and had already done so three times while in jail.

That evening, in a joint jailhouse interview with The Arizona Republic, KPNX-TV and NBC's Today, Arias said she did not know whether the jury would come back with life or death. "Whatever they come back with I will have to deal with it, I have no other choice." Regarding the verdict she said, "It felt like a huge sense of unreality. I felt betrayed, actually, by the jury. I was hoping they would see things for what they are. I felt really awful for my family and what they were thinking."

On May 23, the sentencing phase of Arias' trial resulted in a hung jury, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial for that phase. The jury had reached an 8–4 decision in favor of the death penalty. After the jury was discharged, jury foreman Zervakos stated that the jury found the responsibility of weighing the death sentence overwhelming, but was horrified when their efforts ended in a mistrial. "By the end of it, we were mentally and emotionally exhausted," he said. "I think we were horrified when we found out that they had actually called a mistrial, and we felt like we had failed."

On May 30, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery discussed the next steps at a news conference. He said he was confident an impartial jury could be seated, but it was possible that lawyers and the victim's family could agree to scrap the trial in favor of a life sentence with no parole. Arias had said, "I don't think there is an untainted jury pool anywhere in the world right now. That's what it feels like. But I still believe in the system to a degree, so we'll just go through that if that happens." Defense attorneys responded, "If the diagnosis made by the State's psychologist is correct, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office is seeking to impose the death penalty upon a mentally ill woman who has no prior criminal history. It is not incumbent upon Ms. Arias' defense counsel to resolve this case."

Appeals

During the trial, defense attorneys filed for mistrial in January, April and May 2013. Arias' lawyers argued in January that Esteban Flores, the lead Mesa police detective on the case, perjured himself during a 2008 pretrial hearing aimed at determining whether the death penalty should be considered an option for jurors. Flores testified at the 2009 hearing that based on his own review of the scene and a discussion with the medical examiner, it was apparent that Alexander had been shot in the forehead first. Contrary to Flores' testimony at the 2009 hearing, the medical examiner told jurors the gunshot probably would have incapacitated Alexander. Given his extensive defense wounds, including stab marks and slashes to his hands, arms, and legs, it was not likely the shot came first. Flores denied perjury and said during his trial testimony that he just misunderstood what the medical examiner told him.