Return to Transcripts main page


Secrets from the Jodi Jury

Aired May 24, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you from the Maricopa County Courthouse here in Phoenix, Arizona.

Folks here still reeling in shock over the no-decision decision by the jury, who deliberated more than a dozen hours over three days and then announced to the world, "We cannot decide whether Jodi Arias should live or die," leaving everyone to ask, now what?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, duly empanelled and sworn in above entitled action, upon our oath, unanimously find, having considered all of the facts and circumstances, that the defendant should be sentenced -- no unanimous -- no unanimous agreement.

NANCY GRACE, HLN ANCHOR: They jury has hung.

MIKE GALANOS, HLN ANCHOR: This nation is still taking in, really, the non-verdict.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We all wanted it to end today. We all wanted rest for ourselves, rest for the family.

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN ANCHOR: They`re going to retry Jodi Arias.

GRACE: Do you really think Martinez is going to cut a deal with Arias?

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING OVER TRIAL: The jury declares a mistrial as to the penalty phase.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They just collapsed right in front of me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It was disbelief.

POLITAN: You talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m shocked. I was positive that they were going to figure this out.

JEAN CASAREZ, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: This is a trial that has been on the front page of every newspaper, every day in this local jurisdiction, and the lead story every day for five months, and you tell me there`s going to be a penalty phase jury selection?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And after that, another shocker. The jury foreman talks to "Good Morning America" and says, guess what, we bought part of Jodi Arias`s story. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m very sure in my own mind that she was mentally and verbally abused. Now is that an excuse? Of course not. Does it factor in the decisions that we make? It has to.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Expert panel. Let`s debate it with our expert panel. Did the jury buy Jodi Arias`s story? And we have to start with the defense on that one. Anahita Sedaghatfar.

ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, clearly, Jane, they didn`t buy her story, because they convicted her of first-degree murder unanimously, 12 jurors. They also unanimously agreed that there was an aggravating factor of cruelty.

But I have to say, Jane, I`m not surprised that we have four jurors -- not one, not two, not three, but four jurors -- that, although they found her guilty of first-degree murder, although they agreed that this was the cruelest form of murder, they could not put her to death. They could not put her to death.

That was the hardest decision that those jurors had to make. And I said this, and I`ve got an lot of flak for saying this, but I think the reason for that is because those jurors formulated some type of bond with Jodi Arias. They didn`t like her. That`s true.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Murphy for the prosecution.

SEDAGHATFAR: ... couldn`t kill her.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: They did not bond with her. Please, that`s like bonding with a porcupine. Not possible. And, you know, I`m not a cheerleader.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Leave porcupines out of it. They`ve done nothing wrong.

MURPHY: Sure. I`m not a cheerleader for death. I can`t be: I`m opposed to the death penalty personally and morally. But I am an advocate against leniency for Jodi Arias. And I know that`s a funny place to be.

But the notion that she should get leniency makes me crazy. Because even if she were abused at some level -- and I don`t agree that she told the truth about that. Maybe she, you know, on some level was compelling enough to a couple of them. Maybe they aren`t the geniuses on the jury, I don`t know.

But the question was not do you feel like there was a reason to believe she was abused? It was do you care enough that that`s a substantial factor against the mountain of reasons to put her to death, including...


MURPHY: ... that she has no compassion, she`s a psychopath...

JOHNSON: Wendy, no.

MURPHY: ... she killed in cold blood, lied about it, doesn`t deserve to live?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Janet Johnson for the defense.

MURPHY: ... passion, period.


JOHNSON: Since when is leniency life? This is life in prison. This is what people are losing sight of.


JOHNSON: Wendy, no, they`re not saying...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: One at a time.

JOHNSON: They`re trying to make a punishment that is appropriate for her situation. And life in prison in most states is the most serious punishment that you can get. So we`re not saying...

MURPHY: That wasn`t the issue for them. The issue is, is it enough? No, you`re misstating the law.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s let the gentleman come in, Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: Well, I think that`s a little bit of a misstatement. Because leniency in this case -- I mean, she was up for the death penalty. I mean, so this was a death penalty case. And still is, I might add.

I mean, if you look at Twitter, you look at Facebook, people are acting like Jodi Arias is going to walk out of jail tonight and go to Starbucks and get one of those Frappuccinos that she likes about.

JOHNSON: Right, that`s the point.

LEIBERMAN: She`s not going anywhere. This is like a baseball game that`s tied at the end of nine innings. This case is far from over. I personally don`t think that Juan Martinez and his boss are going to take death off the table. I don`t see why they would.

JOHNSON: Eight to four, 8-4.

LEIBERMAN: This is a death penalty case, and they`ve come this far.

SEDAGHATFAR: I agree that they`re not going to take death off the table.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Two of our experts...

SEDAGHATFAR: Another empanelled jury is going to send her to death. I think it`s very compelling, Jon.

LEIBERMAN: We don`t know.

SEDAGHATFAR: Let`s hear it.

LEIBERMAN: But listen, the jury foreperson made it clear that Jodi Arias`s 18 days on the stand hurt her because of all of her lies. So this jury did not buy Jodi Arias...

SEDAGHATFAR: That didn`t impact their decision.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Guys, we`re going to have plenty of time to debate tonight. But I want to get our viewers clued into what could happen next.

Now, Beth Karas, there are two key dates where we will be back here on this very courthouse steps. Why? And tell us what those dates are.

BETH KARAS, HLN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there`s a status conference on June 20. That`s to make sure everything is in place and set for July 18. That`s the second date. And that`s the penalty phase retrial.

But there could be a motion to continue it. Who knows if everyone will be ready on the 18th? But it`s a date they agreed on yesterday.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Just to be clear. Jodi Arias is convicted of murder one. That has not changed. Jodi Arias has also been found responsible, or the killing has been deemed by the jury cruel, extremely cruel. That`s an aggravator.

The one thing that hasn`t been decided that this jury could not decide was life or death. So let`s make sure the people understand that distinction.

CASAREZ: That`s true, but in the penalty fades they can look at all of the evidence from the guilt phase, and that`s something they can use to make their determination of aggravating and against the mitigating factors. Also, the fact that the aggravating factor of cruelty was found already. That automatically comes into the penalty phase.

So this is going to have to be a complex penalty phase, because you`re taking a brand-new jury that has never been a part of the evidence. They`re going to have to get up to speed to understand the basis for the conviction of premeditation.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I got to tell you. So many people are not only shocked at the outcome, but they are confused about what`s going to happen next. Let`s listen to this, and then we`re going to debate it and explain it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State of Arizona versus Jodi Ann Arias, sentencing verdict. We, the jury, duly empanelled and sworn in above entitled action, upon our oath, unanimously find, having considered all of the facts and circumstances, that the defendant should be sentenced -- no unanimous -- no unanimous agreement, signed foreperson.

STEPHENS: Is this your true verdict, so say you one and all?





VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s debate it now again. She`s still guilty of murder one. Let`s not act like this is a complete victory for Jodi Arias. I mean, she was found guilty of first-degree murder. She was found guilty of the aggravator. Yes, she killed him in an extremely cruel way by slitting his throat and stabbing him all those times and shooting him in the face. It`s just a question of will she live or die? They couldn`t figure it out.

So Wendy Murphy, you`re a former prosecutor. A lot of people are saying prosecutor Juan Martinez, this costs a lot of money. They don`t know if they`re going to find 12 jurors that haven`t formed an opinion about this case. Could Jodi Arias hijack the case? There`s a whole bunch of reasons to maybe consider a plea deal.

MURPHY: Well, yes, you can argue the economics all day long, but every time a defendant is on trial and spends five years, you know, dawdling about, and doing silly things to waste out the clock, people say, as well they should, justice sometimes is expensive. If it`s the right thing to do, you do it.

Juan Martinez knows that she would have pled guilty to first-degree murder a long time ago. He pushed ahead because he believes, as does the family, that this is a case that warrants death.

Here`s what I like about what`s coming up. A new jury selected that knows nothing about the case? Not possible. Can they be fair? Absolutely. And they will be blissfully free from all the porn. They`re not going to have to sit through 18 days of "and then I bent over."

That will be good. Good for the family that we won`t have to all sit through that. Good for me.

And they`re also going to be told that Jodi lied in her media interviews after the verdict.


MURPHY: She lied to the media. They`re going to hear that. That`s manipulation. They`re going to use that against her.

LEIBERMAN: Jodi is going to end up digging her own grave.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s bring in Dave Hall.

You think so, Jon?

LEIBERMAN: I do. I believe -- I believe, just as Wendy said, that those media interviews are going to come back and bite Jodi Arias. I believe those media interviews, in part, are going to dig her own grave. They were the most ill-advised, crazy interviews ever.

SEDAGHATFAR: Why? Why would that come back to harm her? We know those jurors didn`t like her. They didn`t believe her, Jon. And they still...

LEIBERMAN: Because no remorse. She continued to lie.


SEDAGHATFAR: And what did she say?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me ask the experts here. Nobody knows more about this case than these two ladies here, except for maybe the prosecutor. Beth Karas, Jon Leiberman is saying that in this penalty phase retrial, that the interviews that Jodi Arias did while the jury was deliberating -- remember all those controversial interviews? She gave a slew? It was like a press junket. That those are going to come back to haunt her, that they could play those, and then that would hurt her even more with this jury, the new jury, the hypothetical jury that they`re going to find.

KARAS: I think Jon is right. If Juan Martinez chooses to use them. I don`t know that he will. But any statement she`s made could be used by him if he want to. I think Jon`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What do you think?

CASAREZ: Well, here`s what`s interesting. And we need to learn more about the procedure in Arizona, but if in fact, the defense does not put up one mitigation witness at all, then there`s nothing to cross-examine.

If Jodi makes an allocution as a statement, and although it can be referred to, just like it was days ago in the closing argument, you didn`t see him put up the new video that she did 20 minutes after the conviction.

But the jury has to learn about the guilt phase. They have to learn about the lies and the demeanor and the premeditation. Although that has been determined, it`s not to be litigated again, it`s still important for the jury to know about.

KARAS: And Jean`s points are well taken. However, because there`s a guilt phase here, they do need to hear this mitigation evidence. So I think this time they will.

A lot of the mitigation evidence this time around came in in the guilt phase. And I keep harking back to one example. One of her eight mitigators was she suffered abuse as a child and an adult. Now, we didn`t hear that in the penalty phase. We heard that in the guilt phase. So that`s going to have to come in now through her or maybe someone -- some friend. So they will put on mitigation evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think what I`m hearing you say is that, even though they basically said, "We`re not even going to put on a mitigation phase" this last time; "We`re not going to call her mother. We`re not going to call her ex-boyfriend. We`re not going to call her whatever."

This time it`s almost like that was a dress rehearsal for the real thing and that this time they can get it right and actually call mitigators, call people who are going to speak on Jodi Arias`s behalf. I mean, am I saying it...

KARAS: They almost have to. Because the new jury isn`t -- won`t have heard the guilt evidence. They have to put that on again. Jodi Arias told the jury ad nauseam about her alleged abuse as a child and an adult. Now, they`ve got to put that on in the mitigation phase, right?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You mean the prosecutor?

KARAS: No, no, no, the defense.

CASAREZ: They have the burden. But they then have an issue because Beth is right. There would then be cross-examination of all of that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s what I`m saying. I don`t know if it`s a good idea to say, "I was so abused." Wouldn`t you want to just have your mother come on and say, "She`s a good girl. I love her. Don`t kill her." You see what I mean?

CASAREZ: Because she will be cross-examined on that. The mother can be cross-examined. And you`re going to hear about the acts of kicking her mother and the horrible words. But this jury heard that, too.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. Well, you know what? I`m just going through the worm hole.

Are you confused? We are, too. In fact, the whole world is confused right now. Nobody knows what`s really going to happen. We`ll be right back.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State of Arizona versus Jodi Ann Arias, sentencing verdict. We, the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in above entitled action, upon our oath, unanimously find, having considered all of the facts and circumstances, that the defendant should be sentenced -- no unanimous -- no unanimous agreement, signed foreperson.

STEPHENS: Is this your true verdict, so say you one and all?







JULIE CHRISTOPHER, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: I`m extremely upset, and I`m probably very upset. There`s no words for what`s going on. You know, I made up a new word. This is a Travis-ty. And you know, it`s a way that Jodi now has got more time to seek to be more in front of the camera. And I think she`s got what she wanted. And that`s what`s making me so upset.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Again, what now? What now? Here in Phoenix, Arizona, as the jury says, "We can`t reach a decision on whether to kill her or not." And the prosecutor has to decide, "Well, am I going to retry her on the penalty phase?" More will be revealed, as they say.

You know, this case was so much about gender. And there were eight men and four women on the jury. Here`s what the jury foreman said about Jodi Arias and this terrible killing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I walked in the courtroom the first time and looked at who the defendant was, you know, it`s hard to put that in perspective when you look at a young woman and think of the crime. And then you see the brutality of the crime. It just doesn`t wash. So it`s very difficult.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Dave Hall, you are a very dear friend of the victim, Travis Alexander. What do you feel inside when you hear the jury foreman say, basically, you look at this young man, and it doesn`t wash, the horrible crime that was committed. And also, he said that he felt that she was a victim, in some way, of emotional and mental abuse.

DAVE HALL, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: Well, I ask myself what does a murderer look like? I mean, I think that`s crazy. And it just goes to show that Jodi`s manipulating ways did get across to the jury.

Because if you changed roles here and made the murderer a 55-year-old man that killed a 20-year-old woman, stabbed her 29 times, slit her throat, shot her in the head, and stuck her in the shower, do you think that that 55-year-old man would have, you know, avoided the death penalty? Absolutely not. I think her looks and her age played a little bit in the jury`s decision.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me ask you this, Beth Karas. I think a lot of people are quite stunned by some of the comments of the jury foreperson.

Now first of all, let me say, I admire the work that the jury did five months, sitting here, day after day, not calling in sick. We have to respect their decision. This is how the process works.

But a lot of people are shocked that he said, "Oh, you know, I look at this young woman and I think of the crime, and something doesn`t wash." In other words, almost like she doesn`t fit the picture of a killer.

KARAS: Right. That is a concern from a prosecutor`s point of view that they`re just going to kind of look at her and say, "I`m not going to put this woman to death. I don`t care what she did." Right? If she connected with the jury and then made that statement at the end.

Another thing that he said was that it was clear to him that she suffered verbal, emotional abuse. Note, he didn`t say physical. Right? There`s no corroboration for the physical abuse but her word. There is corroboration for emotional abuse. The character assassination, the defense called it. And that is in the instant messages and text messages, there were words that he used against her.

And so it`s interesting that he believed it. He believed it because he saw independent evidence of it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know, the thing is that Travis Alexander`s friends say if you look at the sum total of the communications between Travis and Jodi -- something like 82,000 communications between them, a huge amount -- that they literally pointed to a handful where he called her names and this one tape recording, which the prosecution said was taped without his knowledge.

So Dave Hall, back to you. Do you feel that the jurors got an incomplete picture of what really happened between them?

HALL: Absolutely. Because something happened on May 26th of 2008 that we don`t know what that is. But Travis said to Jodi, "What you did hurt me more than losing my father, who he had recently lost. And I wish we knew what that incident was that betrayed the trust.

But that, then, on the 28th is the only time that he uses bad language, calling her these horrible names and stuff, because he`s furious with what she did. And we don`t know what that is that she did. But they played those words, those sentences over and over and over again, making it feel like Travis, during this whole relationship, was verbally abusive, but it was one day.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he -- Dave Hall said it was one day that he used those words. And I think you`re almost right. But I think there were a couple of times where those words came in, if I`m not mistaken.

But certainly not that, in their 82,000 messages, let`s say 60,000 or 40,000 or 1,000 or 100 or 50 or 20. Maybe it was 2 or 3 times. Or let`s say at most four times. I don`t know the number exactly. But still, I mean, the idea that they bought it based on those few text messages.

KARAS: Indeed. There was corroboration. And at least he bought it. And we don`t know if the other three bought it. I`m assuming that he was one of those voting for life because everything he said seemed to indicate he was voting for life.

But that date is May 26 when Travis Alexander got -- I mean, he used the words that he had not ever used before. And that`s basically conceded by the defense. Something put him over the edge on that day. It was two days later that she staged the burglary and stole her grandfather`s gun. At least, that seems to be what the jury ended up believing. So she planned to kill him at that point. After those awful words were used on that day.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. So I think we`re all agreeing on the basic concept that, wow, if you look at anybody`s e-mails or text messages, I don`t care, anybody. Anybody who`s walking by this courthouse. You take every single text message or e-mail they`ve ever sent and just extrapolate one or two and conclude that their personality is what it is based on a couple of text messages or e-mails, we`d all be trouble. I know I might be in trouble.

We`re going to be back with more in a second.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was just so devastating to see how hard everybody tried to prove their case. And I understand that the jurors are just doing their job, but we all wanted it to end today. We all wanted rest for ourselves, rest for the family, rest for -- I just wanted it to be over with. And I really thought that it would be a unanimous decision.




JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: How is it that it just happened, you can`t even remember what you just said?

JODI ARIAS, CONVICTED OF MURDER: I think I`m more focused on your posture and tone and anger, so it`s hard to process the question.

MARTINEZ: So the answer is it`s, again, the prosecutor`s fault, because you perceive him to be angry. Right?

ARIAS: It`s not your fault.

MARTINEZ: Is somebody asking you whose fault it is?

ARIAS: You did.

MARTINEZ: You seem to be pointing it at the prosecutor. Right? So you believe the reason that you can`t be effective on the witness stand is because somebody is asking you questions in a way you don`t like?

ARIAS: I think that was a compound question.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate it. Should prosecutor Juan Martinez make a deal, given that this jury got stuck, got hung on the death or life aspect of this case? They were unable to decide whether to give Jodi Arias the death penalty or give her life in prison.

They`re going to have to retry that penalty phase. Should they go through all that expense? Or should they make a deal to take death off the table, giving the family of Travis Alexander, let`s say, Jodi Arias goes to prison for life without any possibility of parole? Starting with Janet -- Janet Johnson for the defense.

JOHNSON: Absolutely. And you know why? Because the split was 8-4. If there was one person who`s holding it up, that`s when the prosecutor says, "You know what? We`re going to get the next 12. There`s only one rogue juror." But it was 8-4, which means he has a lot of work to do to get the other third of that jury panel to decide to kill her.

And, you know, quite frankly, there are only three women on Death Row. One of them had her death sentence reversed. So there`s basically, effectively, only two. The odds of her getting executed in the next 12 years, it`s incredibly low.

So I think it would be spending a lot of time and she may never get executed. She may die a natural death on Death Row, because by the time her number comes up, I`m not even sure we`ll even have a death penalty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are showing an animation of lethal injection, how it works. While we debate, we`re also going to show you an age progression of Jodi Arias and what she would look like 20, 25 years from now.

Wendy Murphy, the last woman executed in Arizona was in 1930. They hanged her and, in the process, accidentally decapitated her. There are a lot of people who say, given the appeals process, and et cetera, et cetera, she`s going to go to the same cell unit any way, whether she gets life or whether she gets death, that it`s almost like a semantical question at this point. What say you?

MURPHY: Well, first of all, I`m opposed to the death penalty personally. I sort of feel like I`m at the Roman Coliseum, cheering for the lions sometimes in these kind of cases.

But I am comfortable cheering against leniency for Jodi Arias because -- and this is what I would be thinking if I`m Juan Martinez, no matter what else I`m thinking. Forget the budget. She manipulated, lied, used the media, used porn, used her image, completely disrespected Travis and his family, falsely accused him of pedophilia. I would keep pushing for the death penalty even if I thought I wouldn`t win, so as not to reward her for those disgusting tactics. I would put her through the grinder.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman.


SEDAGHATFAR: Let me respond.

LEIBERMAN: Go ahead.


SEDAGHATFAR: I was going to say -- I was going to say Jane, I think the bigger question is I don`t think Juan Martinez is going to take death off the table -- I think he should. But the bigger question is will Jodi Arias accept such as a plea offer --

JOHNSON: That`s true.

SEDAGHATFAR: -- because that certainly plea offer will include a waiver of all appeals. And at this point the fact that there were four holdouts I think is very telling. And there are some viable appellate issues that she has. I think we --

LEIBERMAN: Oh, there`s no viable --

MURPHY: Oh no, there are not. Oh no they are not.


LEIBERMAN: They have been so careful. They have gone out of their way to make sure that Jodi Arias got a fair trial in this case.

SEDAGHATFAR: I agree with you on that.

LEIBERMAN: Maybe even too lenient with a lot of what they have done. They have gone completely in Jodi Arias` favor --

JOHNSON: We agree with you Jon.

LEIBERMAN: -- but listen to this.

SEDAGHATFAR: I agree 100 percent. But there`s still appellate issues --

LEIBERMAN: Jodi Arias has made a mockery --


MURPHY: Let Jon talk.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right guys. Hold on.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to take a quick break and we`re going to continue this debate on the other side asking what about that movement "Prosecutor Juan Martinez for Governor of Arizona". How will all of this affect that movement?

Stay right there.



JODI ARIAS, CONVICTED MURDERER: I can`t in good conscience ask you to sentence me to death.

SAMANTHA ALEXANDER, SISTER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: Show mercy to find value in a person`s life.

ARIAS: Because of them.

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Thirty years -- 30 years old for the rest of his life.

ALEXANDER: Our poor brother`s throat slit from ear to ear.

MARTINEZ: That is something that you shouldn`t also forget.

ARIAS: He even said he doesn`t want to look at his brother`s murderer anymore.

ARIAS: I don`t -- can`t say what I deserve because it sounds so entitled.

ALEXANDER: We can never get him back.

ARIAS: I just don`t want to hurt people anymore.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you from the Maricopa County courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona where there is still shock and disbelief over the inability of the jury to reach a decision on whether Jodi Arias should live or die for the vicious killing of Travis Alexander.

And here we are going into the Memorial Day holiday and the family of Travis Alexander instead of having a fun time maybe going to the beach, maybe being with their family, sobbing and weeping and wondering what are they going to do with their lives now, now that they may retry the penalty phase of this case?

I want to go straight out to Dave Hall, a dear friend of the Alexander family. Dave, what is the Alexander family -- Samantha, Stephen, Ali, Tanisha and the entire clan going through right now?

DAVE ALEXANDER, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: Well, as you can imagine, they are still very sad about the outcome from this jury and they are all back in California this weekend. And you know, they are going to go visit Travis`s grave over Memorial Day weekend. How nice it would have been to go visit his grave and say, "Travis, we did it, we got justice." But instead they are going to have to say, "Travis, it`s delayed. We still have a few more months before we`ll know what`s going to happen."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But Dave, how do they survive? Samantha is a police officer in Carlsbad, California. Stephen Alexander spoke about how his marriage was almost destroyed by the length of this trial. Five years in July it will be, right, since she was arrested that they have had to live with this. How are they going to come back here again for the retrial of the penalty phase?

HALL: This toll this family has been through has been so difficult because it`s hundreds of thousands of dollars collectively that they have had to spend in attending this trial over the last five years.

It`s not only just a toll financially, but how do you make a mortgage payment when you haven`t worked for six months? Their jobs are on the line, their marriages are on the line, their children are suffering. It`s devastating to this family to have this prolonged any longer.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we`re talking about the fact that eight men and four women, the jury that convicted Jodi Arias of murder one in the killing of Travis Alexander and also determined the aggravator of extreme cruelty in the killing was ultimately unable to come to a decision as regards to whether Jodi Arias should live or die.

Now the jury foreman spoke to "Good Morning America" about Jodi Arias and her time -- 18 days, on the witness stand. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think she did herself any favors on the stand? There`s been a lot of debate over whether those 18 days of testimony helped or hurt her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I think 18 days hurt her. I think she was not a good witness.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We have to debate it -- let us debate this aspect of the case. I mean, Jodi Arias being on the stand 18 days, it`s one of the reasons why the entire country knows about this case because it was like watching a train wreck, you can`t look away. Jodi Arias talking. Many people, including the prosecutor, believing that she was lying as she was talking, accusing the victim, the man whose throat she slit, Travis Alexander, of everything from pedophilia to God only knows what.

The jurors through this foreman said they didn`t believe her story. They didn`t believe that she killed in self-defense. But they did believe certain aspects of the story. They believed that Jodi Arias was mentally and emotionally abused. That`s according to the foreman. He said he believed that, Wendy.

MURPHY: Well, so what. I mean 95 percent of the people in this country probably fit the definition of abuse under that standard. There`s a guy on death row in Arizona, a guy not a woman with implants, a guy who is mentally retarded, was sexually and repeatedly violated as a child. And then he became a killer and they didn`t care. You know why? Because that`s the way the law works.

We`re not interested in your abuse as a child or anything. We`re interested in whether the fact that you were abused cuts against the weight of reasons to put you to death.

Look, my feeling is the only reason anybody voted to spare her life is because she`s cute, she`s white and because she talked about sex. There`s a lot of guys on the jury, eight of them and you`re telling me they weren`t fantasizing a little bit while she was talking about (EXPLETIVE DELETED) --


MURPHY: --- of course, they were. It`s hard to kill somebody you`re sexually fantasizing about. The prosecutor will think about that the next time and --



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on, hold on. Did you just -- no way. Wait -- let`s rewind that. We`re rewinding that. Come on, now.

Janet Johnson --


MURPHY: It`s just like racism. It`s like racism in the --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m sorry -- I`m going to keel over, it`s very hot here in Arizona. It`s getting into the 90s and that one just probably put me over the edge. I`m going to keel over and you`re going to have to carry me away -- Janet Johnson.

MURPHY: But it`s true.

JOHNSON: Jane, I`m with you. I`m with you. Sexual fantasy often leads to violent reactions which is why we get raped. So I don`t think you can say that`s why they didn`t want to execute her.

But I think that the foreman did a fantastic job in explaining look, we didn`t like her -- kind of the same way the jury didn`t really like Casey Anthony -- but we didn`t feel --


JOHNSON: -- he didn`t say that either, but he did say, and I think that this is a great point that Dave made earlier that it is harder to feel that way about a woman. If she were a man, I totally agree -- I think she would be on death row. I think she would have gotten death.

But that doesn`t mean they like her. It doesn`t mean that they fantasize about her. It just means they couldn`t get to the point of killing her. Let`s give Nurmi and Willmott some points that they made that a feasible choice. It`s kind of a big victory for them and everyone has been trashing them.

LEIBERMAN: Not true.

JOHNSON: I think we have to say the defense did their client right.

MURPHY: It`s not a victory. Tricking the jury to --

LEIBERMAN: It`s not a victory at all.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to continue this debate on the other side. Should Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott now get off the case? Should they be new lawyers? Will they be allowed to be doing that? Will they want to do that now that they have had this sort of somewhat victorious moment?

Stay right there.


STEPHEN ALEXANDER, BROTHER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: It has been over four months now. I go home to California during the weekends. Every time I have to come back to Arizona, I see my little girl cry. I cannot wait for this to end so that we can all get back to our lives.




KIRK NURMI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Miss Willmott and I would move to withdraw from the case yet again. Under Strickland v Washington, we are in a position where we cannot provide effective assistance to council at this phase of the proceedings. We cannot present the complete picture that is incumbent upon us. We cannot fulfill that duty because we cannot provide the picture.

There is no speculation as to why Miss Womack couldn`t be here. She feels threatened. She feels intimidated. Miss Willmott and I cannot meet that standard and then move to withdraw.

SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Your motion to withdraw is denied.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate it. Should the defense team representing Jodi Arias, Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott get off the case now? They tried before. The "Arizona Republic" claims they intend to stay on the case but we don`t know that independently. So what do you think Anahita Sedaghatfar, should they leave?

SEDAGHATFAR: I definitely think they are going to try to leave because Jodi Arias has proven to be a defense attorney`s worst nightmare. These defense attorneys worked for years trying to save Jodi Arias` life and she goes on a media tour like she`s Kim Kardashian and throws her attorneys under the bus, sabotaging her own defense.

You know, I agree with your other guests that we do need to give her defense attorneys a lot of credit here because I think that part of the reason, a huge part of the reason --


SEDAGHATFAR: -- four of those jurors didn`t put her to death is because of those defense attorneys.

JOHNSON: That`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Briefly, Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: I don`t know. I mean, I don`t know about that. I don`t know why they didn`t choose death, but I don`t think it had anything to do with those two attorneys. I do want to point out Jane, something. In the past decade in Arizona five death penalty juries have been hung, but in three of those cases the defendant ended up getting death. That`s something we should point out. This case is by no means over.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. On the other side of the break, we`re back with Dave Hall, Travis`s dear friend, about what is best for the Alexander family. That is paramount.

Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Our Pet of the Day dedicated to victim, Travis Alexander, who had a pug named Napoleon. Napoleon now lives with Travis Alexander`s ex-girlfriend Deanna Reid -- very well taken care of. Please send us your pet pics to We want to see them. We want to share your love for your companion animal. And on the other side, Travis` legacy when it comes to the animals.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Here is an age progression of Jodi Arias, what she will look like as she ages over the decades behind bars. Dave Hall, a dear friend of Travis Alexander, we all want closure for the Alexander family, but given that, whether she gets life or death, she goes to the exact same cell, in the same facility -- at least the same type of cell. And given that the last time they executed a woman in Arizona was 1930, are we perhaps quibbling too much about the words?

HALL: You know, I don`t think so. We all wanted justice back in 2008 the day after Jodi Arias was arrested. But that`s not at all how God`s time frame works. And God used Moses to deliver his chosen people, but they had to wander in the desert for 40 years before they finally got to the Promised Land.

We`ve been dealing with this for five years. A few more months isn`t going to kill us.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So even though this is going to be a tremendous burden on the family of Travis Alexander, they will come back here to court, and at least according to you, Dave hall, they will push the prosecutor to move ahead with a retrial on the penalty phase. We`ll have to wait and see.

But up next, Travis Alexander was a wonderful guy, and it turns out that he had a tremendous love for animals but not just his dog Napoleon -- all animals. And I mean all animals.

Stay right there. We`re going to show you next.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Over the course of this long trial, Travis Alexander was called a lot of terrible things that the prosecutor, the general public and the presumably the jurors just didn`t believe, given the fact that they convicted Jodi Arias of premeditated murder. But by the same token there were wonderful things about Travis Alexander that none of us really knew. Well, over the course of investigating this trial and this case, I`ve come to find out that some of my passion -- love of animals -- Travis Alexander shared them as well.

I spoke with Travis` good friend Shaun Alexander -- no relation, but a good buddy of Travis` -- who told me of Travis` deep love of animals -- all animals.


SHAUN ALEXANDER, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: Yes, he was a big animal lover. Loved animals, loved Napoleon, loved that dog, and he did everything for that dog. He was a definite animal guy in general, so it was kind of nice. It was nice to have a dog in the house with a whole bunch of crazy guys.

One night, Travis decided to have us start watching a show, which I later learned was called "Earthlings", which ultimately was a brutal show that shows all the inner workings behind the scenes to the slaughter industry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. Similarly species (inaudible) allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interest of members of other species.

SHAUN ALEXANDER: We got to watch a bunch of brutally murdered cows and chickens and how they mistreat all the animals and so on and so forth. It really struck a chord with him. He kind of made it a point then that we start eating healthier and a lot more vegetables, a lot more fruits and cut out all the meat from our diets as much as nine single young guys could cut out meat, I guess.

But all of a sudden it was a complete change of how we were eating and what we were doing at the house. It`s hard to watch, it`s hard to stomach, it`s hard to believe that that type of stuff actually happens in our country. I think that was the most shocking part, too. It was that those types of practices are widespread and they happen everywhere -- one of those things that really give you nightmares.

When you watch it, it really changes your whole view of the meat industry across the board. It really made a big difference for him.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: It turns out this saga is nowhere near over. A status conference right here at the Maricopa County courthouse June 20 and then a trial date currently set for July 18. We will be all over it.

But a final word from my heart, I respect the hard work that the jurors put in and my heart goes out to everyone whose lives were shattered by this terrible, terrible act of violence.

Nancy next.