EJ MONTINI

Juror 17 was NOT the problem in Jodi Arias trial

EJ Montini
opinion columnist
Jodi Arias (center) looks to the jury at the end of her sentencing trial

I can't tell you how many people have called or e-mailed or messaged me over the past several days to tell me how much they hate Juror 17.

I've also gotten messages from a smaller number of individuals who wanted to tell me that they admire Juror 17.

While disagreeing with one another on the outcome, and on the juror, all of them shared the belief that the murderer Jodi Arias will not be put to death because of Juror 17.

And all of them are wrong.

It's true that the final vote in the sentencing trial of Arias was 11-1, with Juror 17 the lone hold-out.

That forced the judge to declare a mistrial and that, in turn, means that Arias will either receive a sentence of natural life in prison or with the possibility of release after 25 years.

Still, Juror 17 should not be "blamed" or "praised" for holding out.

The reason Jodi Arias will not be put to death is that the jury system can be fickle. It has flaws. Jurors, who swear to base their opinions on an unbiased review of the facts, are regular human beings for whom being unbiased is impossible.

The jury system let O.J. Simpson off a murder rap. The jury system will send Arias to prison for life, but not condemn her.

Since 2000 nearly 70 men who were sent to death row by the jury system in the United States have been exonerated. They've been set free by advances in DNA evidence, by competent representation and more.

Juror 17 is not the problem.

She's only a symptom of a much bigger problem. One part of that problem is having a death penalty on the books in the first place.

It is ridiculous, as I've written before, that the cost of defending Arias is twice as much as it would (and will) cost us to keep her in prison for life.

Her defense set us back over $3 million. If she were to live 60 more years – to 95 – the cost of keeping her in prison would top out at roughly $1.5 million.

Now, we'll pay for her wildly expensive defense as well as the $1.5 million to keep her behind bars. Plus the cost of the prosecution. Plus the cost of the appeals.

Not much about that would have changed no matter which way Juror 17 had voted.

If she had gone along with the others who wanted the death sentence Arias still would have gotten her appeals.

And even if all of those appeals failed it would have taken decades to reach the point where she might – might – be executed.

Now that death is no longer an option Arias will get those appeals anyway. Who knows? She might even get a new trial.

Jodi Arias is the guilty one here, not Juror 17, whose name and address were cruelly released after the trial.

Prosecutors didn't pry deeply enough into Juror 17's past or family history. (Her husband had been prosecuted once by Arias' prosecutor Juan Martinez.) Perhaps they didn't probe deeply enough into how much she was influenced by a made-for-TV movie about Arias. Or why she "liked" news shows on her Facebook page. Prosecutors will now look into how truthfully she answered questions or filled out a juror questionnaire, but don't expect them to prosecute her for perjury. Something like that could chillingly taint our trust in future jury pools.

No. Juror 17 wasn't the problem.

And blaming her, or praising her, is no solution.