Angry Jodi Arias jurors say holdout had an agenda

The Jodi Arias sentencing retrial ended with eleven angry jurors struggling to convince a lone holdout that the defendant should be put to death.

They failed.

Fourteen jurors in the Maricopa County Superior Court case — including one who was released and two alternates — discussed their deliberations with reporters for more than an hour Thursday morning, shortly after a mistrial was declared Thursday by Judge Sherry Stephens.

The mistrial was declared when the jury found itself at impasse after five days of deliberations.

The only person not present was the lone holdout.

The jurors alternately expressed remorse that they were not able to reach a verdict and anger at the woman who held out against the death penalty, saying they suspected she had an "agenda."

"We really feel like we made a huge effort," one juror said. "I could not say how sorry I am that it wasn't enough."

It was the second time a jury was hung on the question of whether to sentence Arias to death or life in prison for the June 4, 2008, slaying of her lover, Travis Alexander.

"The 11 of us strived for justice but to no avail," a juror said. "We absolutely feel the penalty should have been death."

Jurors said the holdout kept using the word "revenge" in relation to the death penalty. They asked if there was a circumstance in which she felt like she could agree to sentence someone to death; she was unable to provide such a scenario, they said.

The jury was composed of eight women and four men.

Jurors, who were not identified by name, told the media they were split roughly in half over whether to impose a death sentence when they were given the case on Feb. 25.

By the next afternoon, everybody except for the holdout had come around to the death verdict.

Jurors said the holdout had told them she had watched at least parts of a made-for-TV-movie about the case; they said they believe she had formulated an opinion before deliberations began.

"The one holdout had her mind made up from the beginning," a male juror said. He said the holdout apparently felt "the death penalty would be a form of revenge."

According to several jurors, the holdout declined to deliberate over the evidence, prompting the foreman at one point to ask if the juror could be replaced because he felt there were legitimate questions about juror bias and ineffective deliberations.

Stephens declined to replace the holdout, sending the jury back to continue deliberating.

Several said they lost sleep over the impasse, and one alternate tearfully recounted how frustrating it was for the trial to end without a verdict when all the jurors had put their lives on hold for months to see justice done.

"It's pressure all day, every day," one juror said.

The foreman noted that there were jurors who were opposed to the death penalty on religious grounds who nonetheless came around to a death verdict, unlike the holdout.

The holdout — who did not speak to the media — would not budge.

"It turned into a pride thing — standing her ground," said one juror.