Truncated for Focus, by me.If BK's social media postings of the impact if this disease on him at age 15 was read to the jury, it is possible that at least one juror would have sympathy for BK on this mitigating factor. Other mitigating factors would also likely be introduced in order to inspire compassion or sympathy among one or more members of the jury. Just as the prosecution has included aggravating circumstances to the murder charges which make BK eligible for the death penalty sentence, so do the mitigating facotrs produced by the defendant and/or defense provide the jury with the option to weigh the mitigating factors against the aggravating factors and decide if BK will be sentenced to death or LWOP.
Also, I am sure that if the defense plans to use this disease as a possible mitigation factor at a future sentencing hearing if BK is convicted, then they would no doubt eliminate a juror who has suffered from this disease themselves.
I would think that the defense is thinking ahead to a possible sentence hearing and what mitigating factors they would present if BK is convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances, and that this will have an impact on jury selection. This, along with other issues related to the trial itself.
Good observation, Sundog...and could be indicative of some Defense strategy.
IANAL but MOO: for jury selection and voir dire, I would think the Defense would be well served to get the condition listed on the presumptive questioning....Moreover, I would presume that the Judge would strike the question unless there were some proof that the defendant suffered from the condition.
Reaching further: If there were no (accurate, relevant) diagnosis from a PA health professional from years prior, I would posit that D would be pursuing the diagnosis now; as they should with any other identifiable and mitigating condition that BK might have. Otherwise it may never get incorporated into the presumptive portion of VD interrogatory. Moreover: they might get a preferred and specific diagnosis as opposed to whatever was recorded, and can be accessed, from analysis applied to a teenager ten years ago.
So D would be well served to get a group of appropriate and accredited professionals to develop and record a diagnosis, any diagnosis that could be mitigating, now, as opposed to between the phases of a trial: barring them knowing that the trial will never reach the penalty phase. If they were to rely on just what they can source from PA at some future date, they could take the third strike, looking...
Any of the legal types here have comment? Speculative and MOO as always.