Here is a list of mitigators available for Jodi's DT to look into for this stage, there are a few that might have been used, but haven't been .. her personality disorder could have come into play, and since the state has already agreed it could be compelling to a jury, although in the end since the argument on impairment is whether the defendant knew right from wrong, I think it would have been dismissed, would have been more interesting in court than her art show however.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES*
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-751, each death sentence must rest on two findings: proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least one aggravating circumstance set forth in A.R.S. § 13-751(F), and a finding that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.* A.R.S. § 13-751(E).* Mitigation is defined by our statute as evidence relevant to any aspect of the defendants character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.
Statutory & Non-Statutory Factors: In contrast to aggravation, mitigating circumstances are not limited to those set forth in A.R.S. § 13-751(G).* Thus, if the defendants evidence of intoxication fails to satisfy the enumerated mitigating circumstance (G)(1), it may be considered as a non-statutory mitigator.* See, e.g., State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 69-70, ¶¶ 75-80, 107 P.3d 900, 915-16 (2005) (court first rejects drug impairment under (G)(1), then rejects it as a non-statutory mitigator); State v. Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. 19, 35, ¶¶ 79-82, 97 P.3d 844, 860 (2004) (same).
Intellectual Disability (Mental Retardation):
Relevant Mitigation:* The U.S. Supreme Court has made plain that a sentencing jury may not be precluded from considering any relevant, mitigating evidence. <snipped>
But while there are virtually no limits [] placed on the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may introduce concerning his own circumstances, Tennard, 542 U.S. at 285 (quoting Eddings. v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 114 (1982)), this is not to say that the State cannot place parameters on the jurys consideration of mitigation.*
IMPAIRMENT: MENTAL
State v. Arnett (Arnett II), 125 Ariz. 201, 608 P.2d 778 (1980)
The trial judge noted the defendant's "serious emotional problems" and nervous breakdown as contributing to his inability to adhere to any legal standards or code of responsibility other than his own. The Court agreed with this assessment.
State v. Laird, 186 Ariz. 203, 920 P.2d 769 (1996)
The defendant suffers from serious personality disorders. Two psychologists testified that he showed features of antisocial, narcissistic, and borderline personality disorders. However, the evidence showed that he understood the significance of his actions. He planned the murder in advance, dumped the victim's body in the desert, concealed it with vegetation, washed the victim's blood off the truck, disposed of bloody clothing in two separate dumpsters, and made up a story about how he got the truck. These facts demonstrate that the defendant understood the wrongfulness of his actions. See drugs/alcohol section.
DRUGS / ALCOHOL : Not as far as we know ..
DURESS : A.R.S. § 13-751(G)(2) provides that it shall be a mitigating circumstance where [t]he defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such as to constitute a defense to prosecution.
Personality Disorders Distinguished:* Duress is not proven by evidence that shows the defendants personality disorders overwhelmed his will.* Brewer; State v.* Castenada, 150 Ariz. 382, 724 P.2d 1 (1986) (impulse control problems do not fall within meaning of duress).
A.R.S. § 13-751(G)(3) MINOR PARTICIPATION - she acted alone
A.R.S. § 13-751(G)(4) VICTIM'S DEATH NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE*
A.R.S. § 13-751(G)(5) AGE* 27 ... Being used.
COOPERATION No, she did not.
LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY Being used.
CHILDHOOD / FAMILY Being used.
EMPLOYMENT / MILITARY No.
FAMILY TIES Being used.
FELONY MURDER/LACK OF INTENT Not relevant, premed found.
FOLLOWER No, she is clearly independent, acted alone.
GOOD CHARACTER Being used .. good friend etc.
INTELLIGENCE/EDUCATION She's average.
LIFE SENTENCE AVAILABLE
State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220, 934 P.2d 784 (1997)
The Court noted that the possibility of a life sentence is a sentencing option, not a mitigating circumstance.
MEDICAL PROBLEMS She is healthy
MODEL PRISONER She hasn't quite been one, if Nurmi brought it up, Juan could expose all her behaviours
LENIENCY Has to be recommended by police / court officials
REHABILITATION [This category consists of cases where the defendant argued that he can be rehabilitated and will no longer be dangerous in the future. It does not include cases that argue the defendant has changed his character while incarcerated, has done good things in the past, or lacks a prior criminal history. For those cases, see the model prisoner, good character, or criminal history sections.]
REMORSE / GRIEF If she had shown genuine grief it would have been a mitigator .. is that why she sent out this tweet after Nurmi visited her at the jail?
Jodi Arias ‏‪@jodiann_arias‬
20h
Snc U been gone Everythins goin wrongWhy'dyou have to say goodbye Look what you've done to meI can't stop these tears fromfallinfrom my eyes
RESIDUAL DOUBT/INNOCENCE There is no doubt here ..
SENTENCING DISPARITY This is for cofedendants
STRESS
State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238, 947 P.2d 315 (1997)
While the defendant was not under duress, he was under substantial stress from the breakup of his marriage, and the termination of his college and military careers. This was entitled to some nonstatutory mitigating weight.
VICTIM'S ACTIONS May be being avoided because jury did not believe her, but ...
State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 661 P.2d 1105 (1983)
The defendant argued that his stormy love-hate relationship with the victim raised a classic provocation situation and that the crime was one induced by the heat of passion. But there was nothing in the record indicating an argument or that the crime was induced by the heat of passion. Several months before the murder, Jeffers learned the victim may have been an informant against him. One week prior to the murder, Jeffers met with the victim and discussed the possibility she had been an informant against him. The victim also advised him that she was now a prostitute and would charge for her favors, but Jeffers testified that he had accepted the situation and was not angry. The Court concluded that even if the victim's actions were sufficient to constitute adequate provocation, there was sufficient time between the provocation and the crime for passions to "cool." The Court agreed with the trial court's finding that Jeffers may have had some reason to be provoked and was under some stress, but "nothing more."
MISCELLANEOUS
[This is a catch-all category for cases that do not fit within the other categories. It appears that the arguments presented here were only presented in that particular case and have not been repeated in other cases. Some of these arguments are specific to the particular case. Others argue more generally about the cost or efficacy of the death penalty.]
IMPAIRMENT
If the defendant shows some impairment at the time of the offense, he is entitled to an instruction on substantial impairment as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance, irrespective of whether he previously did or did not receive an instruction on impairment under G(1).* State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz 54¶¶ 75-80 (2005) (citing to State v. Gallego, 178 Ariz. 1, 17-18, 870 P.2d 1097, 113-14 (1994).
This circumstance considers the same criteria as that included in the (G)(1) statutory aggravator, significant impairment.* For a full discussion of mental/drug impairment, see the (G)(1) section.
NOT A FUTURE DANGER She most likely is.
http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances.aspx
