I read frequently but (obviously) hardly ever post. Please be gentle.
A few questions:
1. It is my understanding that during jury selection in a death penalty trial the question that is asked is: "Could you vote for the death penalty?" As opposed to: "If you find this person guilty, you will vote for the death penalty." Is that correct?
2. It is also my understanding that this jury has unanimously found CMJA guilty of murder in the first degree, with extreme cruelty. So what they are discussing now is mitigating factors. The difference between life and death?
3. What are they allowed to consider as mitigating factors? Is it limited to age (she was old enough to know better), mental incapacity (I consider her a psychopath, not mentally ill) or other things. Did some members of the jury buy the DV and child abuse stuff? I didn't.
I'm wondering here about mitigating factors. I wonder what they are discussing, because, to me, someone (s) on that jury is seeing mitigating factors.
I do think this jury is doing their job properly, unlike the Pinellas 12 (MOO). They are at least considering the issues and asking questions. If they were not carefully considering and debating the issues before voting for the DP, then they would not be doing their job. Holding someone's life in your hands is a very important decision.