So I have copied out some information from the Florida College of Advanced Judicial Studies re conducting the penalty phase of a capital case because I believed this was where the defense was heading for the mitigation phase. It looks like we could have some interesting discussions about it this week.
I can see all kinds of things they try to introduce here - however it may turn out to be a book when posted - then mods please go ahead and delete.
(Quote:
6.8.3 Extreme mental or Emotional Disturbance
The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance
This mitigating circumstance does not require the establishment of insanity, or lack of legal responsibility. It can be argued to the jury and the Court, with or without expert testimony, if the facts of the defendants behavior show his mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. For example, the fact the defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics can support establishment of this factor.
When experts testify as to this mitigating factor and their opinions conflict with the jury, and ultimately the sentencing judge, must reconcile these conflicts. If, after considering the conflicting testimony, the trial judge determines this mitigating factor does not exist, that finding will generally not be disturbed on appeal. If the testimony is not in conflict, it may be error for the trial judge not to find this mitigating factor. However, in more recent opinion, the Supreme Court of Florida held, Even uncontroverted opinion testimony can be rejected, especially when it is hard to reconcile with other evidence presented in the case. But there must be other evidence in the case to make the reconciliation hard. In Crook vs. State the uncontroverted evidence established the defendant had a well-documented head injury at the age of five when he was hit on the head with a pipe. After that time, he exhibited signs of neurological damage because he switched from being right handed to being left handed and was found not to be tracking visually. Testimony established that the defendant had frontal lobe damage that caused difficulty in controlling his behavior and was prone to impulsive and aggressive behavior including rage. One expert opined that the defendants brain was broken. The trial court rejected the brain-damage testimony. The Court disagreed stating, Whenever a reasonable quantum of competent, uncontroverted evidence has been presented, the trial court must find that the mitigation has been proved. All believable and uncontroverted mitigating evidence contained in the record must reject proffered mitigation if the record provides competent substantial evidence to support the trial courts decision. The court considers brain damage to be a significant mitigating factor.
In the Crook case, the defendant was also borderline mentally retarded. The decision in Crook predated the United States Supreme Courts decision finding it unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded defendant. It also predated the recently enacted Florida Statute that deals with the subject. However, since Crooks I.Q. was around 70, he might not have met the requirements under the Floridas statute. Interestingly, a Social Security evaluation established Crook was incapable of maintaining employment within a competitive work setting due to his severe cognitive, emotional and behavioral defects. The trial court erred in failing to consider Crooks mental retardation.
Crooks case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing and Crook was again sentenced to death. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for the imposition of a life sentence with out the possibility of parole because, in spite of strong aggravation murder committed in the course of a sexual battery, pecuniary gain and HAC- it was accompanied by extreme mitigation including frontal lobe damage, diminished control over inhibitions, disadvantaged and abusive home life, substance abuse that aggravated mental deficiencies and age of 20 at the time of the killing.
The weight to be given this circumstance is up to the jury and the sentencing judge. :Quote)
