Get ready with the rotten tomatoes to throw at me..
Stating the obvious, perhaps, but here's reality.
1. This is the sentencing phase and the rules of evidence are different. Much broader. This is in service to the notion that the jury deserves to hear every conceivable bit of information out there to help them decide which penalty is most just.
2. The DT is legally, morally, and ethically required to present a full and vigorous case as to why their client should not receive the DP.
3. JA has only 3 real mitigators- her age, lack of criminal history, and the State's assessment that she has BPD.
4. The DT is required to diligently search and to present anything about their client, her life, or the circumstances of her crime that can be considered mitigating.
5. JA'S BPD does not mean she's legally insane, but it does indicate she is mentally ill. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not her mental illness explains -not excuses- the fact she killed Travis and/or the cruelty with which she killed him.
6. The DT and their client don't agree on defense strategy. Imo Nurmi clearly wanted to go all out on mental illness as mitigator. JA hasn't allowed him free reign. JA has the constitutional right to the defense of her choice. JA's choice is demonizing Travis in the belief that at least one juror will be swayed that Travis deserved to die.
7. Putting Travis on trial is necessary for each and for both of these defenses. JA's reasons for doing so speak for themselves. Nurmi's story of a vulnerable mentally ill young woman needs a Travis who triggered, stoked, and fed JA's mental illness. Enter Travis the villain.
8. JSS is the judge. It is her job, not the DT's , to determine how far the DT can go, how many lines the DT can tiptoe up to and stand on, and which side to give the benefit of the doubt to if a given law isn't spelled out in black and white.
