If anyone is interested, here is a collection of
108 Easy Mitigating Factors.
http://www.fpdaz.org/assets/panel/108 Easy Mitigating Factors November 1, 2005.pdf
And, FWIW, here is the
The Thinking Advocate's List of Mitigating Factors from The Sentencing Project.
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/listofmitigatingfactors.pdf
Probable emotional trigger warning. This is a devil's advocatish kind of rant that may have dire consequences for some readers blood pressure. You may want to skip the next bit entirely and just look at the information in these two sources. I was amazed at how many mitigating factors exist and can understand why the DT would need a specialist in this area.
Rant: The DT is having to fight for every single one of the pitifully few mitigating factors they can offer the court on JA's behalf. It can't be easy, and I can sort of understand why LKN is so angry. He wanted to just get away from JA and was denied by JSS. I'm sure he's thinking he'll be d**ned if an appeals court will find he was ineffective counsel. So, IMO, he's spinning mitigating factors out of spiderwebs and moonbeams in an effort to create the illusion that JA was young and vulnerable at the time of the crime, and, because she is somewhat malleable because of her youth, she is capable of being rehabilitated back into society. He has to, because he has nothing else to offer on her behalf. Nothing.
He can't point to her "excellent employment record"*. He can't tell the jury that his client can be "successfully treated"* for her disorder. He can't direct the jury's attention to documentation of his client's "exemplary"* behaviour following her arrest. The defendant is not "repentant and contrite"*. His client has not by a "plea of guilty aided in ensuring the prompt and certain application of correctional measures"* to her. He can't even claim that "the passing of sentence was unduly delayed"* since the DT has been responsible for most of the delays involved. Claims of her abusive childhood seem sketchy at best, IMO.
So, he has her age (which I still think is questionable as a mitigator) and her lack of criminal record (though, as has previously been pointed out by JM, not a lack criminal behaviour). So that leaves the DT with the most distasteful of options. "The victim(s) provoked the crime to a substantial degree, or other evidence that misconduct by victim contributed substantially to the criminal episode."* That's it. And, it seems to me, that is why the DT keeps implying that Travis Alexander was a pervert (disproven, I think, by JM) and an abusive partner (also disproven, I think, by JM). That's all they've got.
A villain is the hero of his own story. So here, in his story (IMO), LKN is striving against all the odds to get his client LWP or LWOP rather than the DP. He is friendless (JW is not his friend, IMO. The two have been tied to this case by the court, not a mutual desire to offer a defence.) He is unappreciated (JA is ungrateful, irritating, and extraordinarily difficult to deal with, IMO.) He is outmanned (I think his experts are no match for the State's experts). His work will be mercilessly analyzed and judged (in appeal after appeal, IMO). So he is digging into what he has--an understanding of the law. He is looking for loopholes (I think to protect what is left of his reputation. He does not, IMO, want anyone to fault him for missing a technical detail. He does not want to be seen as ineffective.) And, IMO, he's looking for one person to have enough doubt to hang the jury and take the DP off the table. It's a monumental task, and he is JA's only hope. (It's his story, remember?) He's standing between her and the gurney, and the court has assigned him the task to keep JA from execution. He has been ordered to take on the role of advocate for one of the most vile, unlikeable, uncharismatic, unrepentant, pretentious, posturing, hateful liars in existence.
If I understand it correctly, a defence attorney is not just defending his client when he/she takes on a case. A defence attorney is defending the rights of every person in the city/county/state/country by holding the state accountable for every action taken in a court of law. So, Nurmi, by vigorously defending JA, is making sure that the next person in an Arizona courtroom will not have his/her rights trampled. He is upholding the rule of law by not allowing public opinion to influence a decision regarding his client's sentence. In a sense, he's making sure that justice remains blind to any factors extraneous to the crime before the court. It's possible, IMO, that he sees his actions as holding JM and his team, and his witnesses, to the highest standards because only by doing so can he fulfill his obligation as an officer of the court to be sure that the court system will be fair to people who, like his client IMO, are unlikeable. Fairness doesn't mean they are found not guilty nor does it mean that they go unpunished. It's just that their guilt is proven beyond a doubt.
So, although I believe JA is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I hate the way the DT is treating the State's witnesses and I would have no problem voting in favour of the DP in this case, I sort of see where LKN is coming from. He's no Atticus Finch, but he's fighting a losing battle with everything at his disposal. JMO.
*The Thinking Advocate's List of Mitigating Factors.
