VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Retrial Day 43, Part 2

[kaRN]

Karla Homolka

:truce: :facepalm: There's no snappy response to that post. You found my (our) kryptonite. That said LOL! I'd still remove all family members from the path of my departing jury if I was courthouse security. It's manipulative IMHO.

 

[DeDee]

Every one! No matter where you live, wear blue tomorrow to support Justice for Travis!

 

[Sulamith]

I don't care that JA showed no remorse. If she did, I would not believe her any more than the other countless killers who say that they are oh so sorry, and that they have now found Jesus. I don't believe them. IMO, remorse is not a mitigating factor.

 

[neesaki]

Some seem to think only certain cases should be death penalty cases. That is only a personal opinion we have and really has nothing to do with how it is done in our justice system.

That is why the sole decision it is left up to each Prosecutor's office in each local jurisdiction whether they decide if a case should be a death penalty case or not.

Outsiders (public at large) aren't the ones who decide nor should they be.

In each jurisdiction the DA has knowledge of other murder cases committed in their area and from that they know when a crime is so heinous and cruel (beyond what society is willing to accept) that it is death penalty qualified. Usually these are premeditated gruesome overkills like is seen in this case.

Most of those on death row aren't mass murderers or serial killers or stranger pedophile/murderers.

Many of them are individual men who are on death row because they murdered someone they knew well such as a spouse or ex-spouse or ex-girlfriend etc. In other words. DV homicides just like Travis' DV homicide.

In this case the DA would have been remiss in his duties if he did not try to seek the death penalty for JA. The aggravators most definitely shows why this is a DP case and should be.

Agree with all you say here. I now wonder if it's the norm for a DT to completely change their strategy in a sentencing retrial case. Is this actually done in most states , or this an idiosyncrasy of Arizona state law ? Seriously, the DT here completely changed their claims from the first trial, in which they denied that the killer had BPD at all. To, in the retrial, claims that BPD was a mitigating factor. I just don't get it, it seems so deceptive and unethical, IMO. Yet sadly it may be working. And this is what has our justice system has come to ? God help us all. JMO

 

[RickshawFan]

Worst of the worst: Israel Keyes. Ron and Dan Lafferty, Rebecca David, Susan Smith, Josh Powell, Jeremiah Wright and every criminal featured on The Dreamin' Demon. People who kill their babies.

Diane Downs, who shot her 3 children. Life, not Death Row. Oregon didn't have a death penalty, IIRC. I believe she comes up for parole periodically, but will never get it. Her prosecutor adopted the 2 surviving (but very damaged) children. The story is covered in Anne Rule's book Small Sacrifices. It was easily as riveting as the Arias stuff when it unfolded in the early 80's, but she came up for trial quite soon. It featured several surrogate births, a baby in prison from a one-night stand, an escape from prison that lasted for days, a hairy scary stranger on a dark road, a big reveal by her young daughter on the witness stand (she wrote the name of the perpetrator on a piece of paper in her psychologist's office and then sealed it; the envelope wasn't opened until court, and no one knew what she had written until then).

 

[Val1]

UM no. He still killed two people.

Alright, it had sounded like you perhaps were more outraged that he had killed his own child, rather than a child, and that somehow qualified him more for the DP.

I just have trouble with the distinction drawn between murder and murder... to me a murder is a murder(that means an intentional killing) and all murder imo deserves the same punishment(or "justice" for those that prefer that term) and mitigation should never enter into it.

Now for lesser degrees of punishment, like LWOP and LWP, I would consider those more the realm of "justice" for accidental killings and much more likely to need to be seen through the subjective lenses of a jury.
ie. drunk driving causing death imo would qualify for the life sentences, the number of victims would determine whether LWOP or LWP and then something like having a tire blow on your car on the freeway causing death would imo be more open to LWP or perhaps even lesser time, that would be up to the jury to determine the culpibility of the driver/owner and that's where mitigation would count.

Just MOO.

 

[turaj]

The very thought of another freaking mini trial just so JSS can decide whether to go LWP or LWOP even though she presided over both trials, and heard every single motion just boggles the mind, I mean come on!!!!

Personally, I think if the DP has been on the table, then there should be no option, it should be LWOP in the case of a hung jury.

I am certainly not a fan of JSS but I am guessing that she is way more sick of this trial than any of us could be...she does operate in some very strange ways but I am certain she is not dumb. I also bet she is really hoping that this jury does not hang as this will leave it in her hands and if what some say is true and that could involve more testimony and pleading for lesser sentence...she does not want that.

 

[RR0004]

Bingo! It is not supposed to be emotional. I completely understand that people are emotional about the murder of a great man, But still it is not supposed to be about emotions.

You're right, but the punishment is supposed to fit the crime...or at least that's why I assumed this case was eligible for the DP.
So, the question remains, does the punishment fit the multiple stabbing, near decapitation, and shooting (murder) of Travis Alexander?

 

[Amster]

Juans hands were tied....I think he did all he could considering whose courtroom he was in. Having to defend himself and his department against prosecutorial misconduct charges and defend Travis from having child *advertiser censored* IN FRONT OF THE JURY gave a message to some jurors, possibly, that something was shady about the state and *advertiser censored* was covered up/deleted. And, thats just part of it. What Sherry allowed the defense/Jodi to do should lead to the end of her career as a judge....

 

[daisydomino]

Bedtime reading anyone?

These are the final instructions given to the jury in the penalty phase of the 2013 trial
(Download as PDF)

Penalty Phase
Hon. Sherry K. Stephens
Judge of the Superior Court
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JODI ANN ARIAS
CR2008-03l021-001

Duties of Jurors
Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the Defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.

The law that applies is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow all of them whether you agree with them or not. You must not single out certain instructions and disregard others.

You must not be influenced at any point in these proceedings by conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. You are not to be swayed by mere sympathy not related to the evidence presented during the penalty phase.

You must not be influenced by your personal feelings of bias or prejudice for or against the Defendant or any person involved in this case on the basis of anyone’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, gender or sexual orientation.

Both the State and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will consider all the evidence, follow the law, exercise your discretion conscientiously and reach a just verdict.

I do not mean to indicate any opinion on the evidence or what your verdict should be by any ruling or remark I have made or may make during this penalty phase. I am not allowed to express my feelings in this case, and if I have shown any you must disregard them. You and you alone are the triers of fact.

Spoiler

Duty to Consult with One Another
As jurors, you have a duty to discuss the case with one another and to deliberate in an effort to reach a just verdict. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after you consider the evidence impartially with your fellow jurors. During your deliberations, you should not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if you become convinced that it is wrong. However, you should not change your honest belief concerning the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

Evidence
You are to apply the Law to the evidence and in this way decide whether the Defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. The evidence you shall consider consists of the testimony and exhibits the court admitted in evidence during all of the three phases of this trial.

lt is the duty of the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence. You shall not concern yourselves with the reasons for these rulings. You shall disregard questions and exhibits that were withdrawn or to which objections were sustained.

Evidence that was admitted for a limited purpose shall not be considered for any other purpose. You shall disregard testimony and exhibits that the court has not admitted, or the court has stricken. The lawyers may stipulate certain facts exist. This means both sides agree that evidence exists and is to be considered by you during your deliberations at the conclusion of the trial. You are to treat a stipulation as any other evidence. You are free to accept it or reject it, in whole or in part, just as any other evidence.

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is the testimony of a witness who saw, heard or otherwise observed an event. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a fact or facts from which you may find another fact. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. It is for you to determine the importance to be given to the evidence, regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial.

During the aggravation phase of the trial, you found that the State had proved that a statutory aggravating circumstance exists making the defendant eligible for the death sentence. During this penalty phase, the Defendant and the State may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for a sentence less than death. The State may also present any evidence that demonstrates that the Defendant should not be shown leniency. Leniency means a sentence less than death.

Mitigating circumstances may be found from any evidence presented during any of the phases of the trial. You should consider all of the evidence without regard to which party presented it. Each party is entitled to consideration of the evidence whether produced by that party or by another party.

You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and what weight is to be given the testimony of each witness. In considering the testimony of each witness you may take into account the opportunity and ability of the witness to observe, the witness’ memory and manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice the witness may have, the reasonableness of the testimony of the witness considered in light of all the evidence, and any other factors that bear on credibility and weight.

A witness qualified as an expert by education or experience may state opinions on matters in that witness’s field of expertise, and may also state reasons for those opinions. Expert opinion testimony should be judged just as any other testimony. You are not bound by it. You may accept it or reject it, in whole or in part, and you should give it as much credibility and weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s qualifications and experience, the reasons given for the opinions, and all the other evidence in the case.

The testimony of a law enforcement officer is not entitled to any greater or lesser importance or believability merely because of the fact that the witness is a law enforcement officer. You are to consider the testimony of a police officer just as you would the testimony of any other witness.

The attorneys’ remarks, statements and arguments are not evidence, but are intended to help you understand the evidence and apply the law.
The attorneys are entitled to make any objections that they deem appropriate. These objections should not influence you, and you should make no assumptions because of objections by the attorneys.

Victim Impact Information
Relatives of the victims made statements relating to personal characteristics and uniqueness of the victims and the impact of the murder on the victims’ family. You may consider this information to the extent that it rebuts mitigation. You may not consider the information as a new aggravating circumstance.

Mitigation
Mitigating circumstances are any factors that are a basis for a life sentence instead of a death sentence, so long as they relate to any sympathetic or other aspect of the Defendant’s character, propensity, history or record, or circumstances of the offense.

Mitigating circumstances are not an excuse or justification for the offense, but are factors that in fairness or mercy may reduce the Defendant’s moral culpability.

Mitigating circumstances may be offered by the Defendant or State or be apparent from the evidence presented at any phase of these proceedings. You are not required to find that there is a connection between a mitigating circumstance and the crime committed in order to consider the mitigation evidence. Any connection or lack of connection may impact the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you at any other phase of this trial that conflicts with this principle.

The fact that Defendant has been convicted of first degree murder is unrelated to the existence of mitigating circumstances. You must give independent consideration to all of the evidence concerning mitigating circumstances, despite the conviction.

The circumstances proposed as mitigation by the Defendant for your consideration in this case are:
1. Defendant was 27 years old at the time of the offense.
2. Defendant has no prior criminal history.
3. Defendant was a good friend.
4. Defendant lacked support from her family.
5. Defendant suffered abuse and neglect as a child and as an adult.
6. Defendant tried to make the best of her life.
7. Defendant consistently tried to improve herself.
8. Defendant is a talented artist.

You are not limited to these proposed mitigating circumstances in considering the appropriate sentence. You also may consider anything related to the Defendant’s character, propensity, history or record, or circumstances of the offense.

Defendant Need Not Testify
The Defendant is not required to testify or make any statement and you are precluded from drawing an inferences against her should she decide not to testify or make a statement. The decision on whether or not to testify or make a statement is left to the defendant, acting with the advice of her attorneys. You must not let this choice affect your deliberations in any way.

Rebuttal Evidence
The State may submit evidence to rebut mitigation evidence. You may individually consider rebuttal evidence in determining the existence of a mitigating circumstance or in assessing the significance of that mitigating evidence. You shall not consider rebuttal evidence as aggravation.

Jury Not to Consider Financial Cost of Penalty
You must decide the appropriate sentence based on the facts of the case and by applying these jury instructions. You must not consider the financial cost of any possible punishment when deciding whether to sentence the Defendant to life in prison or death.

Mitigation Assessment and the Sentence Burden Of Proof
While all twelve of you had to unanimously agree that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance, you do not need to unanimously agree on a particular mitigating circumstance. Each one of you must decide individually whether any mitigating circumstance exists.

You are not limited to the mitigating circumstances offered by the Defendant. You must also consider any other information that you find is relevant in determining whether to impose a life sentence, so long as it relates to an aspect of the Defendant’s background, character, propensities, record, or circumstances of the offense.

The Defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance that the Defendant offers by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, although the Defendant need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Defendant must convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such a mitigating circumstance exists. In proving a mitigating circumstance, the Defendant may rely on any evidence already presented and is not required to present additional evidence.

You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating circumstances you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. “Sufficiently substantial to call for leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison.

Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances arc of the same quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.

A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to the assessment of the appropriate penalty. In other words, each of you must determine whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it warrants leniency in this case.

The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. It is for you, as jurors, to decide what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.

In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and appropriate, you must decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and circumstances of the case. This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each juror.

If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of life. If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of death.

Your decision is not a recommendation. Your decision is binding. If you unanimously find that the Defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision. If you unanimously find that the Defendant should be sentenced to death, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision. If you cannot unanimously agree on the appropriate sentence, your foreperson shall tell the judge.
Insert after paragraph three on page 10 of the Final Penalty Phase Instructions.

If you unanimously find the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years. Life without the possibility of release from prison means exactly what it says. The sentence of life without the possibility of release from prison means the defendant will never be eligible to be released from prison for any reasons for the rest of the defendant’s life. At the current time, there is no procedure for granting parole if the defendant is sentenced to life with the possibility of release from prison after 25 years.

Closing Instruction
Your Foreperson will continue to preside over your deliberation. You should discuss and then set your deliberation schedule. You are in charge of your schedule, and may set and vary it by agreement and the approval of the court. After you have decided on a schedule, please advise the Bailiff.

After setting your schedule, I suggest that you next review the written jury instructions and verdict form. It may be helpful for you to discuss the instructions and verdict form to make sure that you understand them. Again, during your deliberations you must follow the instructions and refer to them to answer any questions about applicable law, procedure and definitions.

You are to discuss the case and deliberate only when all jurors are together in the jury room. You are not to discuss the case with each other or anyone else during breaks or recesses. The admonition I have given you during these proceedings remains in effect when all twelve of you are not in the jury room deliberating.

My previous instruction regarding how to communicate with me still applies during your deliberations. Should any of you, or the jury as a whole, have a question for me during your deliberations or wish to communicate with me on any other matter, please utilize the jury question form that we will provide you. Your question or message must be communicated to me in writing and must be signed by you or the Foreperson.

I will consider your question or note and, if necessary, consult with counsel before answering it in writing. I will answer it as quickly as possible.

Remember that you are not to tell anyone, including me, how you stand, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a verdict or have been discharged.

The penalty issue is now submitted to you for decision. When you go to the Jury room your Foreperson will preside over your deliberations and sign any verdict. In order to return a verdict, all twelve of you must agree on the sentence to be imposed. Please mark your decision on the verdict form provided.

 

[TexMex]

Justice for Travis

 

[neesaki]

Alright, it had sounded like you perhaps were more outraged that he had killed his own child, rather than a child, and that somehow qualified him more for the DP.

I just have trouble with the distinction drawn between murder and murder... to me a murder is a murder(that means an intentional killing) and all murder imo deserves the same punishment(or "justice" for those that prefer that term) and mitigation should never enter into it.

Now for lesser degrees of punishment, like LWOP and LWP, I would consider those more the realm of "justice" for accidental killings and much more likely to need to be seen through the subjective lenses of a jury.
ie. drunk driving causing death imo would qualify for the life sentences, the number of victims would determine whether LWOP or LWP and then something like having a tire blow on your car on the freeway causing death would imo be more open to LWP or perhaps even lesser time, that would be up to the jury to determine the culpibility of the driver/owner and that's where mitigation would count.

Just MOO.

Whoaaa! So if you're driving down the freeway and you have a unforeseen blowout, which causes an accident and someone dies, then you get a prison sentence of LWP ? But that's an accident, not a crime. I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding you. Otherwise we might need to consider a ban on automobiles.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Though CMJA may never be strapped down on a gurney with life-stopping drugs pumping through her veins, be assured she will begin the slow drip of her own execution which may not come to full effect for 50 years or more. In a few years she will have died a hundred deaths. She will grow sick and old in there, and since no one in her family has stood up to try to save her life now, who will be there to claim her when she dies? Sad, yet true, even for this monster :moo:

 

[Val1]

But, The people on this jury were not in on the first trial. They did not see everything and only got a snapshot of a trial to show them things that applied to the DP. So going in they could have no idea what she deserved or what they could vote for only that they could give the DP if warranted.

They were seeing it all for the first time and not even all that we saw. I have to say I was more ready for the DP after the first trial. I may have voted for DP then. I know this all sounds so odd. I am pretty perplexed by it all tonight. But I feel like today, I could not vote DP. I just feel like in this case justice is LWOP. Her never ever ever leaving that prison.

Imo I think the problem is that if you go back to the beginning of this sentencing phase, Oct?, this jury was made aware of most of the circumstances of the murder. That said, their job is only to determine if the mitigators put forth by the DT were legitimate and if so, weigh those against what has already been decided by the first jury as murder 1 with cruelty as to whether any(one, some or all) of those mitigators basically made TA deserve death and in the manner he received it, or, whether any of the mitigators gave JA a legitimate excuse for having premeditated, then carried out the vicious manner of the his murder.

 

[Wing Ding]

She killed him brutally for sure. And she should be in prison for the rest of her life. But there are things here that take it away from the DP for me. It is just me, and I realize some will not get that or be unhappy I think that, But I do.

* Such as?

 

[lilyet]

Can't really keep up anymore because I have been living at the hospital at my son's bedside since the end of January so I have just been skimming posts when I can. But my two cents based on what I have read and tried to piece together, I think the jury will end up hung when it is all said and done .I think Judge Sherry will go with LWOP. But I have a question, Nurmi has asked for mistrial a million plus one times since this retrial started, can Juan go for mistrial? And were Nurmi's requests for mis-trial this go around just for mistrial just in relation to the current sentencing retrial? If Juan were to ask for mistrial could he not base it on something the "judge" ruled on that he felt was inappropriate - cause I think there has been several instances of rulings that just did not make sense or favored the defense. And if a mis-trial was deemed to be so , does that mean they redo the sentencing trial. Hope you all understand what I am getting at.

 

[TexMex]

Where are executions carried out in AZ?
In Texas women on death row are housed in TDCJ Mountain View unit in Gatesville. They are taken to the prison in Huntsville (160 miles away) where the execution chamber and men's death row is located

 

[bettybaby00]

Bedtime reading anyone?

These are the final instructions given to the jury in the penalty phase of the 2013 trial
(Download as PDF)

Penalty Phase
Hon. Sherry K. Stephens
Judge of the Superior Court
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JODI ANN ARIAS
CR2008-03l021-001

Duties of Jurors
Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the Defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.

The law that applies is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow all of them whether you agree with them or not. You must not single out certain instructions and disregard others.

You must not be influenced at any point in these proceedings by conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. You are not to be swayed by mere sympathy not related to the evidence presented during the penalty phase.

You must not be influenced by your personal feelings of bias or prejudice for or against the Defendant or any person involved in this case on the basis of anyone’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, gender or sexual orientation.

Both the State and the Defendant have a right to expect that you will consider all the evidence, follow the law, exercise your discretion conscientiously and reach a just verdict.

I do not mean to indicate any opinion on the evidence or what your verdict should be by any ruling or remark I have made or may make during this penalty phase. I am not allowed to express my feelings in this case, and if I have shown any you must disregard them. You and you alone are the triers of fact.

Spoiler

Duty to Consult with One Another
As jurors, you have a duty to discuss the case with one another and to deliberate in an effort to reach a just verdict. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after you consider the evidence impartially with your fellow jurors. During your deliberations, you should not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if you become convinced that it is wrong. However, you should not change your honest belief concerning the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

Evidence
You are to apply the Law to the evidence and in this way decide whether the Defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. The evidence you shall consider consists of the testimony and exhibits the court admitted in evidence during all of the three phases of this trial.

lt is the duty of the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence. You shall not concern yourselves with the reasons for these rulings. You shall disregard questions and exhibits that were withdrawn or to which objections were sustained.

Evidence that was admitted for a limited purpose shall not be considered for any other purpose. You shall disregard testimony and exhibits that the court has not admitted, or the court has stricken. The lawyers may stipulate certain facts exist. This means both sides agree that evidence exists and is to be considered by you during your deliberations at the conclusion of the trial. You are to treat a stipulation as any other evidence. You are free to accept it or reject it, in whole or in part, just as any other evidence.

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is the testimony of a witness who saw, heard or otherwise observed an event. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a fact or facts from which you may find another fact. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. It is for you to determine the importance to be given to the evidence, regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial.

During the aggravation phase of the trial, you found that the State had proved that a statutory aggravating circumstance exists making the defendant eligible for the death sentence. During this penalty phase, the Defendant and the State may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for a sentence less than death. The State may also present any evidence that demonstrates that the Defendant should not be shown leniency. Leniency means a sentence less than death.

Mitigating circumstances may be found from any evidence presented during any of the phases of the trial. You should consider all of the evidence without regard to which party presented it. Each party is entitled to consideration of the evidence whether produced by that party or by another party.

You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and what weight is to be given the testimony of each witness. In considering the testimony of each witness you may take into account the opportunity and ability of the witness to observe, the witness’ memory and manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice the witness may have, the reasonableness of the testimony of the witness considered in light of all the evidence, and any other factors that bear on credibility and weight.

A witness qualified as an expert by education or experience may state opinions on matters in that witness’s field of expertise, and may also state reasons for those opinions. Expert opinion testimony should be judged just as any other testimony. You are not bound by it. You may accept it or reject it, in whole or in part, and you should give it as much credibility and weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s qualifications and experience, the reasons given for the opinions, and all the other evidence in the case.

The testimony of a law enforcement officer is not entitled to any greater or lesser importance or believability merely because of the fact that the witness is a law enforcement officer. You are to consider the testimony of a police officer just as you would the testimony of any other witness.

The attorneys’ remarks, statements and arguments are not evidence, but are intended to help you understand the evidence and apply the law.
The attorneys are entitled to make any objections that they deem appropriate. These objections should not influence you, and you should make no assumptions because of objections by the attorneys.

Victim Impact Information
Relatives of the victims made statements relating to personal characteristics and uniqueness of the victims and the impact of the murder on the victims’ family. You may consider this information to the extent that it rebuts mitigation. You may not consider the information as a new aggravating circumstance.

Mitigation
Mitigating circumstances are any factors that are a basis for a life sentence instead of a death sentence, so long as they relate to any sympathetic or other aspect of the Defendant’s character, propensity, history or record, or circumstances of the offense.

Mitigating circumstances are not an excuse or justification for the offense, but are factors that in fairness or mercy may reduce the Defendant’s moral culpability.

Mitigating circumstances may be offered by the Defendant or State or be apparent from the evidence presented at any phase of these proceedings. You are not required to find that there is a connection between a mitigating circumstance and the crime committed in order to consider the mitigation evidence. Any connection or lack of connection may impact the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you at any other phase of this trial that conflicts with this principle.

The fact that Defendant has been convicted of first degree murder is unrelated to the existence of mitigating circumstances. You must give independent consideration to all of the evidence concerning mitigating circumstances, despite the conviction.

The circumstances proposed as mitigation by the Defendant for your consideration in this case are:
1. Defendant was 27 years old at the time of the offense.
2. Defendant has no prior criminal history.
3. Defendant was a good friend.
4. Defendant lacked support from her family.
5. Defendant suffered abuse and neglect as a child and as an adult.
6. Defendant tried to make the best of her life.
7. Defendant consistently tried to improve herself.
8. Defendant is a talented artist.

You are not limited to these proposed mitigating circumstances in considering the appropriate sentence. You also may consider anything related to the Defendant’s character, propensity, history or record, or circumstances of the offense.

Defendant Need Not Testify
The Defendant is not required to testify or make any statement and you are precluded from drawing an inferences against her should she decide not to testify or make a statement. The decision on whether or not to testify or make a statement is left to the defendant, acting with the advice of her attorneys. You must not let this choice affect your deliberations in any way.

Rebuttal Evidence
The State may submit evidence to rebut mitigation evidence. You may individually consider rebuttal evidence in determining the existence of a mitigating circumstance or in assessing the significance of that mitigating evidence. You shall not consider rebuttal evidence as aggravation.

Jury Not to Consider Financial Cost of Penalty
You must decide the appropriate sentence based on the facts of the case and by applying these jury instructions. You must not consider the financial cost of any possible punishment when deciding whether to sentence the Defendant to life in prison or death.

Mitigation Assessment and the Sentence Burden Of Proof
While all twelve of you had to unanimously agree that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance, you do not need to unanimously agree on a particular mitigating circumstance. Each one of you must decide individually whether any mitigating circumstance exists.

You are not limited to the mitigating circumstances offered by the Defendant. You must also consider any other information that you find is relevant in determining whether to impose a life sentence, so long as it relates to an aspect of the Defendant’s background, character, propensities, record, or circumstances of the offense.

The Defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance that the Defendant offers by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, although the Defendant need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Defendant must convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such a mitigating circumstance exists. In proving a mitigating circumstance, the Defendant may rely on any evidence already presented and is not required to present additional evidence.

You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating circumstances you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. “Sufficiently substantial to call for leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison.

Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances arc of the same quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.

A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to the assessment of the appropriate penalty. In other words, each of you must determine whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it warrants leniency in this case.

The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. It is for you, as jurors, to decide what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.

In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and appropriate, you must decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and circumstances of the case. This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each juror.

If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of life. If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of death.

Your decision is not a recommendation. Your decision is binding. If you unanimously find that the Defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision. If you unanimously find that the Defendant should be sentenced to death, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision. If you cannot unanimously agree on the appropriate sentence, your foreperson shall tell the judge.
Insert after paragraph three on page 10 of the Final Penalty Phase Instructions.

If you unanimously find the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years. Life without the possibility of release from prison means exactly what it says. The sentence of life without the possibility of release from prison means the defendant will never be eligible to be released from prison for any reasons for the rest of the defendant’s life. At the current time, there is no procedure for granting parole if the defendant is sentenced to life with the possibility of release from prison after 25 years.

Closing Instruction
Your Foreperson will continue to preside over your deliberation. You should discuss and then set your deliberation schedule. You are in charge of your schedule, and may set and vary it by agreement and the approval of the court. After you have decided on a schedule, please advise the Bailiff.

After setting your schedule, I suggest that you next review the written jury instructions and verdict form. It may be helpful for you to discuss the instructions and verdict form to make sure that you understand them. Again, during your deliberations you must follow the instructions and refer to them to answer any questions about applicable law, procedure and definitions.

You are to discuss the case and deliberate only when all jurors are together in the jury room. You are not to discuss the case with each other or anyone else during breaks or recesses. The admonition I have given you during these proceedings remains in effect when all twelve of you are not in the jury room deliberating.

My previous instruction regarding how to communicate with me still applies during your deliberations. Should any of you, or the jury as a whole, have a question for me during your deliberations or wish to communicate with me on any other matter, please utilize the jury question form that we will provide you. Your question or message must be communicated to me in writing and must be signed by you or the Foreperson.

I will consider your question or note and, if necessary, consult with counsel before answering it in writing. I will answer it as quickly as possible.

Remember that you are not to tell anyone, including me, how you stand, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a verdict or have been discharged.

The penalty issue is now submitted to you for decision. When you go to the Jury room your Foreperson will preside over your deliberations and sign any verdict. In order to return a verdict, all twelve of you must agree on the sentence to be imposed. Please mark your decision on the verdict form provided.

LOL the spoiler was massive!!!

I will admit I skimmed that part, but the beginning of the instructions are pretty damn straight forward IMO.

 

[Sulamith]

Though CMJA may never be strapped down on a gurney with life-stopping drugs pumping through her veins, be assured she will begin the slow drip of her own execution which may not come to full effect for 50 years or more. In a few years she will have died a hundred deaths. She will grow sick and old in there, and since no one in her family has stood up to try to save her life now, who will be there to claim her when she dies? Sad, yet true, even for this monster :moo:

BBM Now, that statement might be a mitigating factor...no one in her family has stood up to try to save her life.

 

[Val1]

Whoaaa! So if you're driving down the freeway and you have a unforeseen blowout, which causes an accident and someone dies, then you get a prison sentence of LWP ? But that's an accident, not a crime. I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding you. Otherwise we might need to consider a ban on automobiles. Maybe this discussion has gotten a little off track due to the circumstances of this case that has gone completely awry. jmo

Lol, you didn't finish reading my thought... I said depending on the culpability(ie. I personally feel drunk driving would qualify for one of those punishments) would make that punishment more of an option, with mitigators. So if you were running highways with bald tires, never maintained your vehicles, had a record of accidents related to the poor condition of your vehicle, then like any accidental killing, you could possibly be charged with the punishment set as high as LWP. For an example, how many times have you heard of heavy equipment companies running their equipment into the ground without a care as to whether it is likely to cause serious injury or death? Should someone die because the rig they're driving suddenly loses its brakes or drop the engine, shouldn't that equate to murder by negligence, still accidental but worthy of a higher penalty than blowing a tire by accidentally running over a big pothole or rock on the road? See what I mean? Not that everywhere would consider LWP or LWOP as proper punishments for those cases, just as some places don't have the DP now, not even for serial baby murderers.