Here is a phrase I'll bet we will be hearing in this case:
Mitigating Circumstances
Here are some common mitigating circumstances. The list is far from exclusive.
Minor role. The defendant played a relatively minor role in the crime. For example, suppose Pete received $20 for knowingly driving a codefendant to a location where the latter made a drug deal. At sentencing for his conviction for transporting methamphetamine, Pete has a good argument that his small role in the criminal activity is a mitigating circumstance.
Victim culpability. The victim willingly participated in the crime or initiated the events leading to it. If Domingo started a fight by attacking Walter and Walter responded with more force than was necessary to defend himself, this factor would come into play at Walt’s assault-and-battery sentencing.
Unusual circumstance. The defendant committed the crime because of temporary emotional difficulty or significant provocation. This circumstance applies when a defendant acts out while under extreme stress. For example, suppose that Jesse, in anguish over the recent death of his girlfriend, stole some beer from a liquor store so he could get drunk.
No harm. The defendant didn’t hurt anyone and committed the crime in a manner unlikely to cause harm. The no-harm circumstance would be relevant if Hank carjacked a driver by sternly ordering her out of her car, but carefully and gently helped her out of it.
Lack of record. The defendant doesn’t have a criminal record, or only has a relatively minor record.
Relative necessity. The defendant acted out of a desire to provide life necessities. This circumstance would be relevant for someone who stole a rotisserie chicken from the grocery store so that he could feed his starving family.
Remorse. The defendant accepted responsibility and showed remorse. A defendant who confesses upon arrest and is contrite in court has this factor in his favor.
Difficult personal history. The defendant’s unique upbringing or family circumstances led to her criminal conduct. For example, a lawyer might try to persuade a sentencing judge that the client’s violent acts are attributable to abuse she suffered as a child.
Addiction. Drug or alcohol addiction contributed to—but wasn’t just an incentive or excuse to commit—the crime. Addiction would be a mitigating factor for Bubbles’s theft conviction if he had showed a concerted effort at rehabilitation, but relapsed into drug use and stole some copper wire while high.
Source:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/mitigating-circumstances-sentencing.html
There are also lots of articles out there on both mitigating and extenuating circumstances.
It should be interesting to see how these two aspects of law effect this case. Also how reasonable doubt (as to premeditation) factors in. And yes, the previous poster above was correct...it only takes one juror who has reasonable doubt to acquit or hang up the jury. We've seen this in some very high-profile cases before. Those are a few reasons I believe there will be a good plea deal offered. MY OPINION ONLY.
Why would Mogg say, and I believe him, that the Audi could have spotted the Buick turning on Mt. Shasta, after all he drove that area to investigate, I, too, drove it so I can see how EN looked up/down (lol) Carmel Peak. IIRC EN said after he fired at the 1st shooting that the Buick backed up and went down the street so I'm sure once the Audi left the scene on Alta, he looked on Carmel Peak to see if he could spot the Buick and he did. MOO! 
:crazy:
