- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 13,073
- Reaction score
- 103,569
Interesting. There must be a reason George is having his trial before Billy. I don't know if George's defense team had any say on who goes first, George or Jake.
I do know that Canepa wanted to try Jake first and had his trial date actually scheduled. I think it was because he had the most evidence pointing to him, and because of all this evidence there was a good chance he would get scared of getting the DP and take a plea to get out from under the DP which is exactly what happened.
It is common for DP defendants to take plea deals, to plead guilty in exchange to get the DP dropped.
It is the job of DP attorneys to keep their client from getting the DP. I believe Jake's attorneys leveled with him that with so much evidence against him he would most likely be found guilty and that he would also lose his 2nd trial, the penalty phase trial. This is a trial held for the jury to decide if they are going to give the defendant the DP or LWOP. Usually the other option is LWOP.
At a penalty phase trial the defense introduces as much mitigating evidence as they can get their hands on to get the jury to not vote for the DP. The prosecution presents aggravating arguments to convince the jury to give the defendant the DP.
I dont think Jake's attorneys would have been able to come up with any good mitigating arguments to present to the Jury. I think they knew that the prosecution would be burying Jake with their aggravating arguments for the DP. Prosecution could have called up enough witnesses and evidence and impact statements that would be overwhelming.
Some Mitigating Factors
Lack of a prior criminal record
Minor role in the offense;
Culpability of the victim;
Past circumstances, such as abuse that resulted in criminal activity;
Circumstances at the time of the offense, such as provocation, stress, or emotional problems that might not excuse the crime but might offer an explanation;
Mental or physical illness; and
Genuine remorse.
Aggravating Factors
Jurors are more likely to sentence to death defendants who have committed a heinous, brutal, or cruel murder. Such crimes include those involving a single victim who suffers a lot of pain before death and also crimes with multiple victims. The brutality of a murder triggers jurors’ desire for retribution, or punishing someone for the harm that he or she has caused. Several lines of research show that jurors treat more severe crimes more harshly when assigning punishment in general, not just in death penalty cases.
Usually, in death penalty trials, a separate listed factor is included for murders with multiple victims, because heinousness is a specific legal term measuring how much suffering occurred before the victim’s death.
In my opinion killing 8 people is enough of an aggravating factor for the DP. And Chris Sr. suffered his shattered arm and multiple shots, obviously these are aggravated factors. So many aggravating factors in this Case and I can't even think of any mitigating factors.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Effect - Death Penalty - iResearchNet
Aggravating factors are elements of the crime or the defendant’s prior criminal record that not only make the defendant eligible for the death penalty but ... READ MORE
Mitigating Circumstances - Definition, Examples, Cases
Mitigating circumstances defined and explained with examples. Circumstances that tend to lessen the culpability of a defendant in a civil or criminal case.
legaldictionary.net
Last edited:
