Yes, there is confusion. I think Juan needs to make things clearer in his next go-around. I thought JW did a good job in conveying to the jurors that they didn't have to use only the 8 mitigating factors they presented -- they could use other factors. I am confused about what these "other" things could be. I don't think it can just be a free-for-all. That would not make sense. There is a way to do it under the law, but it's just that apparently no one knows how.
To open up everything, I don't see how that's possible under the law. For example, what if someone says I don't believe in the death penalty...I think it's up to God to take someone's life and not me? Well, that is obviously not allowed in a death-qualified jury. Once they are in that jury box, they HAVE to go by what the law of their state says. Furthermore, if a mitigating factor is allowed by law, it has to be substantially proven by the defense. JSs said that means "more often true than not true." IMO, by law that would mean there was NO verbal abuse, because what the defense showed was just one text exchange, and to me that does not meet up to the standard, more often than not. Even if one takes that text messge as verbal abuse, it's still fact based on the evidence, that Travis was NOT verbally abusive more often than not abusive.
So there is some law aspect of it involved in the penalty phase. I thing right there is what Juan needs to make MUCH MORE CLEAR to the next jury. That they cannot go about making up their own laws, even in the life/death stage.
list now for calling her a liar, disrespectful, manipulative and evil, besides he's not coming back to AZ anymore.
