Explanation of the Jodi Arias sentencing hearing
The jury convicted Jodi Arias of premeditated first degree murder yesterday. Next up is the sentencing. The same jury that convicted her of premeditated murder will decide whether to impose the death sentence.
Jodi Arias has stated that she wants to be sentenced to death. She has a right to testify and may request that sentence. She may have changed her mind.
There is no premeditated murder, no matter how egregious, that automatically results in a death penalty.
Court will reconvene at 1:00 pm PDT for the Eligibility Phase of the trial. This phase is also called the aggravation hearing because the prosecution will have to prove an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The aggravating circumstance alleged in the indictment is that the premeditated murder was “especially cruel.”
The prosecution will probably call the Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy to testify regarding how long the victim remained conscious after she initiated the assault and the extent to which he may have suffered pain and emotional distress before losing consciousness and dying.
The more extreme his suffering and emotional distress, the more likely the jury will decide that the murder was especially cruel.
The defense can call its own expert or rely on cross examining the State’s expert.
Both sides will have an opportunity to argue whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the premeditated murder was especially cruel.
The Court will instruct the jury as follows regarding the meaning of the term “especially cruel.”
The term “cruel” focuses on the victim’s pain and suffering. To find that the murder was committed in an “especially cruel” manner you must find that the victim consciously suffered physical or mental pain, distress or anguish prior to death. The defendant must know or should have known that the victim would suffer.
If the State does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance exists, 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.
If the jury unanimously decides beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance does exist, each juror will decide if mitigating circumstances exist and then, as a jury, you will decide whether to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment or death. If the sentence is life imprisonment then the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the possibility of release from prison, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release from prison after 25  years.
“Life without the possibility of release from prison” means exactly what it says. The sentence of “life without possibility of release from prison” means the defendant will never be eligible to be released from prison for any reason for the rest of the defendant’s life.
If the jury concludes that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the premeditated murder was especially cruel, the sentencing will proceed to the Penalty Phase.
The judge will then read the following instruction to the jury:
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
circumstance[s] 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 are 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.
And there you have it.
cross posted at FrederickLeatherman.com