Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
That's a really good point. The burden of proof should be the same, I think it's human nature that if you are going to send someone to their death, that you would double guess your judgment a lot.
Could the prosecution have taken the death penalty off the table but still go for murder one?
|
The jury makes a recomendation on the death penalty during the sentencing phase, they can recommend it if 6 of 12 jurors agree to it. The judge then takes that into account when making the sentencing decision. This procedure has recently been found to be unconstutional but would have been the one used AFAIK as appeals are still ongoing in the case regarding the sentencing procedure.
The burden of proof doesn't change, but I agree that human nature may cause jurors to increase scrutny due to the stakes. However, I don't think that explains what happened here in the least. Remember, the same jury found her not guilty on two other counts in which the death penalty wasn't on the table, including aggravated manslaughter. This was a case of insufficient evidence being presented to meet the reasonable doubt standard.