<p>It would make sense to require a unanimous decision for death, but it seems there should be some way to get to life without parole without a new penalty phase. If the jury deadlocks again, the judge decides. This is an expensive process - one of the reasons death penalty cases are so expensive to try.</p>
<p>"@emily…Clearly the new jury will know the details of the case."</p>
<p>I don’t see how that is possible without hearing all the testimony and seeing all the evidence in person. Just knowing the details isn’t enough, imo, when it’s a decision between life and death.</p>
<p>The jury will be presented with everything the previous jury was presented. It’s not much difference. The jury is supposed to give an unbiased judgement.</p>
<p>
Her makeshift bangs aren’t cutting it for you? 
She looks a lot better with no bangs, but then again she wouldn’t be able to play all innocent with her previous hairstyle.</p>
<p>I think it’s weird. I think if the original jury can’t decide for the death penalty, then it should go to life. </p>
<p>It seems very out of sync with our justice system to have something deliberated over twice like this in criminal court. (I could be wrong.)</p>
<p>poet, in most states that have the death penalty a hung jury in the the sentencing phase does default to life. I think Arizona may be the only state that gives the state another go at it. Wondering what Juan will do? Wondering if the family will want to go through this again? Sure he will consider their wishes.</p>
<p>No matter what the jury decides, it’s highly unlikely that she will ever be put to death unless she consistently declares she wants it over a decade or more – and even then it’s questionable. Women seldom get executed and she’s not a serial killer or a cop killer. Some group or other will continue to advocate for her and gummy up the process enough that a death sentence will never be carried out.</p>
<p>There also seems to be a shortage of lethal injection drugs – one that will likely continue because no company wants to long be associated with being the manufacturer of death drugs – and there clearly are more “worthy” candidates on death row to use up the limited supply that does manage to get acquired.</p>
<p>Actually there are 3 women currently on death row in Arizona. One was put there by Juan Martinez. But you are right Lorem, none have been executed and one has been there for close to 23 years. They just appeal, appeal and appeal. System seems o.k. with that and maybe it is indeed because they are women.</p>
<p>I just think it’s strange. I don’t think I know enough people who believe in the death penalty to be on one jury, let alone two.</p>
<p>If you are against the death penalty can you still have to be on one of those juries?</p>
<p>They have to have a death penalty qualified jury. They will not seat someone who will not impose the death penalty.</p>
<p>“The jury will be presented with everything the previous jury was presented. It’s not much difference. The jury is supposed to give an unbiased judgement.”</p>
<p>This new jury was not there in person hearing the witnesses and, imo, that is a huge difference. </p>
<p>“It seems very out of sync with our justice system to have something deliberated over twice like this in criminal court. (I could be wrong.)”</p>
<p>It seems the same to me but I have to assume it has been challenged at some point and determined to be constitutional.</p>
<p>“I just think it’s strange. I don’t think I know enough people who believe in the death penalty to be on one jury, let alone two.”</p>
<p>It’s Arizona. They could randomly pull 12 people in off the street and get a death penalty qualified jury.</p>
<p>32 states have the death penalty so you could probably pull 12 people off in the street in most of those states.</p>
<p>The whole thing is strange. I had never before heard that there is a state which allows the jury to submit questions to all witnesses (and in this case, since the defendant testified in her own defense, they were able to question her as well). Now the penalty phase is just another odd chapter in this incredibly bizarre case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an understatement. She butchered him, which I think explains a lot of the attention being given to this case. How could such a small, feminine, soft spoken woman so brutally slaughter a man she claimed to love? Yeah, it has all the elements which capture the attention of John Q. Public.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not necessarily a plus for the prosecution. In a state that’s strongly pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty advocates may be silent in their objections and thus be more likely to get on to the jury. Then, too, there are the folks who may well have been convinced of the rightness of the death penalty intellectually but who nevertheless could never make the emotional decision that would end someone else’s life: unless you had actually killed one of their own family members, these individuals would consider the flimsiest of mitigating circumstances to vote “no in this instance.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t know if you are being facetious or not, but the movie is in progress and the cast took a break from filming it to watch the verdict being announced. </p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. That’s likely why this jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision. There were some who just couldn’t do it…especially when you consider the defendant is a young, attractive, intelligent female who has never before been in any kind of serious legal trouble.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I was being facetious, while pretty much expecting that this is exactly what Hollywood would provide us. It wouldn’t be the first time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True they won’t seat you but, for many, there’s a big difference between saying on a questionnaire that you would impose the death penalty and actually doing so during deliberation. I guess this is why they say jury selection is the most critical part of a trial of this nature.</p>