John Blume, Cornell Law Professor and expert on capital cases, discusses issues that could tip the scale either way at the penalty phase of the Jody Arias murder trial
Blume says:
“Typically at capital sentencing hearings, the defense will present mitigating evidence regarding the defendant’s life and background and evidence regarding any psychological difficulties or mental impairments.
“In cases where the defendant testifies and denies responsibility for the crime and the defense is rejected, empirical studies suggest that jurors are more skeptical of the mitigating evidence because they see it as another attempt to avoid responsibility for their actions.
“On the other hand, if any of the jurors have what is referred to as ‘residual’ or ‘lingering’ doubt as to whether Arias acted in self-defense – doubt that does not quite rise to the level of ‘reasonable doubt’ – then, the same studies show, they will be reluctant to sentence her to death.”
RSS