Pennsylvania Death Penalty trial
by
There are potentially two parts to a capital murder trial.
The first is the determination of guilt for each of the offenses charged. The
jury will listen to the evidence presented, arguments of counsel and
instructions by the court. The jury will then deliberate to decide if the
accused is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he/she has been accused of.
The District Attorney has the burden of proof of proving each and every element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict must be unanimous. If the jury finds the accused not guilty or guilty of anything other than First Degree murder, the work of the jury is over. That is because; sentencing for any offense other than Capital First Degree murder is left to the judge.
In summary, only if the jury finds the accused guilty of
First degree murder – a premeditated, intentional killing, will the jury need
to continue to sit for the second phase of the trial which is the death penalty
phase.
If the jury finds the accused guilty of First degree murder,
the jury will have only two choices, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE or DEATH. During
the penalty phase the jury will listen to additional evidence. The standards
are different though. The District
Attorney must first present evidence of AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. These are
the reasons why the District Attorney believes death is the appropriate
penalty. The aggravating circumstances must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
and the verdict must be unanimous. The defense will present evidence of MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Mitigating circumstances can be anything that would make it
LESS appropriate for the jury to impose a death sentence, or more appropriate
to impose a life in prison without parole. Unlike the District Attorney, the
defense does not have to prove mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable
doubt. The defense needs only to prove mitigating circumstances by a
preponderance of the evidence. This standard is less then beyond a reasonable
doubt and only means by the greater weight of evidence or in other words –
evidence of certain facts exists and are ever so slightly more convincing than
they don’t exist. Unlike aggravating
circumstances, which have to be unanimously agreed upon to exist, mitigating
circumstances may be found to exist by an individual juror.
In summary, if the jury does not unanimously find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, the verdict MUST be life in prison w/o parole.
