02-07-2015, 03:53 PM
Sorry, but had to put this together if not for anyone else but for me to put my thoughts together.
Wendi Andriano, poisoned and stabbed terminally ill husband.
She was sentenced to death.
Excerpt from instructions to the jury in her trial.
"Before being given the instruction to which Andriano objects, the jurors had been instructed as follows:
Although a final decision on a penalty of death or life imprisonment must be unanimous, the determination of what circumstances are mitigati[ng] is for each one of you to resolve, individually, based upon all the evidence that has been presented to you during this phase and at any of the prior phases of the trial.(Emphasis added.)  
The jurors were also given the following instruction:
You must make your decision about whether mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency based solely upon your weighing of any mitigation proven to you and the aggravating factor you have already found during the Aggravation Phase.   To do this, you must individually determine the nature and extent of mitigating circumstances.  
Then, in light of the aggravating circumstance that has been proven to exist, you must individually determine if the totality of the mitigating circumstances is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and a life sentence.(Emphasis added.)Moreover, at the outset of the penalty phase, the jury was preliminarily advised that “[t]he jurors do not have to agree unanimously that a mitigating circumstance has been proven to exist.   Each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance found by that juror in determining the appropriate penalty.”   The jury was further instructed at that time to “individually decide whether there is mitigation and whether it is sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of a life sentence rather than a sentence of death.”Defense counsel's closing argument in the penalty phase also correctly advised the jurors regarding their responsibilities.   Defense counsel told the jury, “[t]o clarify once again, individually determine the nature and extent of the mitigating circumstances.   Not as a group, individually.   What is it to me, as one juror.   What is my moral position on that circumstance.”
------------------------------------------------
So.....
"...the determination of what circumstances are mitigati[ng] is for each one of you to resolve, individually, based upon all the evidence that has been presented to you during this phase and at any of the prior phases of the trial..."
Jurors must individually determine their opinions on what circumstances are mitigating and then come together and determine a unanimous decision.
The methodical premeditation of Arias' crime has been provided and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Her behaviour of lying, stalking, being intrusive and manipulative has also been proven.
The measures that she went to cover-up her crime have been proven.
"You must make your decision about whether mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency based solely upon your weighing of any mitigation proven to you and the aggravating factor you have already found during the Aggravation Phase."
First of all, this jury did not have anything to do with the conviction of Arias and thus, they themselves did not find the aggravating factor of Extreme Cruelty.
However, they must consider the aggravating factor in their deliberations in this trial as that is part of her conviction.
Secondly, it is important to note that the weight of the mitigation evidence provided is what is important in their determining Arias' sentence.
"Then, in light of the aggravating circumstance that has been proven to exist, you must individually determine if the totality of the mitigating circumstances is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and a life sentence.(Emphasis added.)Moreover, at the outset of the penalty phase, the jury was preliminarily advised that “[t]he jurors do not have to agree unanimously that a mitigating circumstance has been proven to exist.   Each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance found by that juror in determining the appropriate penalty.”
Again, the aggravating circumstance of Extreme Cruelty in this case is of the utmost importance.
Although the end verdict must be unanimous, when deliberating, they can consider the opinions of other jurors.
The aggravating circumstance will be brought back into the courtroom by Martinez complete with photos of the slaughtered Travis.
-------------------------------------------------
Here are the Mitigating Factors presented by the Defense (Arias) in this case.
1. Ms. Arias has no prior criminal history.
- evidence was presented regarding slashing of tires, hacking into Travis' computer and emails, sneaking into his house and peeping into his windows
2. Ms. Arias was just 27 years old when she committed her offense.
- age is not a factor as she is considered an adult under the eyes of the law and even society
- she is not a "child killer"
3. Ms. Arias is remorseful for her conduct.
- evidence has been presented with her letter to the family, attendance at Travis' Memorial Service, her acts of resuming a normal life after her crime and her interviews where she claims innocence and no jury will convict her are all examples of the lack of remorse
- claiming DV and self defense in the first trial and now the claim of mental illness show that she is not taking any responsibility for her actions
- her secret testimony in her "little girl voice" shows she continues to try and manipulate the case and the jury
4. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional as a child.
- evidence has been presented showing that no one saw any evidence of child abuse
- there is absolutely no corroboration to this factor
- the only evidence submitted by the defense team are the words of Arias herself
5. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse during her relationship with Mr. Alexander
- NO evidence of either of these has been presented with the exception of Arias' own words
- although Travis was very blunt in some of his messages to her, it is normal behaviour in most relationships and done in the heat of the moment when one gets so frustrated with behaviours
6. The abusive nature of the relationship caused Ms. Arias to suffer extreme emotional distress at the time of the incident.
- Evidence was presented of her methodical premeditation of her crime.
-evidence was presented of her actions when committing her crime (29 stab wounds, slitting of throat, shooting in the head and then the actions of destroying evidence and stealing evidence when she left and disposing of it
- there is no evidence of extreme emotional distress at the time of the incident
7. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
8. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder
- evidence presented shows no PTSD
- Arias lied on tests and/or was lead by the examiner to give the desired answers
- yes, Arias is diagnosed with BPD and yes, it can be considered a mental illness but is more commonly associated with being a personality disorder
- evidence has been presented that she knew, emphatically, right from wrong
9. Ms. Arias' psychological makeup impaired her ability to cope with the tumultuous relationship she had with Mr. Alexander.
- evidence of a tumultuous relationship with Travis has been proven to be of her own making, by her own actions
- evidence has been presented that she has had many tumultuous relationships
- evidence has been presented that she carried on with her life, in her own way, during her relationship with Travis
My question would be....
Isn't it obvious that the evidence presented far outweighs the defense's (Arias') mitigating factors?
Wendi Andriano, poisoned and stabbed terminally ill husband.
She was sentenced to death.
Excerpt from instructions to the jury in her trial.
"Before being given the instruction to which Andriano objects, the jurors had been instructed as follows:
Although a final decision on a penalty of death or life imprisonment must be unanimous, the determination of what circumstances are mitigati[ng] is for each one of you to resolve, individually, based upon all the evidence that has been presented to you during this phase and at any of the prior phases of the trial.(Emphasis added.)  
The jurors were also given the following instruction:
You must make your decision about whether mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency based solely upon your weighing of any mitigation proven to you and the aggravating factor you have already found during the Aggravation Phase.   To do this, you must individually determine the nature and extent of mitigating circumstances.  
Then, in light of the aggravating circumstance that has been proven to exist, you must individually determine if the totality of the mitigating circumstances is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and a life sentence.(Emphasis added.)Moreover, at the outset of the penalty phase, the jury was preliminarily advised that “[t]he jurors do not have to agree unanimously that a mitigating circumstance has been proven to exist.   Each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance found by that juror in determining the appropriate penalty.”   The jury was further instructed at that time to “individually decide whether there is mitigation and whether it is sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of a life sentence rather than a sentence of death.”Defense counsel's closing argument in the penalty phase also correctly advised the jurors regarding their responsibilities.   Defense counsel told the jury, “[t]o clarify once again, individually determine the nature and extent of the mitigating circumstances.   Not as a group, individually.   What is it to me, as one juror.   What is my moral position on that circumstance.”
------------------------------------------------
So.....
"...the determination of what circumstances are mitigati[ng] is for each one of you to resolve, individually, based upon all the evidence that has been presented to you during this phase and at any of the prior phases of the trial..."
Jurors must individually determine their opinions on what circumstances are mitigating and then come together and determine a unanimous decision.
The methodical premeditation of Arias' crime has been provided and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Her behaviour of lying, stalking, being intrusive and manipulative has also been proven.
The measures that she went to cover-up her crime have been proven.
"You must make your decision about whether mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency based solely upon your weighing of any mitigation proven to you and the aggravating factor you have already found during the Aggravation Phase."
First of all, this jury did not have anything to do with the conviction of Arias and thus, they themselves did not find the aggravating factor of Extreme Cruelty.
However, they must consider the aggravating factor in their deliberations in this trial as that is part of her conviction.
Secondly, it is important to note that the weight of the mitigation evidence provided is what is important in their determining Arias' sentence.
"Then, in light of the aggravating circumstance that has been proven to exist, you must individually determine if the totality of the mitigating circumstances is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and a life sentence.(Emphasis added.)Moreover, at the outset of the penalty phase, the jury was preliminarily advised that “[t]he jurors do not have to agree unanimously that a mitigating circumstance has been proven to exist.   Each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance found by that juror in determining the appropriate penalty.”
Again, the aggravating circumstance of Extreme Cruelty in this case is of the utmost importance.
Although the end verdict must be unanimous, when deliberating, they can consider the opinions of other jurors.
The aggravating circumstance will be brought back into the courtroom by Martinez complete with photos of the slaughtered Travis.
-------------------------------------------------
Here are the Mitigating Factors presented by the Defense (Arias) in this case.
1. Ms. Arias has no prior criminal history.
- evidence was presented regarding slashing of tires, hacking into Travis' computer and emails, sneaking into his house and peeping into his windows
2. Ms. Arias was just 27 years old when she committed her offense.
- age is not a factor as she is considered an adult under the eyes of the law and even society
- she is not a "child killer"
3. Ms. Arias is remorseful for her conduct.
- evidence has been presented with her letter to the family, attendance at Travis' Memorial Service, her acts of resuming a normal life after her crime and her interviews where she claims innocence and no jury will convict her are all examples of the lack of remorse
- claiming DV and self defense in the first trial and now the claim of mental illness show that she is not taking any responsibility for her actions
- her secret testimony in her "little girl voice" shows she continues to try and manipulate the case and the jury
4. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional as a child.
- evidence has been presented showing that no one saw any evidence of child abuse
- there is absolutely no corroboration to this factor
- the only evidence submitted by the defense team are the words of Arias herself
5. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse during her relationship with Mr. Alexander
- NO evidence of either of these has been presented with the exception of Arias' own words
- although Travis was very blunt in some of his messages to her, it is normal behaviour in most relationships and done in the heat of the moment when one gets so frustrated with behaviours
6. The abusive nature of the relationship caused Ms. Arias to suffer extreme emotional distress at the time of the incident.
- Evidence was presented of her methodical premeditation of her crime.
-evidence was presented of her actions when committing her crime (29 stab wounds, slitting of throat, shooting in the head and then the actions of destroying evidence and stealing evidence when she left and disposing of it
- there is no evidence of extreme emotional distress at the time of the incident
7. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
8. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder
- evidence presented shows no PTSD
- Arias lied on tests and/or was lead by the examiner to give the desired answers
- yes, Arias is diagnosed with BPD and yes, it can be considered a mental illness but is more commonly associated with being a personality disorder
- evidence has been presented that she knew, emphatically, right from wrong
9. Ms. Arias' psychological makeup impaired her ability to cope with the tumultuous relationship she had with Mr. Alexander.
- evidence of a tumultuous relationship with Travis has been proven to be of her own making, by her own actions
- evidence has been presented that she has had many tumultuous relationships
- evidence has been presented that she carried on with her life, in her own way, during her relationship with Travis
My question would be....
Isn't it obvious that the evidence presented far outweighs the defense's (Arias') mitigating factors?