Hi Maisie! Yes, that's what I was posting last night but my post kept getting misunderstood & they were explaining the process to me! But that wasn't what I meant. I'll try again.
If the jury only has to find that one is proven-why are they or they seem to be trying to see if ALL are proven-by wanting to review the tapes?! I asked what are they hung up on or debating?
The first aggravator IS proven! Done!
It was posted to me that they are hung up on the 'intent to kill a child', BUT, there's no reason to debate it if any other aggravator is proven!!!
See what I'm trying to convey?
*If they agree on the first one, 'he killed more than 2 people in the same event', they're done!!!! No need to discuss the rest.
*Especially since the defense conceded that the aggravators were proven!
That's why everyone said this will go fast, this phase.
The jury are definitely deliberating the killing of a child.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk