As soon as Nikolas Cruz pleaded responsible final yr to 17 counts of homicide within the first diploma and different fees, prosecutors now not needed to show at trial that he had dedicated the lethal mass capturing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Excessive Faculty in Parkland, Fla. His culpability was settled.
What the plea didn’t settle was his sentence. In Florida, first-degree homicide is a capital felony, punishable by both loss of life or life imprisonment with out the potential of parole. And state regulation requires {that a} jury decide which it ought to be.
If the defendant had been convicted at trial, the identical jury that handed up the decision would have been retained for a separate sentencing continuing. However when a defendant pleads responsible earlier than trial to a capital felony, as Mr. Cruz did, the court docket should impanel a jury only for sentencing, until the defendant waives the correct to have a jury make the willpower.
What the state does
The prosecution’s job now’s to persuade the jury that there are aggravating elements within the case that will warrant the loss of life penalty. Among the many doable aggravating elements listed within the regulation are:
-
That the killings have been “particularly heinous, atrocious or merciless”;
-
That the defendant “knowingly created an awesome danger of loss of life to many individuals”;
-
That the defendant killed “in a chilly, calculated, and premeditated method with none pretense of ethical or authorized justification.”
Prosecutors are anticipated to current intensive particulars of the 17 murders and 17 tried murders at the highschool, together with tons of of ugly pictures and movies. The jury might also tour the college constructing the place the capturing passed off.
“They’re going to attempt to get these jurors to relive what occurred to the victims,” stated David S. Weinstein, a former prosecutor who’s now a protection lawyer. “It’s going to be an emotional curler coaster.”
What the protection does
The protection will attempt to persuade the jury that there are mitigating circumstances that will name for leniency. Underneath the regulation, these circumstances may embody that the defendant “was below the affect of maximum psychological or emotional disturbance” or had a diminished potential to grasp whether or not his actions have been prison, amongst different elements.
The protection legal professionals intend to indicate that Mr. Cruz, who was 19 on the time of the capturing, struggled with a troublesome upbringing and psychological well being issues and had tried to get therapy. They’ve requested permission to indicate jurors a map of his mind, however the choose has but to determine whether or not to permit it.
The jury’s activity
After listening to the proof, the jury should first determine whether or not the state has proved every of its claimed aggravating elements past an inexpensive doubt. For the defendant to be eligible for the loss of life penalty, the jury should unanimously discover at the very least one of many aggravating elements to be proved.
Subsequent, the jury would think about whether or not the confirmed aggravating circumstances are enough to warrant a loss of life sentence and outweigh any mitigating elements discovered to exist, and in the event that they do, whether or not to advocate a loss of life sentence to the court docket. To take action, the jury should once more be unanimous; in any other case the sentencing advice have to be for all times in jail with out risk of parole.
The court docket can’t impose a loss of life sentence if the jury has beneficial life in jail, however it may put aside a jury’s advice of loss of life and impose a life sentence as an alternative.
An odd case
The necessity for a particular sentencing jury is one in every of a number of methods the Parkland case is extraordinarily uncommon. It’s uncommon for somebody as younger as Mr. Cruz (he’s now 23) to face the loss of life penalty, and even rarer for somebody who has dedicated so lethal a mass capturing to nonetheless be alive afterward to face justice.
“In a way, we’re in fully uncharted waters,” stated Robert M. Jarvis, a regulation professor at Nova Southeastern College in Davie, Fla., who tracks mass killings. “You by no means get these sorts of trials, as a result of the gunman is at all times useless.”
Patricia Mazzei contributed reporting.