Opinion ID: 215434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sentencing verdict and findings

Text: If you have reached a unanimous verdict, complete this part of the form. In Section A, indicate whether the sentencing verdict is death or life imprisonment. If the sentence is death, indicate the basis for that verdict by completing Section B. If the sentence is life imprisonment, indicate the basis for that verdict by completing Section C. A. We, the jury, unanimously sentence the defendant to (check one): ____ Death ____ Life Imprisonment B. The findings on which the sentence of death is based are (check one): ____ 1. At least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance. The aggravating circumstance(s) unanimously found (is)(are): ____. ____ 2. One or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh(s) any mitigating circumstance(s). The aggravating circumstance(s) unanimously found (is)(are): ____. The mitigating circumstance(s) found by one or more of us (is)(are): ____. C. The findings on which the sentence of life imprisonment is based are (check one): ____ 1. No aggravating circumstance exists. ____ 2. The mitigating circumstance(s) (is)(are) not outweighed by the aggravating circumstance(s). The mitigating circumstance(s) found by one or more of us (is)(are): ____. The aggravating circumstance(s) unanimously found (is)(are): ____. Pa. R. Crim. P. 358A (emphasis added). The form used in Abu-Jamal's trial simply read [w]e, the jury, have found unanimously ... one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances. The aggravating circumstance(s) is/are ____. The mitigating circumstance(s) is/are ____. By contrast, the revised uniform verdict slip states [t]he mitigating circumstance(s) found by one or more of us (is) (are), thereby making clear that, although aggravating circumstances must be found unanimously, mitigating evidence need not be found unanimously in order to be considered by individual jurors during the weighing and balancing process. The Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions were also amended to remove ambiguity with respect to the consideration of mitigating evidence during the weighing and balancing process. See Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions § 15.2502H(3) (2006). The new instruction reads, in relevant part: When voting on the general findings, you are to regard a particular aggravating circumstance as present only if you all agree that it is present. On the other hand, each of you is free to regard a particular mitigating circumstance as present despite what other jurors may believe. This is different from the general findings to reach your ultimate sentence of either life in prison or death. The specific findings as to any particular aggravating circumstance must be unanimous. All of you must agree that the Commonwealth has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not true for any mitigating circumstance. Any circumstance that any juror considers to be mitigating may be considered by that juror in determining the proper sentence. This different treatment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is one of the law's safeguards against unjust death sentences. It gives a defendant the full benefit of any mitigating circumstances. It is closely related to the burden of proof requirements. Remember, the Commonwealth must prove any aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt while the defendant only has to prove any mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. Your final sentencelife imprisonment or deathmust be unanimous. All of you must agree that the sentence should be life imprisonment or that the sentence should be death because there is at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance or because the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found by any juror. Id. These clarifications highlight the ambiguity at issue in this case and on their own serve at least to suggest the substantial probability that some jurors were prevented from considering `factors which may call for a less severe penalty.' Mills, 486 U.S. at 376, 108 S.Ct. 1860 (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)). Accordingly, [w]e can and do infer from these changes at least some concern ... that juries could misunderstand the previous instructions as to unanimity and the consideration of mitigating evidence by individual jurors. Id. at 382, 108 S.Ct. 1860.