Opinion ID: 3052176
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Jury’s Penalty Deliberations and Verdict

Text: The jury deliberated for a day and a half before reaching a verdict. On the first day, after several hours of deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note asking, “What happens if we cannot reach a verdict?” and “Can the majority rule on life imprisonment?” The jury was brought back into the courtroom, and the judge reread a portion of the jury instructions, emphasizing that “all 12 jurors must agree, if you can.” Thereafter, the following exchange occurred: JUROR HAILSTONE: If we can’t, Judge, what happens? THE COURT: I can’t tell you that. 3 The dissent takes issue with this statement and notes that we “fail[ ] to give proper emphasis to the fact that several witnesses testified about those issues.” Dis. Op. at 6828. It is not we who failed to emphasize this testimony; it is Schick. In fact, he never even mentioned it in his closing argument. Schick wasted his only opportunity to remind the jury of the insubstantial and inadequate mitigating testimony that he did manage to present and to explain to them why that evidence should persuade them to spare Belmontes’s life. Our cases make clear that in addition to presenting witnesses to testify about mitigating circumstances, defense counsel must also explain the significance of the mitigating testimony in his closing statement. See Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915, 928 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (finding deficient performance in part because counsel “failed to explain to the jury the significance of the mitigating evidence . . . during his closing argument”). For further discussion of this issue, see supra at section II.B.2.a. 6760 BELMONTES v. AYERS JUROR WILSON: That is what we wanted to know. THE COURT: Okay. I know what will happen, but I can’t tell you what will happen. MR. SCHICK: Maybe we should inquire whether the jury could reach a verdict. THE COURT: Do you think, Mr. Norton, you will be able to make a decision in this matter? JUROR HAILSTONE: Not the way it is going. JUROR NORTON: That is tough, yes. THE COURT: Do you think if I allow you to continue to discuss the matter and for you to go over the instructions again with one another, that the possibility of making a decision is there? JUROR NORTON: I believe there is a possibil- ity. After this exchange, the jury continued its deliberations. A little more than a day later, the jury reached a verdict and sentenced Belmontes to death. After the verdict, the judge sent a letter to the jurors thanking them for their service and telling them that their “decision is acceptable and shall be followed.” Subsequently, he imposed the judgment and sentence of death. BELMONTES v. AYERS 6761