Persuasive Mitigation Evidence in Texas Capital Trials.

This paper will elaborate on an early finding which is suggestive of a key difference between capital cases that resulted in death versus life without parole verdicts in Texas. Data gathered from over 25 in-depth interviews with capital jurors suggest that defense mitigation of traumatic life experiences without accompanying positive mitigation serves to aggravate perceptions of the defendant to jurors. The interviews revealed that mitigation presented by the defense at the punishment phase which focused only on the traumatic life experiences of the capital defendant was interpreted as more aggravating than mitigating to jurors. These jurors discussed how such evidence created a sense that the defendant was unsalvageable. Mitigation of extreme poverty, abuse and deprivation distanced the jurors from the defendant, making their ability to empathize with him much less likely. On the other hand, mitigation of traumatic life experiences coupled with positive mitigation such as the defendant's life having value, the defendant being a hard worker, the defendant being religious and so on brings into focus aspects of the defendant's character which jurors are able to relate to. A balance of mitigation is therefore necessary in order to accurately reflect the complex background of the capital defendant and ensure jurors are able to identify in some way with the defendant. Without this ability to identify with aspects of the defendant's life, mitigation of traumatic life experiences creates an unbridgeable chasm between the defendant and capital jurors. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]