I videotaped this phase but could not really bear to watch it much. It must have been difficult for the jurors as well, who now viewed the consequences of their own verdict: a death penalty hearing. I thought the "Jenny's nightmare" testimony was out of place and irrelevant, a kind of overkill, no pun intended. There was no need for that.
One little scene stands out in my memory, when Dusek was interviewing one of Danielle's teachers on the stand. His back was to Brenda as he asked something like, "So Danielle won't be having a high school graduation, will she?" There was of course an audible gasp and cry from Brenda, which the jurors certainly noted. Dusek did that on purpose, going for the "effect" on the jury and caring little about the effect he knew full well it would have on the victim's mother. I think psychologists have a word for this kind of insouciance, but I won't say it here. I thought it reprehensible. And there's nothing the judge can do about such little tricks; they will never show up in any transcript.
I have written this post first since it will eventually be pushed to the bottom of the page and ultimately into the netherworld of the chronological archives. I know that there are some 14 penalty phase issues and arguments in the Appellant's Opening Brief, but some of those arguments are repeated or addressed in other areas, so we can deal with them there. They petition for reduction of sentence from death to Life w/o Parole.
It seems to me that the CA Supreme Court might somehow postpone or table this part of the arguments, on the grounds that they become irrelevant if (1) the SAFE California initiative is approved by voters in November and all death sentences are reduced to LWOP, and/or (2) a reversal of the Guilt phase decision occurs.
As a person who thinks Westerfield was, at minimum, not guilty, I feel there should never have been a "penalty phase." Call it denial or whatever you will. The penalty phase is just not a subject I care to discuss any further. My blog, my choice. OK?