SCENE 11. The courtroom.
BEHRENDS is seated at the bench. SCHECK sits at the clerk's table. The jurors sit in the jury box. DAME GOTHEL sits in the dock between four guards. Chains run from the heavy iron collar around her neck to the iron belt around her waist to the handcuffs on her wrists and the shackles on her ankles, securing her to the bench where she and the guards sit. VON LINDENBERG stands behind her. HAGELSTAIN and STROBEL, and WIRTNER and WINKLER, are seated at their respective tables. The usher stands in front of the jury box.
Ballard: The defense called Dame Gothel's other servant, who also testified as to how kind she was as an employer, and also admitted under cross-examination that Crown Exhibit 5 had once been a man, whom Dame Gothel had turned into rock after catching him in her garden.
Roland: Then the defense rested, and the next day summations began.
Behrends: Members of the jury, good morning.
Jurors: [together] Good morning.
Behrends: We're now ready to submit these questions to you. And as I've already indicated to you when we started this sentencing hearing, we'll proceed as we did at the trial; and that is, you'll hear first from counsel for the defense, then counsel for the Crown, and then I will instruct you on the law. So we'll proceed. Mr. Wirtner.
Wirtner: [rising] Thank you, your Honor. [to jurors] Hello.
Jurors: [together] Hello.
Wirtner: Five weeks ago, you took your oath as jurors in this trial, Rex versus Dame Gothel; and now the time's come for you to decide what to do with Dame Gothel.
It's – I'm sure it was clear from the beginning of the case that the Crown would come to you and ask you to impose a sentence of death. That came as no surprise. And I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I come before you and ask you to choose life.
And now you have the unenviable task, each of you – each of you individually have the unenviable task of considering everything you've heard in court, considering all of the instructions from Judge Behrends, considering your life experiences, considering your wisdom, and considering your moral sense in deciding the answer to that question.
Mr. Winkler and I have stood with Dame Gothel for many months. We've tried to bring you information to help you do your job.
We brought witnesses to tell you about Dame Gothel's character. And I need to talk with you about Dame Gothel because she's the person you've got to sentence. She's the person you've got to make your individual decisions about. You're not just making a decision about the nature of the crimes. You did that in returning your verdict of guilty. You did that. You've done that. You're now to make a decision about who she is and who she might become.
I'm not asking you to excuse her. There are no excuses. I'm not asking you for sympathy.
What I am asking you to do when I talk with you about Dame Gothel is to listen. And I'm asking you to hold open your minds, as you promised that you would do.
You have already heard several times from Judge Behrends that in deciding the appropriate sentence for Dame Gothel, you must serve as the conscience of the community. Much has been said about this. I will say more. And Judge Behrends will say more.
It is terribly important that you listen to what is said about this role and come to understand it in your own terms, because it is at the heart of what you're called upon to do. Serving as the conscience of the community requires first that you be willing to follow the law. Judge Behrends will instruct you on the law. What he will tell you is so important that I'd like to take just a few moments to talk about it as well.
The most important requirement of the law, again which you have heard already from Judge Behrends and you will hear again, is that you be willing to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before you decide what the appropriate sentence is. These concepts are new to most of us, so I want to address them briefly.
The fact that we have the death penalty as a possible punishment for certain kinds of crimes does not mean that it must be imposed for any particular crime. There are some who say that this case is one in which the only conceivably appropriate sentence is death. The sentiment is expressed in various ways. You've heard them. Indeed, many of us may have had these thoughts cross our mind at some point in thinking about this case. Some say if we're going to have the death penalty, this is the kind of case in which it has to be imposed.
As Judge Behrends explained to you in his preliminary instructions, when recommending a sentence in this case, you must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. To be able to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, you have to understand what mitigating circumstances are. Let me address that briefly.
Judge Behrends explained in his instructions at the beginning of the penalty phase that mitigation circumstances are those factors which weigh in favor of a sentence of fines or a lesser sentence. They are those aspects of the background, character, and life of Dame Gothel and of the circumstances surrounding these offenses that might cause you to question whether to impose a death sentence. They are the things that tug at you, they give you pause; that cause you to think in your quiet moments that perhaps a fine is the appropriate sentence.
Mitigating circumstances are not matters which excuse the crimes for which Dame Gothel has been convicted, nor do they lessen in any way the responsibility she bears for whatever she did. Either sentence, death or fines, is very severe. Choosing fines over death does not mean that you in any sense excuse these crimes. It means only that you have found some reason to exercise a small measure of
compassion. It is crucial that you appreciate this distinction.
There is one other terribly important difference in your consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. You will hear from Judge Behrends that to find an aggravating circumstance, you must all 12 agree beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance exists. That is not the case with a mitigating circumstance. Each of you finds mitigating circumstances, yourself. There need be no agreement. It is your own individual decision as to whether mitigating circumstances exist; and if so, which ones, and if so, how much weight they have.
The final requirement of the law is that you engage in a process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Judge Behrends will instruct you. He will instruct that the weighing process is not a mechanical process, a counting and comparing in a quantitative way the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Nor even is it a weighing process in the sense of a scale. The weighing process is qualitative, not quantitative. It requires that you consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in light of each other and follow the dictates of your conscience as to what sentence should be imposed. Because your conscience is your guidepost Judge Behrends will instruct that you are never, never required to impose a death sentence. Bringing your conscience to bear on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances calls for you to draw upon the deepest resources within you. You must draw upon your own sense of what is right and, because you're also serving as the conscience of the community and the Crown in this case, what you think is right from the perspective of the Crown.
I'd now like to turn to the facts that have to be weighed. You know that the person that you found responsible for these crimes is quite human by now, just like you and many of the people you know and love. You know that Dame Gothel is not an evil woman, not a woman who was somehow defective in the way she thought or felt or dwelt among us in her lifetime, but instead a woman who embodies much of the best that we call "human."
She has not changed. The evidence has shown no change. The testimony of those who know Dame Gothel is still fresh with you, so I won't go over it in much detail; but I do want to recall with you briefly some of the qualities that define this woman, Dame Gothel. Who is she? She is a good and kind employer, easy to work for and not demanding, as you've heard her two remaining servants describe.
She is elderly, as you can see for yourselves.
And she is of noble birth.
These are the realities that you must bring into the weighing process in considering the enormity of this crime. How do they relate to one another? There is no excuse, there is no justification. There is enormity and immensity so much that we cannot even wrap our minds around it. That is a clear reality.
The three areas of mitigation do not excuse and do not diminish or call for anything less than a severe, severe punishment, nothing less than a heavy fine.
Before concluding, I'd like to say one word about being a victim in this case. You did not hear from the witness stand any person who was a victim of this case call upon you as to sentence. You did not hear it. That's an important lesson. Victims are honored and supported by having been here, by having been allowed to tell the story even in small ways of what happened to them. There is not a necessary connection between the punishment of Dame Gothel and the futures of people who were victimized and still living.
I can tell you this, and we've shown you, that Dame Gothel is not the worst of the worst. And that's what the death penalty is reserved for, is the worst of the worst.
The prosecutors want you to believe that Dame Gothel is a bad seed. She committed a heinous crime and must be executed. That is the prosecution's theory.
The crime is heinous; that much is true. But you promised us when you took your oath as jurors that when the time came for sentencing, you would look beyond the crime, you would look at the person, and you would look at all of the reasons that the law allows you to consider a fine could be the appropriate sentence.
The law recognizes that all people convicted of the same crime don't get the same sentence. Whether a sentence of death is justified is your own individual decision. The judge's instructions tell you that. And I know during voir dire we talked a lot about, you know, "Well, I'll follow the law, and I can follow the law and do what the law requires me to do." Well, the law requires you to make these findings. The law requires you to make findings as to aggravation, findings as to mitigation, to weigh them, and then the law leaves it entirely up to you.
Each one of you individually, each one of you, is a safeguard against the death penalty. Each individual.
You've been through a lot together. We've all been through a lot together. But you've been through a lot together sitting here for the past five weeks, and I'm sure you want to support each other. But that is not your job in this phase. You have a job to deliberate, listen, discuss and respect. Everyone respects everyone else's views. No one of you ever, ever has to vote for the death penalty.
A sentence of death is only imposed if it is unanimous. A death sentence will not be imposed unless each one of you decides that it should be. A sentence of a fine doesn't dishonor the victims in this case. It does not in any way minimize what happened and what was caused by her crimes.
Finally, a sentence of a fine allows for hope. It allows for the possibility of redemption and a greater opportunity for healing for everyone involved. It's a sentence that reflects justice and mercy. Mercy's never earned; it's bestowed. And the law allows you to choose justice and mercy.
I ask you to make a decision of strength, a choice that demonstrates the resilience of this community. We ask you to choose life and impose a sentence of a heavy fine.
Thank you. [sits].
Behrends: Mr. Strobel.
Strobel: [rising] May it please the Court, gentlemen of the jury, it's time. It's time for justice. A little over two decades ago, if not earlier than that, Dame Gothel decided that she had no time for justice. She believed that it was her right to bewitch, hex and enchant anyone who defied her. She used witchcraft and sorcery on her victims without regard to sex or station. She darkened the lives of people in Neustadt and Marburg. She scoffed at the concept of lawful judgement by one's equals or by the law of the land.
But today, despite her total disregard for justice, we give the defendant what every person in this country deserves: Justice. Dame Gothel has been presumed innocent. She's had a public trial, and she has had citizens from her community consider all of the evidence before declaring her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to every crime charged. Unlike her victims, Dame Gothel receives justice.
But as you know, justice is not finished. There is one decision that you all must make as the conscience of the kingdom. Justice requires that you consider all of the information presented about these crime and about Dame Gothel. And then as Judge Behrends told you during his preliminary remarks, you must make a moral judgment about the worth of a specific life balanced against the societal value of a deserved punishment.
You may recall that during his opening statement, Mr. Hagelstain told you that the Crown would present so much evidence that your decision on guilt would be a rather easy one. That is not – that is not the case at this stage. Everyone acknowledges that the decision that you are about to make is a difficult one. Weighing the worth of anyone's life is a gut-wrenching task. But you are not alone. The fathers of this country determined long ago that the death penalty is appropriate in certain cases. There are laws and developed rules like those that govern the sentencing hearing that we just experienced.
And Judge Behrends will instruct you on the law. He will tell you the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that you are to consider, and the law will provide you a framework for making your decision.
And each and every one of you told us during voir dire that you believed that the death penalty was appropriate, a just punishment in certain circumstances. Now it is time for you to set aside your emotions, be them sympathy, compassion, or fear, and make a decision about Dame Gothel based on the facts.
This trial is not a place for revenge, anger, or fear. It is for justice; it is time for justice, and justice demands that you deal with the facts.
A family was forced to spend five of what should have been the best years of their daughter's life watching her through a magic mirror, rather than seeing her in the flesh and talking to her every day. Those are the facts, and Dame Gothel is responsible for those facts. And that daughter was ripped from the arms of her parents, and spent those years of her life, not in the loving bosom of her family, but alone in a tower. Those are the facts, and Dame Gothel is responsible for those facts.
The heir apparent, our future king, was blinded, and but for Dame Gothel's Chief Servant, and the miraculous tears of Rapunzel, would still be wandering blindly in the wilds, or worse, starved to death. Those are the facts, and Dame Gothel is responsible for those facts.
And if not for the Chief Servant, Rapunzel herself might have starved to death in that wilderness, where she was abandoned. Dame Gothel did that.
It is all of these facts and many more that you must consider when deciding whether Dame Gothel should live or die. We are asking you to do a difficult job. We know that. But we are asking you to do what is right and what is just.
Take a moment before we review the evidence and the information you received during the penalty case and look at Dame Gothel. Look into the eyes of a coward and tell her you will have courage. Tell her you will speak with one unified voice as the moral conscience of the kingdom and tell her she is a traitor and she deserves to die.
There are many reasons why the defendant should be punished with the ultimate sanction that our kingdom has reserved for only the most heinous of crimes. Those reasons set out as aggravating factors may be weighed against the mitigation that the defense has presented. But it is only you who can determine the weight of each factor and the value of Dame Gothel's life. But for the next several minutes, I would like to review the information that you've received during the penalty hearing that proves beyond any doubt that the defendant's crimes were so despicable that the only just sentence is a sentence of death.
To assist you during your deliberations and to record your findings, his Honor will give you this: Special Findings Form A; and in this form, you will see that you have to make four decisions. The first is to determine whether the defendant intended her crimes. Most of these issues you've already dealt with during the guilt phase.
Once you find that the defendant intended to commit her crimes, you'll be asked to review the aggravating factors, which I will discuss with you in a minute. If you find that the Crown has proved one of those factors, you will look at the defense's mitigation factors. There are numerous factors listed there. But most importantly, after finding whether all of those factors exist, you must weigh the importance of each factor.
Now, you will receive no guidance about how one factor weighs or the import of one factor vs. another. But I'd like to give you just one example. One of the mitigation factors for Dame Gothel is that she had no criminal record, and of course we don't dispute that. But when put on the scales of justice next to the fact that she blinded the heir to the throne, and that her actions could have resulted in the death of His Royal Highness, that factor – that mitigation factor of no criminal record is a mere pebble compared to the pfunds of harm, both actual and potential, that Dame Gothel caused.
The first aggravating factor that you'll need to consider is whether Dame Gothel engaged in substantial planning and premeditation. During his opening statement for this phase, Mr. Hagelstain reviewed some of the evidence that you heard during the trial, and I don't want to repeat that for you, but I do want to remind you of one thing. Dame Gothel laid in wait for an innocent victim. She waited in the tower for His Royal Highness. His Royal Highness came to the tower on an errand of love. Dame Gothel waited for His Royal Highness before she blinded him.
The second factor that you will have to consider during your deliberations is whether Dame Gothel poses a threat to public safety, and whether she has committed other similar acts in the past. Again, there's no question that this aggravating factor has been proved.
While it is true she has no criminal record, that is only because her previous crimes went unreported because her victims feared her too much to report them, or because they did not survive to do so. You yourself saw the rock shaped like a man, which the Amtmann recovered from Dame Gothel's garden, and you saw Amalie identify him as her long-missing husband Wolfgang. You even heard one of Dame Gothel's servants admit, albeit unwillingly, that she had turned him to stone after catching him in her garden.
There can be no doubt that there has been overwhelming evidence proving that Dame Gothel intended to cause injury; nor can there been any question, as to the third factor, that Dame Gothel's victims included two of special status, namely, a minor and the heir apparent.
You heard from both Rapunzel and His Royal Highness about the crimes Dame Gothel committed against them during the guilt phase. For harming a minor and especially harming the heir to the throne to serve some twisted personal agenda, which is so detrimental to the fabric of our society, the authors of our laws decided long ago that that should be a specific aggravating factor justifying the death penalty. Here we have proven beyond any doubt, and you should so find during your deliberations.
The fourth aggravating factor that you need to look at is whether the defendant caused serious physical injury, including maiming and disfigurement, to any of her victims. Of course she did. You heard evidence of that at trial. You saw that His Royal Highness was placed in harm's way and faced the possibility of death on August 11, 1335, and for several days thereafter. You saw him come forward and tell you about the physical injuries that he suffered.
The fifth factor you must consider is whether the defendant has shown any remorse. You have seen yourselves from her courtroom demeanor that she has not. Far from it. She has lashed out at witnesses and had to be silenced by His Honor.
The final factor that you must consider when determining whether Dame Gothel should live or die is that her crimes were perpetrated against five people. This factor, this factor alone, is enough when put on the scales of justice to sanction and warrant a sentence of death for Dame Gothel.
As the Judge will tell you, you have to decide how to weigh each factor. But I submit to you, bewitching three people, including His Royal Highness the Crown Prince, assaulting another person, and threatening a fifth is enough. This is the crime that the death penalty was designed for. If not five people, then how many?
In contrast to these five people, the defense has urged you to consider Dame Gothel, and you should. Dame Gothel was born into and raised by a noble family. Dame Gothel had good adult role models throughout her youth, and received the privilege of an education. Here is a woman who had every chance to succeed, every opportunity, and instead she chose to be a witch and a traitor.
Dame Gothel did not just betray her king. She betrayed every Hessian. She betrayed you. She is a traitor who chose of her own volition to betray her country by bewitching and maiming the future king. No person, no government action, made her commit the crimes you have convicted her of.
As the moral conscience of the kingdom, you must speak on behalf of all Hessians who rightly refuse to accept any justification for these horrible crimes. It is time for justice. It is time to impose the ultimate sanction on the woman responsible for these outrages. Serve justice, speak as the moral conscience of the kingdom, and sentence Dame Gothel to death. [sits]
Behrends: Members of the jury, Dame Gothel has been found guilty of 8 separate crimes, ywo of which carry the death penalty. The laws defining these offenses referred to in the indictment and in the previous instructions given to you provide that the punishment may be death, fines, or any lesser sentence provided by law and decided upon by the Court. The recommendation among these three choices must be made by the jury. Even though you have found Dame Gothel guilty of charges which carry a possible death sentence, the law requires that you approach this sentencing decision with an open mind, able to give meaningful consideration to all possible sentences. Because the factors to be considered include the circumstances of the offenses, it is possible that, even though all of the crimes charged are connected with Rapunzel and her parents, the jury may find differences which would justify different sentences on different charges. If you decide that your findings apply to both of the charges that carry the death penalty, witchcraft and high treason, you will complete and sign only Special Findings Form A. If you find – if you decide that your findings are different for each of the charges, you will use Special Findings Form B and indicate the applicable charge in the space provided, as I will be explaining to you in more detail. Two of these B forms have been provided so that you may report findings separately as to each charge.
Now, a copy of the indictment and the previous instructions given to you at the close of the trial will also be given to you for your reference in making your findings. You will also, as you did have at the trial stage – you will have individual copies of these instructions.
As I have told you previously, you must decide whether the appropriate sentence for the defendant is: (1) death; (2) a fine, or (3) some other lesser sentence to be decided by the Court. Your recommendation that the defendant be sentenced either to death or to a fine will not be binding on the Court, but your recommendation will carry great weight when I decide what sentence to impose. In the event you choose the third option and recommend that the defendant receive some lesser sentence, I will impose a sentence other than death as authorized by law.
Before deciding on the appropriate punishment, you must consider additional information about the crimes and about the uniqueness of the defendant as an individual human being. The parties have presented information pertaining to aggravating and mitigating factors at this sentencing hearing. The information you may consider also includes the evidence presented at trial. Thus, you may consider the testimony, exhibits and stipulations offered by both sides during the guilt phase, and the parties were not required to re-offer that evidence.
Based on your consideration of evidence presented at trial and the information presented at this sentencing hearing, you must make a series of findings to guide you in arriving at a reasoned moral response to the defendant's crimes, background, character and circumstances of the offenses. These findings are to be entered on the Special Findings Form.
Section I of the Special Findings Form asks you to decide what the evidence and information provided to you at the trial and at the sentencing hearing proved as to the defendant's intentions. The Crown has alleged that Dame Gothel committed criminal acts with four types of intent:
(1) That the defendant intentionally harmed the victims;
(2) That the defendant intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury on at least one of the victims
(3) That the defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that a person would be harmed or intending that a person would be harmed, and that the victims were harmed as a result of that act;
(4) That the defendant intentionally and specifically engaged in an act of violence, knowing that the act created a grave risk of harm to a person, other than a participant in the offense, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human safety and the victims were harmed as a direct result of the act.
There can be no sentence to death or fine unless all of the jurors agree that the Government has proven at least one of these intentions beyond a reasonable doubt. You will recall that the instructions given at the close of the trial informed you that a reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his or her own affairs. When you have unanimously agreed on your answers to the first four questions, the foreperson will write "Yes" or "No" on the appropriate lines on Section I of the Special Findings Form for each of these four intent elements. If you answer "No" with respect to all four elements, then conclude your deliberations, sign the Certification in Section VI of the form, and advise the Court that you have reached a decision. If you answer "Yes" with respect to one or more of the elements, then continue your deliberations and proceed to Section II of the form.
Section II of the Special Findings Form asks whether the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one aggravating factor. An "aggravating factor" is some circumstance that tends to support imposition of the death penalty. The Crown has alleged six such aggravating factors:
(1) That multiple people have been harmed by the defendant's crimes;
(2) That the defendant has committed acts of a similar nature that harmed others prior to the offenses for which she was indicted, and is therefore a danger to the public safety;
(3) That the defendant committed the offense(s) after substantial planning and premeditation to cause harm to one or more persons and to commit an act of treason;
(4) That the defendant the defendant committed the offenses against victims of special status, such a minor or a member of the royal family;
(5) That the defendant caused serious physical injury, including maiming and disfigurement, to any one of her victims;
(6) That the defendant has shown no remorse.
The Crown must prove at least one of these aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. You should write "Yes" or "No" on the appropriate lines on Section II of the Special Findings Form to indicate your unanimous answers to the question of whether the Crown proved the existence of each particular factor beyond a reasonable doubt. If you answer "No" with respect to all six factors, then conclude your deliberations, sign the Certification in Section VI of the form, and advise the Court that you've reached a decision. If you answer "Yes" with respect to one or more of these six factors, then continue your deliberations and proceed to Section III of the form.
Now, Section III of the Special Findings Form asks you to find whether the defendant has proved any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. Mitigating factors are not limited by law. The law permits you to consider any relevant mitigating information presented by the defendant. "Relevant mitigating information" includes anything in the defendant's background, record, or character, or any circumstances of the offenses, which suggests to you that a sentence other than death should be imposed. The defendant must prove the existence of mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence or information.
A "preponderance of the evidence" or information means an amount of evidence or information sufficient to persuade you that a contention is more likely true than not true or that a factor is more likely present than not present.
Not only is the burden of persuasion different for aggravating and mitigating factors, the unanimity requirement that exists for aggravating factors does not exist with respect to mitigating factors. Any one or more jurors may find the existence of a mitigating factor and may then consider that factor in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors even though other jurors may not agree that the particular mitigating factor has been established. This weighing decision must be made by each juror giving individual consideration to the aggravating factors unanimously found by all of the jurors and such mitigating factors as may be found by each juror.
After completing your findings as to the existence or absence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, you will then engage in a weighing process. In determining whether a sentence of death is appropriate, all of you must weigh any aggravating factors that you unanimously found to exist and each of you must weigh any mitigating factors that you individually found to exist. The jury must determine if the proven aggravating factor or factors sufficiently outweigh any proven mitigating factor or factors to justify a sentence of death.
The process of weighing aggravating and mitigating factors is not a mechanical process. You should not simply count the number of aggravating and mitigating factors and decide which number is greater, but instead you should consider the weight and value of each factor. Whatever findings you make with respect to aggravating and mitigating factors, a jury is never required to impose a death sentence.
Your role in this proceeding is to be the conscience of the kingdom in making a moral judgment about the worth of a specific life balanced against the societal value of what the Government contends to be – or is the deserved punishment for these particular crimes. Your decision must be a reasoned one free from the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor.
After engaging in the process described above, the jury must record its moral judgment as to the appropriate sentence. The place for recording the sentence is Section V of the Special Findings Form. The jury must write in on the line one of three possible sentences: (1) "Death"; (2) "Fine"; or (3) "Some Other Lesser Sentence." Each member of the jury then should sign his name at the bottom of Section V.
The jury, in considering whether a sentence of death is justified, shall not consider the race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, or sex of the defendant or of any victim and the jury is not to recommend a sentence of death unless it has concluded that it would recommend a sentence of death for the crime no matter what the race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, or sex of the defendant or of any victim may be. Section VI of the Special Findings Form contains the certification to this effect that must be signed by each juror.
Now, as I said, you will have the Special Findings Forms available to you; and of course, you will use them. And again, I'm providing a draft or a work copy form that may be used as you go through this process, so that you don't have the possibility of making a mistake in recording something and then having to scratch it out or something. So you have a work form.
Also, I mentioned to you in the instructions that you have two forms to work with. Special Findings Form A would be applicable if your findings apply to both charges, so it says that. Special findings Form A: These findings apply to both charges, if that be your decision. Then you simply use this form and go through and make the findings in accordance with the instructions. And I believe that the questions are very clear here and do not require my repeating them again as I have in the instructions.
On the other hand, you have certainly the possibility that your findings will be separate according to different counts. And it is for that reason that you're being provided 2 Special Findings Forms B, so that with the possibility that your findings would be different as to each charge, you may record them 2 times to the 2 charges.
And then for your convenience, it says, "These findings apply to the following charges," and repeats the charges of the indictment, nd again reminding you what each charge is. And of course, as I've already indicated, you will have a copy of the indictment as you did when you deliberated with respect to guilt or innocence, so that you can refer back to them. And again, a work copy has been provided for you.
Now, I must ask whether the people seated in the 12 chairs who are also the people who decided – deliberated and decided with respect to the indictment are now able to go forward and proceed to make the findings necessary to recommend the sentence in this case.
Are there any among you who are unable to do that?
All right.
Let me just add one additional instruction, of course; and it's the same that I gave you when I instructed you with respect to the guilt or innocence decisions that you made before you deliberated; and that is counsel have commented in their closing arguments in this sentencing phase with respect to the law. And what I would instruct you, if there appears to you to be any difference between any of the statements of counsel with respect to the law and that which I give you in these instructions, including these Special Findings Forms, you will be guided, of course, by my instructions and these forms.
Now, the 12 persons who deliberated in this case and who have indicated that they are ready, willing, and able to proceed to make the necessary findings here will do so.
Members of the jury, I didn't repeat this in the instructions; but I'm sure you understand that now, just as when I instructed you before, your deliberations are among the 12 of you. You're not to communicate with anyone, even to the Court, the status of your deliberations until you have answered the questions in accordance with the instructions and signed off on the form or forms.
And if you feel it necessary to communicate with the Court, again, you may do so in the same fashion as before. Do so by the submission of a written note which will be given to me and then which I will respond to. And, of course, with respect to any other needs that the jury may have, you can do as before the method of communication so that we can provide what you need.
Once again, do not indicate to anyone the status of your deliberations until they are completed.
Members of the jury, you will now retire to consider the questions before you in accordance with these instructions.
Exit jurors.
Behrends: As before, we ask counsel to be available no more than 10 minutes away; and also, if you haven't heard from us before 10 minutes before 5, be here at 10 minutes before 5.
With that, the Court will be in recess subject to call.
Ballard: After deliberating 11 hours over 2 days, the jury reached a decision.
Enter jurors. They hand a form to BEHRENDS.
Behrends: [reading] "The jury has considered whether the aggravating factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factor or factors found to exist, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors are themselves sufficient to justify a sentence of death. Based upon this consideration, the jury recommends, by unanimous vote, that the following sentence be imposed:
The defendant Dame Gothel, shall be sentenced to: Death."
Exit DAME GOTHEL, led away by VON LINDENBERG and guards.
Behrends: [to jurors] I want to thank you on behalf of the Crown and all the people of Hesse. You have served our king and our country, you have served God, and you have served the system. You decided this as a group of 12. No one of you can change it. And you know you don't have to explain it to anybody.