In states that permit the death penalty, there are often two separate phases of the trial—the guilt phase and the penalty phase.  Murder is the only crime for which someone may be sentenced to death.  A murder that is eligible for the death penalty is called a capital murder. Often, there must be certain “special circumstances” that make a particular murder eligible for the death penalty.

The first part of a capital trial is the guilt phase.  In the guilt phase, the jury (or judge) determines whether the defendant is guilty of the charged crimes.  The only question the jury may consider is whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crimes.  The jury is not permitted to consider the possible sentence in the guilt phase.

If the defendant is found guilty of a crime that leaves him eligible for the death penalty, then there is a penalty phase of trial. 

During the penalty phase, the jury often hears additional evidence to help it make a decision about whether the death penalty should be imposed. 

Different, more relaxed, rules of evidence apply during the penalty phase.  The prosecution typically presents aggravating evidence.  Aggravating evidence is that which suggests that death is the appropriate penalty. 

The defense attorney typically presents mitigating evidence.  Mitigating evidence is that which suggests the defendant does not deserve to be sentenced to death.

Factors that a jury might consider in deciding whether to impose the death penalty include:

• The circumstances of the crime
• The defendant’s mental and emotional state at the time of the crime
• Whether the defendant was legally insane or intoxicated at the time of the crime
• Whether the defendant believed the crime to be morally justified
• The defendant’s age and level of participation in the crime
• Prior felony convictions
• Other violent crimes committed by the defendant, whether he was convicted or not
• The victim’s role or participation in the murder
• Victim impact evidence (the impact of the murder on the victim’s family and friends)
• Any other extenuating circumstances
  

In California, the only two sentencing options available at the penalty phase are death or life without the possibility of parole.  Life without the possibility of parole is often called LWOP (pronounce el-wop).  A defendant sentenced to LWOP will spend the rest of his life in prison (unless his conviction is overturned).  It is considered a true life sentence.

"Death in the City of Light" is a true crime book by David King about a serial killer who murdered dozens of people in Nazi-occupied Paris, France during World War II. 

The crimes committed by the accused serial killer and physician, Dr. Marcel Petiot, were truly horrible.  In addition to being gruesome, his crimes targeted some of the most vulnerable people during World War II - those who wanted to escape the Gestapo. 

Dr. Petiot was seen by those who knew him alternately as a charming humanitarian or a creep.  Dr. Petiot made a reputation for himself by providing free services to the poor.  He was also known to service drug users and was investigated more than once for improperly proscribing medication to addicts.

Petiot effectively used the Nazi occupation of Paris and the French Resistance movement to recruit new victims, prevent too many questions from being asked, and cover his crimes.  Once he is discovered and captured, the central question of his trial becomes whether his murders were committed for the Gestapo, the Resistance, or himself.

The book loses a lot of steam when the trial starts about halfway through.  Normally I'm fascinated by how a foreign country's criminal justice system and trial process compares to the United States, but this one got too bogged down in details.  Also, the author made a point of focusing on the defendant's "witty" remarks in court and the trial audience's delight in him, which was hard to take after learning of all the disgusting things he had done. 

More interesting were some of the procedures used in the French criminal court which were very different from a U.S. criminal trial.  For example, the first part of the trial was basically dedicated to an interrogation of the defendant by the trial judge and lawyers.  By contrast, in the U.S., we have the Fifth Amendment, which protects criminal defendants from ever having to speak in a criminal trial and even prevents the lawyers from commenting on his failure to testify.

Also, several of the victims in the French criminal trial were represented by civil attorneys who actively participated in the trial.  They questioned witnesses and presented evidence.  In the U.S. court system, criminal and civil trials are completely separate.

One of the things I was most struck by was the apparent lack of order in questioning and argument during the French trial.  The defendant and lawyers would speak up, question witnesses, and make arguments seemingly without structure or order.  If this is really the way of a French criminal trial, it is hard to imagine how anything could get accomplished with such a system.  Especially with so many lawyers involved and given lawyers' love of hearing themselves talk!

As far as foreign true crime serial killer books go, I preferred "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston.

Check out my review of "The Monster of Florence" here.

Overall, however, the story underlying "Death in the City of Light" is simply too disturbing and intriguing to ignore. 

(Click the images or links above to check out the books for yourself.)

Also, get your free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.