why it would not be right to give him the death penalty. but none of them are mandatory. in other words, all 12 could agree that he showed remorse, and they could still give him the death penalty. so what it really is is the court giving them a clear outline of what the defense contention is as to why he should not be given the death penalty and allowing them to check off various factors, which then would become part of a larger discussion in the jury room about whether this case is an appropriate case for the death penalty, and obviously, when that discussion was over even those jurors who thought that he demonstrated some remorse concluded in the end he deserved the death penalty. >> and, jean casarez, in past cases like this those mitigating factors have resulted in a jury deciding that the individual should not be put to death? >> exactly right, because it's a balancing test. once they get the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors they have to balance it