Jodi Arias Trial Update: Prosecution To Seek Death Penalty Yet Again

It looks like Jodi Arias' lawyers will have to convince yet another jury that she deserves to live despite her heinous crime. Prosecutors have indicated they'll once again seek the death penalty for Arias when the trial resumes.

A 32-year-old waitress and aspiring photographer from California, Arias was found guilty May 8 in the gruesome premeditated first-degree murder of her ex-boyfriend, 30-year-old Travis Alexander, in June 2008. Arias confessed to killing her former lover, but claimed her ex abused her so intensely that it fractured her psyche, and that she was forced to kill Alexander in self-defense because she feared for her life due to his alleged habitual physical and emotional abuse.

During the 19 weeks of testimony, the defense was unable to produce a single piece of evidence to corroborate its claim that Alexander physically abused Arias. As the state's attorney noted repeatedly, no police reports or any other documents support Arias' portrayal of the couple's supposedly violent relationship.

Following more than 13 hours of deliberation, the same eight men and four women who convicted Arias of first-degree murder announced they could not reach a unanimous agreement on Arias' sentencing, and Judge Sherry Stephens called a mistrial. With the jury deadlocked on Arias' fate, prosecutors are now currently deciding whether to continue their pursuit of the death penalty. State's attorney Juan Martinez, and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery will either offer Arias a plea bargain, meaning Arias would not receive the death penalty, would serve a life sentence in prison and the trial would be over, or they could push ahead, requiring the selection of a new jury and dragging Arias and her attorneys through the penalty phase all over again.

Prosecuting attorneys aren't expected to officially announce their plans until a status update hearing June 20, but Montgomery has already effectively confirmed the state is not backing down from arguing Arias deserves the death penalty.

"We're continuing to prepare for a retrial," Montgomery announced at a recent news conference.

News of the prosecution's intentions arrives shortly after Arias' defense made its most explicitly desperate attempt yet to bring the trial to an end. Arias' attorneys recently appealed to the public to save her life for them. Following a comment by Montgomery to the Arizona Republic that he would have an "ethical responsibility" to consider any plea bargain from the defense, Arias' attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott wrote a press statement to the newspaper claiming Arias deserved to live, because, among other things, continuing the trial was simply a waste of tax dollars.

"If the diagnosis made by the State's psychologist is correct, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office is seeking to oppose the death penalty on a mentally ill woman who has no prior criminal history," the defense's statement said.

"Despite Mr. Montgomery's statements to the media, it is not incumbent upon Ms. Arias' defense counsel to resolve this case. Instead the choice to end this case sits squarely with Mr. Montgomery and his office. It is solely for them to determine if continuing to pursue a death sentence on Ms. Arias, who is already facing a mandatory life sentence, is a good and proper use of taxpayer resources."

Montgomery outright rejected the defense's claim that Arias was "mentally ill" in the same news conference he indicated the prosecution's future intentions, calling her lawyers' assertion "simply inaccurate."

If the prosecution demands the death penalty, the trial would enter yet another penalty phase, meaning the already interminably long court proceedings that began in January could stretch on for months to come. Another penalty phase would require the selection of an entirely new jury, and finding impartial jurors in a trial with this much media saturation could prove to be a challenge. Regardless, Montgomery has already signaled that won't stop the prosecution from arguing its case once again; he said he's confident in the state's ability to find impartial jurors despite the pervasive media coverage.