Tucson, Arizona, Mar 5 (EFE).- The jury in the second trial of Jodi Arias for the murder of her boyfriend, one of the U.S. cases that has garnered the most media attention in recent years, was unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether or not to impose the death penalty, meaning that the convicted murderer's life will be spared.
After deliberating for some 26 hours over the past five days, the jury said it was unable to reach a unanimous decision on what sentence to impose, and now Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens will be the one to decide what penalty the Hispanic defendant, who claims to have been the victim of domestic violence and acted in self defense when she killed Travis Alexander, will have to face.
According to Arizona law, the sentence may not be greater than life in prison if two juries are unable to arrive at a unanimous decision regarding it.
When the jury's verdict was ready, several of the defendant's relatives burst out crying, while Arias, a 34-year-old Mexican American, maintained the same calm demeanor she has had throughout the trial.
Attorney Jay Beckstead issued a statement from Alexander's siblings saying they "are saddened by the jury's inability to reach a decision on the death penalty, however, we understand the difficulty of the decision, and have nothing but respect for the jury's time."
Some of the jury members displayed strong emotions also, with some of the eight women and four men had tears in their eyes.
Alexander died after having his throat slashed and being stabbed 27 times, along with being shot once in the face, on June 9, 2008.
Prosecutors had asked for the death penalty for Arias for Alexander's murder.
At the first trial, in 2013, a jury found Arias guilty of first-degree murder, but it could not reach a unanimous decision on what her sentence should be, so prosecutors requested a new trial.
Judge Stephens will announce the sentence on April 13, although she must select between either life in prison or life with the possibility of being released after 25 years.
Just like the first trial, this second one had been full of controversy, although this time the judge did not allow the proceedings to be transmitted on live television, as had occurred the first time.
