Sex dating in arthur nebraska Free to view sex webcams no sign up
A sentencing hearing was conducted by the judge who presided over the trial. However, the panel concluded that the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances were not of sufficient weight to approach or exceed the weight which the panel gave to the aggravating circumstances applicable to each murder, and concluded that the sentence of death should be imposed on Gales for each of the murders of which he had been convicted. Gales was sentenced to consecutive sentences of death on each count of first degree murder and a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than 50 nor more than 50 years on the count of attempted second degree murder. On August 27, 2001, the jury returned a verdict finding Gales guilty of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder. The sentencing panel found no statutory mitigating circumstances to be present in this case and considered two nonstatutory mitigating circumstances proffered by Gales: Gales' strong relationship with members of his family and his ability to adapt to life in prison.
The court found certain aggravating circumstances to exist, and based upon those findings, Gales was sentenced to death for each of the first degree murder convictions. The panel concluded that the imposition of a sentence of death was not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. W.2d 794 (2003).(c) Analysis Gales advances several arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Nebraska capital sentencing provisions. Section 29-2521 specifically provides that the panel of judges, including the judge who presided at the trial of guilt, shall be “named at random by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” We have previously stated that the statutory sentencing procedure provides appropriate standards for impaneling a three-judge panel. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir.1998), quoting Chambers v. The notice of aggravation shall be filed as provided in section 29-1602. Thus, to the extent Gales is arguing that he was not afforded the notice necessary to allow him to prepare a defense, we find such argument to be without merit. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.1998) (rejecting argument that defendant had insufficient notice of aggravating factors).2. Any information charging a violation of section 28-303 [murder in the first degree] and in which the death penalty is sought shall contain a notice of aggravation which alleges one or more aggravating circumstances, as such aggravating circumstances are provided in section 29-2523. Finally, we note that Gales was aware, from our opinion in Gales I, of precisely which aggravating circumstances would be at issue in the penalty phase proceedings of his resentencing and that the State filed a notice of aggravating circumstances prior to resentencing even though it was not required, under our opinion in Gales I, to do so.