In Part 2 of the discussion, Bill addresses how Bryan Kohberger used the Idaho death penalty statute to his advantage and eluded a jury decision that could have resulted in his death by a firing squad.

Idaho, like most states with a death penalty statute relies on a bi-furcated trial system where the juries are tasked with two distinctly different responsibilities; 1) Determine if the defendant is guilty of the criminal charges or not, and if guilty, 2) What is the appropriate punishment in that jurisdiction.

In all but two states with a death penalty statute, the jury delivers the final decision on sentencing, not the trial judge nor a panel of judges.

So, if a defendant chooses to waive their right to a jury trial and pleads guilty before a single justice, their maximum sentence is reduced to a life in prison.

Bill discusses how Massachusetts negated their death penalty statute in 1984 when their Supreme Judicial Court ruled the law unconstitutional because the majority believed the option of life or death to be coercive in nature and could sway an innocent defendant from their right to a fair trial because of a legitimate fear that if found guilty by a jury, they could be put to death.

We close the segment with a look at the federal laws regarding the death penalty, and highlight a few notorious cases.