John Christoffersen of AP has this article on the Hayes trial in Connecticut.  The mitigation is the usual stuff.  Having already dismissed the juror who saw their case for what it was, as noted here, the defense makes this audacious claim:

Superior Court Judge Jon Blue on Wednesday rejected defense attorneys' objection to using an alternate juror to help decide punishment. Last week, Blue dismissed one juror who was overheard making a derogatory comment about the defense and replaced that juror with an alternate.

Ullmann said the law calls for the jury that determined Hayes' guilt to decide his sentence. He says the alternate was not a member of the group that determined Hayes' guilt.

The judge acknowledged Wednesday that the issue is "very tricky" and that the law is not clear, and said lawyers could renew their request after the verdict. He also noted it was the defense who wanted the regular juror dismissed and said the case could proceed without the alternate and only 11 jurors if both sides agreed.

So what result should follow if one of the jurors who decided guilt is dismissed?  Does that mean the defendant escapes the death penalty regardless of the justice of that penalty in the case?  That would be arbitrary in the extreme.