The Supreme Court established the basic framework of capital sentencing in the mid-1970s and then tinkered with it for some years thereafter.  Under this framework, a state cannot make all murderers eligible to even be considered for the death penalty.  There must be some additional factor beyond the basic requirements of murder.  It has to be a reasonably objective one.  "Especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel" won't do.

The methods vary by state.  Texas defined a higher degree of murder called "capital murder."  Most states have a designated list of "aggravating circumstances."  California calls its list "special circumstances" because we just have to be different.

In some states the plus factors are found concurrently with guilt.  In others they are decided along with the decision on penalty.  Colorado apparently "trifurcates" its capital trials, sandwiching an "aggravating factor" phase between the guilt and penalty phases.  (California does that with the prior murder circumstance only.  All the rest are decided concurrently with guilt.)

Are the following factors true in the case of the Aurora shooting?

• Intentionally killing a child under the age of 12.

• Killing more than two people during the same criminal act

• Creating a grave risk of death to people other than the 12 victims.

• Committing the murders in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.

• Ambushing the victims.

The jury did not find the first one, apparently not satisfied on the specific intent requirement.  What's that fourth one?  Hopefully the jury got a "narrowing" instruction to define that more precisely.

Jordan Steffen and John Ingold have this story in the Denver Post.  Maria LaGanga has this story in the LA Times.