OK - I won't do anything rash, but this is still annoying me.
The article as it stands contains the following idiotic sequence:
>>On March 7, 2007, Couey was found guilty of all charges... The jury deliberated for four hours, tasked with recommending either life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty, the only two possible sentences available under Florida law... A week later, after about one hour and 15 minutes of deliberation, a jury recommended Couey be put to death... On August 11, 2007, a jury overseeing the Lunsford case voted 10-2 that Couey be eligible for the death sentence. <<
This may well be an accurate presentation of the facts, but it sounds pretty goofy. On March 7th, a jury ["tasked with recommending either life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty"] deliberated for four hours, and presumably gave a recommendation. Then, a week later, "after about one hour and 15 minutes of deliberation, a jury recommended Couey be put to death." But THEN, on August 11th, "a jury overseeing the Lunsford case voted 10-2 that Couey be eligible for the death sentence."
What the heck is going on here? How many juries gave how many different recommendations, and why? Don't bother explaining it to me, just re-write that section of the article so that it's not so comically incompetent. Otherwise, I'll take care of it myself.
Bob