If I might interject a point quickly regarding a death penalty prosecution:
A death penalty case is probably the toughest case to prove in the American judicial system. Every single part of the case is subjected to amazingly tight scrutiny. This is done for a good reason: if there is a screw-up and the defendant only goes to jail, the problem is fixable. However, if the defendant is executed, and then we find out that there was other evidence, or the defense attorney was drunk, etc., can't fix the problem.
To prove a capital murder case, the state must prove that defendant planned to kill victim, and did in fact so do. However, the state must also prove at least one "aggravating factor", i.e. the victim was a policeman in the line of duty, murder-for-hire, etc. I attach the statute which lays out Arizona's statutory aggravating factors here.
http://law.onecle.com/arizona/criminal-code/13-751.html
The article seemed to infer that the judge made the decision not to proceed with the capital case, which would be highly unusual, as it is generally the prosecutor's decision on how to proceed. However, the attached article shows that the prosecution filed the motion to not seek the death penalty.
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/02/a...lmaleki-trial/
I realize that this is not the answer that many would look for in a case such as this, but this is the law. As murder cases are very tough, it would make the case even tougher for the prosecution to try this case as a capital murder case, and to do so if the prosecution knows they do not have sufficient facts would be detrimental.