“selection” phase (in which the jury concluded that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment). Id. at 771, 773. But here, in contrast to Johnson II, there is no evidence that Harrison requested a bifurcated penalty-phase proceeding, objected to the trial court’s special verdict forms, or submitted alternative verdict forms that would have allowed the jury to render a partial verdict of acquittal. Furthermore, the Nevada Supreme Court has explained that although juries are given special verdict forms to guide their analysis in these unbifurcated penalty-phase proceedings, these forms are not legally significant. See Gallego v. State, 23 P.3d 227, 239-40 (Nev.2001) (en banc). Instead, the only conclusion of any significance is the jury’s final sentencing decision. See id. at 240 (<HOLDING>); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 175.554(4). Contrary
holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof holding it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny equitable relief by relying on its own findings that were inconsistent with the jurys findings holding jury verdict not inconsistent where jury unanimously determined that plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary to recovery despite jurys failure to answer other questions on the special verdict form holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict holding that a verdict form specifying the jurys mitigation findings is not required