any aggravating factor that exposes a defendant to greater punishment than the punishment authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict must be submitted to a jury. Here, any aggravating factors that expose Defendant to the death penalty will be established by a jury, thereby avoiding any Hurst issue. Conclusion For the abovementioned set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 291). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Although the Court has reviewed the voluminous social science and legal academic literature Defendant submitted relating to juror’s purported inability to follow a court's instructions and other aspects of the death penalty, the Court declines to apply such literature to its analysis in the face of controlling Supreme Court pre , 450 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The Court finds that Defendant’s argument
holding that trial court retains wide discretion to apply or reject mitigating and aggravating factors as well as to interpret meaning of individual factors and its determination must be upheld absent abuse of discretion holding studies cited do not establish that the concepts of aggravating and mitigating factors as used in the fdpa bear such a degree of intrinsic incomprehensibility as to render them incapable of clarification through adequate juty instructions holding that aggravating factors may justify increasing the degree of discipline imposed holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors holding that failure to charge nonstatutory aggravating factors in indictment is not constitutional error because under the fdpa only statutory factors expose a criminal defendant to the death penalty