Capital Jury Project investigators attempt to interview four randomly selected jurors from each of 20-30 full capital trials that had both guilt and sentencing phases. The trials are chosen to provide equal numbers with life and death verdicts. In 3- to 4- hour interviews, investigators ask a common core of questions in all States, as well as additional questions tailored to the particular concerns of investigators in their own States. Findings show that many jurors in capital cases began taking a stand on what the defendant's punishment should be well before they were exposed to the statutory guidelines for making this decision. Four out of 10 jurors conceded that in deciding guilt, the jury explicitly discussed whether the defendant would or should be sentenced to death. Investigators for North and South Carolina have found that jurors misunderstand how the capital sentencing decision should be made, including which factors can and cannot be considered, the level of proof needed, and what degree of concurrence is required for aggravating and mitigating factors. This misunderstanding leads jurors to an improper acceptance of aggravating considerations and an improper rejection of mitigating factors. The evidence from juror interviews indicates that it is not simply whether or not, but how soon, jurors think the defendant will get out of prison that influences their final punishment decision. Eight of 10 jurors assign primary responsibility to the defendant or to the law for their imposition of a death sentence. The findings at this early stage of research present a picture of capital sentencing afflicted with a "tilt toward death." 21 footnotes