Based on this information, do you think a resentencing or a rehearing would be more likely? I hope for a resentencing but I could also see them opting for a rehearing since there was plenty of evidence that was not presented during the second trial.

"But we're here to tell you is that we have a moral and an ethical obligation to review what is being presented to us and make a determination based on a resentencing side -- whether they deserve to be resentenced, even though they were clearly the murderers, because they have been in prison for 35 years and they have paid back their dues to society -- or whether (a rehearing of the case) is appropriate -- if there was evidence that was not presented to the court at that time, and had that evidence been presented, perhaps a jury would have come to a different conclusion."