Sep
14

A Shocker In New Haven: Juror Asks What's This Murder Case About, Anyhow?

At the rate things are going in the case of State v. Hayes, the case could end as early as next week. But the ending will be a mistrial, not a verdict. That's because in two short days of evidence, four jurors have already decided to bow out of service. It takes twelve men and women to make a verdict. If there are fewer than 12, it's back to square one, unless the parties agree to permit the case to be decided by a rump jury. I don't expect the defense to permit that. When the state seeks to kill your client, a mistrial is champagne-popping time.

In fairness, the 12 jurors, six alternates and two back ups were picked during a marathon jury selection process that spanned a period of a couple of months. It's been a while since the entire group was selected. Returning to the courthouse after a hiatus in some cases of more than half a year was bound to produce a couple of surprises. Three jurors opted out before the gavel fell opening the proceedings. Apparently, one other panelist fell by attrition without notice. So as today began, there were twelve jurors and four alternates. In most cases, that would be more than enough to bring the proceedings to a tidy conclusion a couple of months from now.

But then the unprecedented occurred. Before the lunch break today, a juror sent a note out to the judge. He had concerns he wanted to discuss. The note was tendered apparently during the gripping testimony of Dr. William Petit, the sole survivor of the Cheshire home invasion. Judge John C. Blue decided to wait until after Dr. Petit finished testifying before addressing the juror's concerns.

When the juror was questioned, he offered the following: He did not think he'd be able to render a verdict in the case given the evidence. Is the case too gruesome, you might wonder? No. That was not the issue. The state's case was disorganized and made no sense, the juror said. It appeared as though the case was poorly prepared, he opined. During the most dramatic and sympathetic testimony of the case, that of Dr. Petit, a juror all but raised his hand and asked: "What the Hell is this all about?" The sucking sound you heard early this afternoon was that of the prosecution's gonads retreating to a safe, dark place.

I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms and this ranks as one of the most amazing things I've ever heard. Mind you, the case was all of one and one-half days long. The state had only yesterday given an opening statement laying out its claims: A family was slaughtered and terrorized in the dead of night. Then the defense stood up and admitted that Mr. Hayes had murdered the mother of the family and participated in the mayhem. This isn't exactly a case turning on an obscure point of law or difficult to conceive facts. A juror vetted after lengthy voir dire by both parties simply declared "no mas."

I have never seen a prosecution so effectively neutered and so quickly. It is as though the juror listened to the state, considered its star witness, and then decided the case wasn't worth the time it would take to decide it. How can the prosecution rebound from this unsubtle humiliation?

Judge Blue questioned the jurors outside the presence of other panelists. The juror was questioned by counsel as well. Did he understand that evidence is admitted piecemeal, that trial is akin to assembling a vast puzzle? Oh, yes; he understood that. He just didn't think he could make a decision given the manner in which the case was being presented. The state moved to have the juror it had rendered senseless with its opening statement and presentation of evidence removed from service. The defense, sensing hope perhaps for the first time in this seemingly hopeless case, wanted the man kept on the jury. Judge Blue discharged the juror and worried aloud about a mistrial.

Cold records rarely reflect the underlying symbolism of a trial. Could it be that in this case all the public rage, fuss and furor of the past three years has desensitized this jury? Perhaps a governor who vetoed lawmakers' efforts to repeal the death penalty by talking about this very case offended the juror, as well it should have. How is it that as the state's star witness testifies, the man who should be rallying jurors' sympathy to move in for a quick kill, all one juror can do is beg to get off the case because the case makes no sense? Something is happening in that courtroom; what it is is not exactly clear.

The defense sensibly chose not to cross examine Dr. Petit. He told his story. He told about escaping his own home of terrors. No doubt there were tears aplenty and sympathetic gasps in the courtroom. But could it be that this was all a bit too theatrical for an ordinary juror? Has the state striven to strike a tragic note but failed even to inspire gravitas? I find that hard to believe.

But the jurors were there and saw something.  Once the Doctor's testimony ended, one juror sent a note for the judge. How, he wondered, did the doctor manage to escape from the basement after he had been tied to a pipe and while his hands were bound. What went wrong for the state today? How does Dr. Petit weep the tears of the bereft and inspire something other than sympathy? How?

All trials are about a struggle of good versus evil. To win a trial, you must keep evil on the other side of the aisle, and capture, if you can, goodness. But what of this dynamic in a case where the evil is so obvious and apparent that it is not contested? What does the state do when the defendant admits the very crimes of which he is accused? In that case, a juror could well wonder what motivates a state to play at justice in such a farcical and public manner. Is all this just so that a man who admits his guilt can be killed? Is the state seeking to manipulate the jury to become the very sort of evil the state condemns. Yes, we should kill the killer, the state proclaims. Killing makes us good. No wonder the juror wanted off the panel. This is madness, not justice.

The case resumed with twelve jurors and three alternates. The evidence moves briskly. One senses that the defense is on target and moving according to plan. Of the state, all that one can say is "ouch." Just how you try a man for murdering a loving wife and mother, put her husband on the stand to testify about the last moments his family lived, and then have a juror beg off because the case makes no sense is, frankly, one of the most astounding things I have ever heard of in a courtroom.

Day three cannot rival today for surprise. Or can it?
Related topics: Cheshire Homicide
Comments (7)
Posted on September 19, 2010 at 7:37 am by DC
Mike: After your first comment I thought you were...
Mike: After your first comment I thought you were just an idiot. After your second, in which you said Petit "should start making the world a better place...he is nothing more than a drama queen looking to attention whore," I realized you are just an ass. He has every right and reason to advocate for the death penalty for there are not two more deserving individuals in the State of Connecticut than Hayes and Komisarjevsky. You can disagree about the death penalty, but Petit certainly has a reason to support it in this instance. As for him making the world a better place, he and his family have created a foundation which has raised tens of thousands of dollars that has gone to youth education, finding a cure for MS, and other causes. If you don't want to listen to Petit, then turn off the TV; but you cannot honestly criticize him for not working to make the world a better place. He is doing just that while under tremendous scrutiny and grief. You should hope to have an ounce of the integrity that he has. Sadly, I doubt you ever will.

Posted on September 16, 2010 at 10:47 am by Miss America
Mike: Then stop reading this blog, written by a la...
Mike: Then stop reading this blog, written by a lawyer, about this murder case. I'm sure Deepak Chopra or Marinne Williamson have some very special writing all about what superior human beings do with forgiveness when someone rapes your daughter and slaughters your wife and children, that will be right up your alley. Go cast your psycho-judgment elsewhere.

Posted on September 15, 2010 at 7:32 pm by Mike
Miss America: Unlike you, I am normal. I don't ne...
Miss America: Unlike you, I am normal. I don't need to re-hear some victim tell his story 10,000 times. I don't gawk like some bon-bon eating Oprah fan. I don't revel in another's suffering.

The world can be an ugly place. Child are being raped today. Women are sold into slavery. Men are being falsely imprisoned. Petit is not special, and does not have a monopoly on suffering and misery.

If Petit cares about anyone other than himself, he'll go off the speaking and revenge circuit and start making the world a better place. Until then, he's nothing more than a drama queen looking to attention whore.

Posted on September 15, 2010 at 6:20 pm by Miss America
RE: "Petit has been an insufferable drama queen. I...
RE: "Petit has been an insufferable drama queen. If he had any dignity, he'd have stepped aside," good Lord, what kind of sociopath are you, Mike?
We'll all have to pray that this happens to you and those you love most so you can find out what it's like to live in Dr. Petit's skin.
I think this juror was doing the prosecution a big, bold favor, in effect telling them by his actions that if they don't watch it they're going to blow it completely. Even if he had to sacrifice himself to do it. The people of this state haven't grown cold-hearted to these murders. Why, the very host of this blog, in recent memory, referenced this case as something that still makes people shudder in up in those surrounding towns. The good people of this state turn their backs on Dr. Petit? Not a chance.

Posted on September 15, 2010 at 4:47 am by mirriam
Holy shit. To have been in that courtroom. Do yo...
Holy shit. To have been in that courtroom. Do you have first hand accounts of what it was like? What was Petit like on the stand? I'm so curious.

Posted on September 14, 2010 at 8:15 pm by Anonymous
Richard says; The trial is an expensive joke. If ...
Richard says; The trial is an expensive joke. If this Jury does not self combust it will send Mr. Hayes to a Death Row only to have his sentence reduced to life without parole after the new governor elect Danny boy Malloy repeals the death penalty

Posted on September 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm by Mike
Petit has been an insufferable drama queen. If he...
Petit has been an insufferable drama queen. If he had any dignity, he'd have stepped aside, sending the murderers to rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives. He could devote his life to public service.

Why not turn his private loss into public gain? Volunteer at a woman's shelter. Counsel crime victims. There are many things he could do - if he cared about anyone but himself.

His story, while compelling, probably "smells" bad coming from his mouth.
For Display:
What is the month?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video