Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

A Petit Juror, Death Penalty Foe, Voted For It

by Katie Rohner | Nov 9, 2010 8:32 am

(15) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Legal Writes, East Rock

Katie Rohner Photo Betsy Burbank cried as the verdict that she and her fellow jurors agreed on was read out loud in court Monday. It wasn’t the first time she’d broken into tears over the last four days.

Most mornings for the past eight weeks, Burbank, a 45-year-old interior designer and divorced mother of two sons, saw her son Sam off to school, then walked from her Humphrey Street home to the Church Street courthouse to consider the fate of one of two men accused of committing a triple murder.

She and her fellow jurors found Steven Hayes guilty of in the 2007 murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her daughters Hayley and Michaela at their Cheshire home in a particularly brutal attack that riveted the attention of the region. In relative terms, that was the simple part.

For four days, starting last Friday, they weighed whether to give Hayes the death penalty—a measure Burbank philosophically opposes. Monday afternoon they delivered their answer: yes.

At some point each of those four days, Burbank found herself in tears.

“I thought he deserved the death penalty for his crimes, but I have empathy for him. I didn’t relish it,” Burbank explained during an extensive interview in her home Monday night, during which she seemed exhaustedand emotionally spent. She said she believes the death penalty is imposed disproportionately to racial minorities and low-income defendants; that’s why she opposes it. But she said that she and the other jurors were “open-minded and determined to understand the law and base their decision on the facts” and not on their emotions.

There was no vengeance involved either, she added.

Tuesday morning, while many of her fellow jurors were planning to take a limo ride to New York to appear on “Good Morning America,” Burbank planned to spend the day decompressing with some old Alfred Hitchcock movies. The group bonded during the shared experience of deciding whether another person deserved to live.

“Spiritual” “War” Experience

Burbank said that each juror was attentive and professional. They went through “phases” while getting to know each other.

She was labeled the “etiquette police.” She admonished her cohorts for wearing jeans to court and for storing candy on the juror railing during the trial. Camaraderie developed, but not immediately. When they had to listen to and hear each other during deliberations, their bond tightened. By the end they “became spiritual because of all we went through in coming to this conclusion,” Burbank said.

They spent many hours in the bright deliberating room with a “great view of New Haven.” Jurors routinely brought in food for each other. They teased each other, sometimes argued, and talked sports. (Well, at least the men did.)

They became a sort of family. “It was like going through a war together,” explained Burbank.

Burbank did not want to speak for the other jurors. She did describe the deliberations during the sentencing phase as the hardest part of the entire trial. By then “we knew the girls [Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela] so well—we felt we knew them and the family and the loss.”

Despite her reservations about the death penalty, she considered herself a strong and objective person. But as soon as deliberating started, “I realized just how hard it is to give the death penalty to someone.”

She said she hopes that this sentence will be a message to the next jury, the one that will decide the fate of Hayes’ co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, who will stand trial next year for his role in the 2007 murders and arson of the Petit home in Cheshire.

“Hayes is anti-social,” she said, but Komisarjevsky “is evil.” She plans to attend his trial because she feels invested in seeing this through to the end.

Burbank gave a great deal of credit to Thomas Ullmann, Hayes’ defense attorney, whom she described as “brilliant the whole way through.”

“He is a great lawyer, direct and provocative,” she said. She wondered, however, if it was wise for Ullmann to prompt Hayes to stand before the jury during his closing argument. Hayes ended up looking flat and not particularly remorseful, she said.

Burbank also described Eric Goldsmith, the forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Hayes for more than 30 hours over a year and a half, as an “excellent witness.”

But in the end she couldn’t reconcile the version Goldsmith provided of Hayes’ extreme emotional disturbance that immediately preceded his killing of Hawke-Petit with the statement Hayes gave to Detective Anthony Buglione.

Buglione interviewed Hayes shortly after his arrest on July 23, 2007. For Burbank, Buglione’s testimony was critical: He said that Hayes mentioned nothing about becoming enraged at statements Komisarjevsky supposedly made to him, after he returned from the bank with Hawke-Petit that morning, about William Petit and the girls being dead, But he did tell the detective that, after returning, he noticed Michaela had changed her clothes. The jury spent some time reviewing that testimony. Ultimately, Burbank opined, “You can’t say two opposite things – they both can’t be true.”

The introduction of Matthew Hayes’ letters by the defense, Burbank added, may have put a “nail in the coffin” for Hayes with regard to her fellow jurors. She called Matthew’s first letter “damning.” He wrote that his brother didn’t deserve any mercy because he is never accountable for his actions. That resonated deeply with many of the other jurors, she said.

Burbank said she felt empathy for Hayes. “You can’t quantify child abuse and say one person’s response is right and one is wrong. [Hayes’] coping mechanism of anti-social behavior, of getting away with things and avoiding responsibility … his parents created that,” she argued.

San Quentin Days

With a master’s of education degree in counseling psychology, Burbank came to this jury with a background as a former therapist at a boot-camp style prison program run by the California Department of Corrections. In her early 20s, she spent two years counseling first-time felons at the maximum-security prison at San Quentin. Her experience there caused her to be “skeptical about the Department of Corrections” in general.

That mattered at one key point in the trial, During the trial, Ullmann claimed that if Hayes were to receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole, he would not be integrated into the general prison population for a very long time. Burbank said she doubted that was true. Burbank felt that, with good behavior, Hayes would eventually be transferred to the general population in a matter of a few years and he would be comfortable there. For her, that argument “worked totally against the defense.”

After the verdicts were read and the family gave statements to the press Monday afternoon, the entire Petit clan moved down to the basement of the courthouse to thank the 12 jurors for their service. Amidst talking and hugging, the jurors were able to “give our condolences” to the Petit and Hawke families “To see the strength and stoicism every day – to stay together united in their grief and loss was inspiring,” Burbank said about the families.

“Right now, I feel really calm and content with what we did. But that is because we took so much time making sure we understood the law and how to interpret it,” she said. “Everyone had to go through their own process. We had to get real … in a way that wasn’t emotional.”

But, she added, “I got emotional, I cried, because it’s so difficult” to decide that someone should die for their crimes.


Related story: Petit Juror: I Didn’t Quit

Tags:

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: East Rocker on November 9, 2010  9:17am

I imagine this article will be used as evidence by Komisarjevsky’s attorneys to get the trial moved somewhere else.  Specifically:

““She said she hopes that this sentence will be a message to the next jury, the one that will decide the fate of Hayes’ co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, who will stand trial next year for his role in the 2007 murders and arson of the Petit home in Cheshire.

“Hayes is anti-social,” she said, but Komisarjevsky “is evil.” She plans to attend his trial because she feels invested in seeing this through to the end.”“

Although I am no legal expert, I imagine that having a juror from the first trial openly state that she is trying to influence the views of the next jury would help to make the case that it is impossible to find impartial jurors in the greater New Haven area.

Any lawyers out there who can comment?

posted by: Pat on November 9, 2010  9:37am

Thank you for this article and thank you to the jurors for their service in one of the saddest cases I have ever encountered. Every criminal defendant should have thoughtful people like Betsy Burbank deciding their fate.
    That Dr. Petit has survived this horrendous loss of his family and can still bear witness in a court of law is remarkable. I hope the continued support of his extended family and friends will continue to sustain him.
    Thomas Ulmann, the defense counsel, undertook a Herculean task in defending this client. No doubt he has received a great deal of condemnation for his efforts, but our system requires a vigorous defense and this defendant got one.
      Judge Blue made some hard calls and maintained the dignity of the process.
      In the end, everyone did what the process required.
      Nothing restores the precious lives that were needlessly and viciously taken.

posted by: Ashley on November 9, 2010  12:30pm

“Although I am no legal expert, I imagine that having a juror from the first trial openly state that she is trying to influence the views of the next jury would help to make the case that it is impossible to find impartial jurors in the greater New Haven area.”

She didn’t say that she is personally trying to influence the jury.  She said that she hopes they will take the first conviction, which they will know about in court because they’ll be told about it, into consideration.  Those new jurors will also have no way of knowing she served on the previous jury—it’s not like she’ll be introduced by the judge.

posted by: Common Sense on November 9, 2010  3:25pm

I admire the jurors, and from all accounts they did a splendid job.  I know that Judge Blue told them they were allowed to speak, and I’m as curious about what happened in the deliberations as anyone, but I do wish they would exercise a bit of discretion about what they share - I fear that they risk giving the defense fodder for an appeal.

posted by: Betsy on November 9, 2010  9:27pm

The jurors were told by Judge Blue that they had complete freedom to discuss their experiences and thoughts about the Hayes trial. It’s the publication of Komisarjevsky’s journals and the book IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT for which he was interviewed, that will cause his defense attorney to argue for a change of venue.  And of course, since he provided all the information and made it public, he has only himself to blame - not the Hayes jury.
Give me a break.

posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2010  12:15am

The jury absolutely did the right thing.Son’t junp ahead here, they saw the true picture before they made the right move.
The ... that wrought this true carnage did it for one reason. So they wouldn’t hey caught and go back to prison.
As delusional people go, they we’re just as stupid as most career criminals. They believe they are smarter than those in law enforcement.
So, while they planned these inhuman acts, to end the lives of four members of a family they had no comprhension of, they did it to get away from jail, prison, life therein and, you better believe it , death.
The telling fact in all of this horror is the fact that they “ran running from the home in laughter.”
They’d thought they’d gotten away with their carnage.
Depraved, criminal cowards who have no concept of gentilty and mercy, they deserve only the same.
Exactly what the law of this land demands.

posted by: Bradley on November 10, 2010  10:44am

She’s not really a death penalty foe if she voted for the death penalty, is she?  The title is misleading.

Just more sensationalism from the Independent writers?

posted by: Michael on November 10, 2010  6:45pm

Hey Bradley,

“She’s not really a death penalty foe if she voted for the death penalty, is she?  The title is misleading.”

She’s my sister, so consider me a tiny bit biased. But you’re being incredibly simplistic. Put yourself in her shoes. The jury has to come to a decision by consensus. I’m as “anti-death penalty” as it gets (especially because our gov’t is so hypocritical about whom they kill and whom they don’t kill), but were I in her shoes, I might have to go along with that consensus myself… otherwise, what? Let the guy walk? C’mon. And the fact is, she was tormented by that decision, even though she stands behind it. Life isn’t black and white. Shades of grey suck, but it’s what we are confronted with.

posted by: CTNeighborh on November 11, 2010  2:13am

I am grateful to the jurors who had the wisdom and courage to make the righteous for all in society.

I am aware that you endured the most horrendous of ordeals by serving on this jury, but keep in mind truth, Hayes’ heinous actions sealed his fate.  He and he alone, owns it.

posted by: Perdita Burlingame on November 11, 2010  1:59pm

Action46.  Betsy comes across as the ideal juror: thoughtful, attentive and compassionate.
Ive served on a jury where the main focus seemed to be on getting the trial over with asp.
I am sure this was the fairest possible trial, which it might not have been under the circumstances, and the sentence was just.

posted by: Ashley on November 11, 2010  4:42pm

Michael, it’s admirable that you’re defending your sister, and we’re all grateful to her for her service.  But I think you’re missing the point that’s being made, which is that you can’t say that you’re completely against the death penalty and then vote in favor of it.  The logic just doesn’t follow.

If you look at your own statement…you said that you’re as “‘anti-death penalty’ as it gets,” yet you also say you might have supported it here.  Those two things logically don’t go together.  You are, in fact, NOT as anti-death penalty as it gets if you’d ever leave that wiggle room open.

I am a huge believer in shades of grey, but this is not one of those places where it applies.  If you are against it, you are against it in all cases.  If you say you’re against it but would do it in certain cases, you are for it.  You might not be excited about it, granted, but you ARE for it.  “In some cases” still equals “for.”  You either think it should be legal, or you don’t—pretty simple.

posted by: Ashley on November 11, 2010  4:50pm

Sorry for the second comment, but I forgot to mention…

“I might have to go along with that consensus myself… otherwise, what? Let the guy walk? C’mon.”

That was never a possibility.  Ever.  This is why Connecticut does a separate trial for the penalty phase.  A hung jury in the penalty phase here would have simply meant getting a new penalty phase hearing and having a new jury assembled to decide on the recommendation.  It never would have overturned the convictions themselves.  Even if the defense asked the judge to make it a life sentence instead of going to a new penalty phase jury, it would have been at the judge’s discretion and likely denied.  This idea people—apparently including a juror, perhaps?—have that the trial jury had to decide unanimously or risk overturning the convictions has no basis in Connecticut law.  Maybe that should have been explained better.

posted by: Betsy on November 11, 2010  5:47pm

One can be opposed to the death penalty yet comply with its use when he/she is required by law to do so. The jurors were not instructed to use their personal beliefs as a basis upon which to reach a decision about Mr. Hayes.  The jurors were asked to follow the judicial procedural rules and CT state laws. No statutory mitigating factors? No non-statutory mitigating factors that remotely outweigh the aggravating factors?  The state demands death.  Change the law but lay off the jurors….

posted by: Ashley on November 11, 2010  6:00pm

It’s just as easy to say that one who is truly opposed says so during the selection phase and doesn’t wind up in that position to begin with.

posted by: Michael on November 11, 2010  6:31pm

Betsy,

I like how you put that. I’ve been thinking about how to respond to Ashley’s challenging comments all day, and I agree with your assessment. Ashley, I appreciate your argument, but I have to disagree (I was also totally ignorant of the specifics of the case—although I figured he wasn’t able to “walk”)

My point is, morality is quite relative, depending on the context in which one finds oneself. I’m anti-murder, but I could think of extreme circumstances where murder could be pardonable (I think of the famous teaching by the Buddha and the Dalai Lama on “surgical violence”). Does that make me “for” murder? Definitely not. As I first said, it is not black and white out there (outside the theoretical landscapes so many people self-righteously argue from). The only actions I can think of immediately that are NEVER justified in my mind are rape, child-abuse, and genocide. There may be others, were I to think enough about them. But most moral dilemmas have no single yes or no answer—I’ve found that I can even hold conflicting points of view in my own mind.

Anyway, I stand by my sister both as a sibling and on principle. And I can empathize with her recent dilemma.

get ANDI

Events Calendar

loading…

SeeClickFix »

no right on red traffic sign to turn right on to to Brewery ST.
May 25, 2012 8:32 am
Address: Intersection Of Brewery St And Sargent Drive New Haven, CT
Rating: 3

There is a no turn on red sigh=n. for the right hand turn on to...

more »
Burnt out or shorting bulb
May 24, 2012 7:33 pm
Address: 158 Porter St. New Haven, CT
Rating: 2

Street lamp doesn't come on at night.

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design