The consensus among observers at the trial of Steven Hayes, convicted of triple murder and facing the death penalty, was that the jury would likely reach a verdict on his punishment by the end of the first day of deliberations last Friday.
That guess turned out to be very wrong.
In an unusual accommodation by the court, the jury in New Haven’s Courtroom 6A worked through the weekend deliberating the fate of Hayes, who is eligible for a death sentence on six separate counts of capital felony, for the murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her daughters Hayley and Michaela.
The evidence seemed overwhelming. And the “public thirst for execution,” as described by Hayes’ attorney, Thomas Ullmann, during his closing argument, is palpable.
But this jury has been full of surprises throughout the trial, and it continues to elude predictions as it ended its third day of deliberations on Sunday without reaching a verdict.
The first clue that jurors were grappling with the myriad issues before them came last Friday by way of two notes sent to the judge.
In both, the jury indicated that it was divided on its vote of whether the defense proved the existence of statutory mitigating factors. The three factors are: that Hayes’ mental capacity was significantly impaired at the time of the crime, but not to the extent as to constitute a complete defense; that his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired; or that he could not have reasonably foreseen that his conduct in the commission of the crime would cause or create a grave risk of causing death to another person.
If each juror finds that at least one of these factors (and it doesn’t have to be the same one) was proved by a preponderance of the evidence – a lesser standard than the state’s burden to prove aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt – then the death penalty is automatically off the table for that particular count. So these notes from the jury were a hopeful sign to the defense. But the six special verdict forms which they need to fill out are a combined 47 pages long, and there is no telling where they are in relation to the six counts.
If the jury does not unanimously find that the defense proved the existence of a statutory mitigating factor on an individual count, then it proceeds to the aggravating factors. In the event they find the state proved one of those factors, then the jurors proceed to the non-statutory mitigating factors. This last step would entail weighing the evidence as to Hayes’ drug addiction and childhood physical and sexual abuse against the existence of an aggravating factor.
Forensic psychiatrist Eric Goldsmith presented the most critical evidence during the trial that pertains to the statutory mitigating factors.
On Saturday, the jurors asked for a read-back of the state’s cross-examination of Goldsmith’s testimony –further suggesting that they are focusing their attention on his evaluation of Hayes after six interviews with him in a year-and-a-half of visits, totaling over thirty hours.
Hayes told Goldsmith that, after he had taken Hawke-Petit to the bank to withdraw $15,000 dollars and returned to the Petit home, his partner-in-crime, Joshua Komisarjevsky, informed him that William Petit had died of his wounds from a beating he sustained from Komisarjevsky at the start of the crime spree. Hayes also told Goldsmith that Komisarjevsky told him that he killed Hayley and Michaela while Hayes was at the bank and thus Hayes would have to get his hands dirty too by killing Hawke-Petit. Goldsmith concluded that this information triggered an extreme emotional disturbance in Hayes and he killed Hawke-Petit and sexually assaulted her during this episode of intense rage and betrayal that Komisarjevsky had let things get out of control.
Goldsmith’s testimony led one juror to be dismissed when she audibly suggested his conclusion came from the backside of a bull and not from years of training and experience. It appears, however, that the rest of the jurors are seriously considering the evidence Goldsmith presented regarding Hayes’ state of mind at the time of the crimes, as well as all of the other evidence presented to them during both the guilt and sentencing phases of this long trial.
Whatever the outcome, which could be decided today, or in the next few days (or could even result in a mistrial if the jury is deadlocked), it is clear that the jurors are not rushing to judgment. They appear to be meticulously reviewing the evidence “without prejudice or sympathy … fairly and impartially,” as they promised to do when they undertook the jury oath and which serves the interests of justice for all parties involved.
Previous installments of the Petit Trial Court Diary:
• Day One: Deceptive Calm
• Day Two: It Was All About “The Girls”
• Day Three: Defense Strategy Emerges: Spread The Blame
• Day Four: Pieces Fall Into Place
• Day Five: Numbers Tell A Story
• Day Six: Suffering Takes Center Stage
• Day Seven: A Gagged Order
• Day Eight: A Quilt & A Puppet Theater Bring Home The Horror
• Day Nine: It’s About Specific Intent
• Day Ten: The Notes Told The Tale
• Day 11: To Save A Life, Lawyers Must Humanize Alleged Monster
• Days Twelve & Thirteen: A Life, In Context
• This Time Around, Petit Jurors Are Yawning, Chuckling
• Will “Coward” = Death?
• Is 11 Enough?
• 2 Men In A Courtroom, 2 Living Hells
I am surprised that observers would believe that with 47 pages of verdict/special verdict forms anything but a completely faithless jury could come to a verdict on the first day of deliberations.
Who are these observers, a school field trip?