Death charged
Update: I don’t want to write a new post, so I’ll just add on here. Things are getting stranger. Bob Farr can’t get out of his own way:
Earlier this week, Robert Farr, chairman of the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, said that the release of the two men was appropriate based on the available evidence.
Farr then said the board didn’t have all the facts on Komisarjevsky’s background when it chose to parole him. If it had, he said, the board’s decision might have been different. Farr has said that the board had no idea a Superior Court judge had called Komisarjevsky a “cold, calculating predator” during a 2002 sentencing because a transcript of the sentencing was not included in his parole file, even though state law required it to be there.
I’ve seen worse things said during sentencing. Nasty things get said during sentencing. I very much doubt that the parole board would have denied parole based on comments at sentencing. I do find funny the notion that they didn’t have the transcript and the implication that they couldn’t do anything about it. It wouldn’t have been the first time that they canceled or postponed a parole hearing for want of documentation.
Now Gov. Rell is jumping into the act:
Rell said she is forming a special panel to review not only how Komisarjevsky and Hayes were paroled, but also to take a look at the entire process of who gets released from state prisons.
“I want a top-to-bottom assessment of all the procedures and processes involved in charging, sentencing and releasing those convicted of crimes in Connecticut. I want the facts of the Cheshire case to be used as a touchstone during the course of this examination,” she said.
I’m not quite sure what that second paragraph means. She wants a review of the judicial system in CT? Okay…
And Rep. Caligiuri has another idea:
Word that the parole board released Hayes and Komisarjevsky based on incomplete case information and without a full hearing prompted one state senator to call for an immediate moratorium on further parole decisions until a full review is complete.
“I think the entire parole process seems to be in shambles,” said Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury. “We can’t afford to have another mistake made. We can’t afford to have another person go out on parole until the board of parole gets its act together.”
Sigh. Screw you Hayes and Komisarjevsky.
Original: As expected, New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington has charged Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky with six capital felonies each in the triple homicides in Cheshire, CT [previous coverage here].
As a colleague pointed out today, the question now becomes: Can they get a fair trial an impartial jury anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?
Technorati Tags: death penalty, connecticut, triple homicide, william petit
This case illustrates why a mandatory death penalty should be law. These men deserve to pay with their lives for this crime. Woodson should be overruled.
[quote comment="3148"]This case illustrates why a mandatory death penalty should be law. These men deserve to pay with their lives for this crime. Woodson should be overruled.[/quote]
You bring up an interesting point.
Just recently, a death penalty Constitutionality hearing concluded in Hartford, where the defense argued that the death penalty in CT was unconstitutional because it was arbitrarily sought.
There’s a lot of movement in the law right now and we’ve got front row seats.
I am aware of that case. It’s silliness. A defendant, for many reasons, does not have the right to have some cosmic fairness in the prosecution of the death penalty. Some jurisdictions are more lenient; some jurisdictions increase or decrease their harshness over time (due to budgeting, number of murderers, different prosecutors, different plea policies).
If, as some suggest, that the death penalty deters murders, then all this nonsense carries a price in blood.
[quote comment="3150"]I am aware of that case. It’s silliness. A defendant, for many reasons, does not have the right to have some cosmic fairness in the prosecution of the death penalty. Some jurisdictions are more lenient; some jurisdictions increase or decrease their harshness over time (due to budgeting, number of murderers, different prosecutors, different plea policies).
If, as some suggest, that the death penalty deters murders, then all this nonsense carries a price in blood.[/quote]
You think it’s silly that the death penalty should be applied across the board, without arbitrariness?
Gideon, you simply cannot have a death penalty and local control of prosecutorial decisions if the DP is required to be sought on a consistent basis, state-wide. To make such an argument is really to say that the death penalty is per se unconstitutional. A murderer eligible for death is simply not entitled to complain that some other death-eligible murderer didn’t get it because of geography, policy or what have you. Inherent in a system where mercy is allowed is arbitrariness. It’s just not the arbitrariness that these guys are allowed to complain about.
Spare me, please, your posturing. You’re brighter than that.
To adress the question: unlikely that these defendants can really get a “fair and impartial jury” in CT, though that is one of their pesky constitutional rights. Today, I was discussing venue with a judge, and jury selection, and allowing “content questioning” with regard to publicity (which just does not occur in my jurisdiction). If allowed to thoroughly question, I doubt you would be able to seat a jury.
And reading the comments above: dp cases carry that heightened due process, and at the same time, the defendant has the right to individualized consideration. These things don’t mesh well with some vague notion of a mandatory dp statute. These things also don’t mesh well with pretty much any jurisdiction’s enforcement of individual dp statutes. Which is one of many, many, many reasons the dp is wrong.
If the DP deters some murder, and newer studies are indicating that it does, then is it wrong not to have the DP? Cass Sunstein is asking the question.
In addition, why is it really so wrong to take the position that those who choose to take life should pay with their own.
It’s all fine and good to philosophically take a stand on an issue — but in the real world, dealing with real people, things change. What recourse does society have to protect innocents from proven predators?
My family has a history with one of these defendants that began with years of trying to help him and even included a period of time when we took him into our home and he lived as one of our family. By sixteen, when we met him, he had been involved in years of escalating teenage crime, including arson – but we believed we could make a difference. Sad to say: good intentions provide no defense. Highly intelligent and a pathological liar even at this age, he seemed to live for the adrenaline rush of danger.
Our relationship ended with a restraining order resulting from his threats and intimidation, his stalking our family – and yes a nighttime “invasion” of our home, entering through a skylight and terrorizing our daughters while we were away. Since then I have lived in fear of retaliation as he has bounced in and out of jail.
This Petit family’s tragedy could have been my family’s.
They say that good law is not made in knee-jerk response to specific cases, but it’s not made in ignorance of them either.
Gideon asks: “Can they get a fair trial anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?”
Why wouldn’t they? This is not some CNN-FOX whodunit! What possible defense can they raise? “I had a rough childhood?” “Life isn’t fair?”
The “fair trial” concept does not, in the real world, apply to all criminal cases in the sense that there’s doubt as to whether a defendant can get one. There are no doubts here. Their fair trial should consist of a finding of their guilt by the trier of fact, and then sentencing consistent with whatever guidelines are used in cases such as this. They should have no problem getting a “fair trial.”
[quote comment="3168"]Gideon asks: “Can they get a fair trial anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?”
Why wouldn’t they? This is not some CNN-FOX whodunit! What possible defense can they raise? “I had a rough childhood?” “Life isn’t fair?”
The “fair trial” concept does not, in the real world, apply to all criminal cases in the sense that there’s doubt as to whether a defendant can get one. There are no doubts here. Their fair trial should consist of a finding of their guilt by the trier of fact, and then sentencing consistent with whatever guidelines are used in cases such as this. They should have no problem getting a “fair trial.”[/quote]I should have said “impartial” trial as in an impartial jury.
Given Attorney Dearington’s statement that “the public wants them fried tomorrow”, it is pretty clear that the consensus is that these men should be put to death.
Where are you, given this publicity, going to find 12 members for a jury that haven’t made up their minds?
That was my point; albeit not clearly worded.
As to your comment – your version of a fair trial here presupposes their guilt. While it may be evident to almost everyone, a jury still has to find them guilty. I doubt there’ll even be a guilt phase of this trial. There will be pleas and it will proceed straight to the penalty phase. There, the question definitely will be, can we seat an impartial jury?
After being tied and raped for 6 hours, at least one girl was awake and screaming as these defendants poured gasoline and set her on fire.
No question of their guilt; they were caught at the scene. Once convicted, they should be executed immediately. One year of appeals max.
This 25 years of appeals nonsense is a racket of defense lawyers who dominate the legislatures and courts.
They have a right to a speedy trial;
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEEDY JUSTICE.
[quote post="685"]As a colleague pointed out today, the question now becomes: Can they get
a fair trialan impartial jury anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?[/quote]Interesting question. (And I should point out at the start of this that I am not a lawyer) One point of clarification- I assume that you’re talking about a jury for the penalty phase of the trial? Everyone is presumed innocent, of course, but given the facts of this particular case I think it’s unlikely that the two suspects’ guilt will be seriously questioned.
Unfortunately, there are no easy remedies to this problem. Even if we determine that the entire juror pool in Connecticut is irreparably prejudiced by news coverage, what do we do? Some options that occur to me, none of them particularly appealing:
- Say “the heck with it” and try anyway. Aside from the moral problems with this, trying someone with a jury that you know (or at least strongly suspect) is biased might be good grounds for appeal.
(This is probably about what they’ll do in real life, although the defense will probably try to at least get people who say they haven’t been prejudiced by news coverage. As Gideon’s later post points out, this may or may not be true)
- Conclude that an impartial jury trial is impossible and move the case to another jurisdiction. I’m not sure about the legalities of this, but the obvious practical problem is that wherever you move the trial to will quickly be saturated by media as well.
- Conclude that an impartial jury trial is impossible and dismiss the charges. I believe I’ve heard of this gambit being tried, but I can’t cite where and I don’t think it was taken all that seriously. It creates all the wrong incentives for criminals- the more infamous a crime you commit, the liklier you’ll get off.
- Request to delay the trial until the media attention dies down and the story has had some time to fade. In six months or so, it’s possible that people outside the Cheshire area will have forgotten about the coverage and would not be biased. Unfortunately, the issues with “speedy trial” are obvious- you’re essentially condemning the defendants to a certain amount of time in jail without trial. Might it be more acceptable in the penalty phase, particularly of a capital murder case? In that case, the defendants have already presumably been found guilty, and the choice is between a death sentence and life imprisonment without parole. One could make the argument that a six-month delay will not affect their final outcome, and could actually be more just if it increases their chance of getting an impartial jury.
[quote comment="3229"]
Interesting question. (And I should point out at the start of this that I am not a lawyer) One point of clarification- I assume that you’re talking about a jury for the penalty phase of the trial? Everyone is presumed innocent, of course, but given the facts of this particular case I think it’s unlikely that the two suspects’ guilt will be seriously questioned.
Unfortunately, there are no easy remedies to this problem. Even if we determine that the entire juror pool in Connecticut is irreparably prejudiced by news coverage, what do we do? Some options that occur to me, none of them particularly appealing:
- Say “the heck with it” and try anyway. Aside from the moral problems with this, trying someone with a jury that you know (or at least strongly suspect) is biased might be good grounds for appeal.(This is probably about what they’ll do in real life, although the defense will probably try to at least get people who say they haven’t been prejudiced by news coverage. As Gideon’s later post points out, this may or may not be true)
- Conclude that an impartial jury trial is impossible and move the case to another jurisdiction. I’m not sure about the legalities of this, but the obvious practical problem is that wherever you move the trial to will quickly be saturated by media as well.
- Conclude that an impartial jury trial is impossible and dismiss the charges. I believe I’ve heard of this gambit being tried, but I can’t cite where and I don’t think it was taken all that seriously. It creates all the wrong incentives for criminals- the more infamous a crime you commit, the liklier you’ll get off.
- Request to delay the trial until the media attention dies down and the story has had some time to fade. In six months or so, it’s possible that people outside the Cheshire area will have forgotten about the coverage and would not be biased. Unfortunately, the issues with “speedy trial” are obvious- you’re essentially condemning the defendants to a certain amount of time in jail without trial. Might it be more acceptable in the penalty phase, particularly of a capital murder case? In that case, the defendants have already presumably been found guilty, and the choice is between a death sentence and life imprisonment without parole. One could make the argument that a six-month delay will not affect their final outcome, and could actually be more just if it increases their chance of getting an impartial jury.
[/quote]
Yes, that is what I meant.
I don’t think any of the first three suggestions is possible. You can’t just say “the heck with it” and give it a shot. Won’t happen.
I think there can be a strong argument that any jurisdiction in this State will be unable to provide an impartial juror pool. They can’t transfer it to another state.
The State is not going to dismiss any charges (although if this becomes a big issue, they might be inclined to accept pleas of guilty and sentences of life instead of pursuing the death penalty).
The last point you raise is critical. This case is not going to go to trial for two, maybe three years. Will people remember it then as they do now? Certainly if this is the catalyst for some wholesale changes in the criminal justice system, they will. If it isn’t, or the changes are behind the scenes, then people might forget by the time they have to pick a jury. In that case, all these problems might not exist.
This is not the first sensational case that has come down the pike, and, unfortunately, it will not be the last. Juries have been picked, and trials have gotten done. The same will happen here.
These turkeys deserve to be executed for their crimes. The punishment should be swift. And Woodson should be overruled.