These turkeys deserve to be executed for their crimes. The punishment should be swift. And Woodson should be overruled.

- 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.”

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.

In addition, why is it really so wrong to take the position that those who choose to take life should pay with their own.

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.