“We have a note from the jury.”
This short phrase has begun to elicit stifled chuckles from the pews of Room 6A of New Haven’s Superior Court building on Church Street, where Steven Hayes is on trial for the 2007 murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters in Cheshire.
Typically, jurors in criminal trials begin sending queries to the judge during deliberation, after the state has woven together all the strands of its case and presented it over the course of days or weeks. But a steady stream of inquiries has flowed from this jury daily, some evidentiary or procedural in nature, some practical — such as whether alcohol can be consumed at lunch. But none have enlivened the proceedings as much as that from juror #1, aptly named John Lively, who charged the state with failing to coherently present its case up to that point — on only the second day of trial.
On Tuesday, in the middle of Dr. Petit’s testimony, Lively was asked to address the court after lunch about concerns he was experiencing. While the other jurors were sequestered, Lively read a written statement in court describing his confusion by the presentation of the state’s case and his bewilderment over “a lack of preparation.” Baffled by the absence of “contextualization or explanation” of evidence, Lively claimed he could not reliably determine its authenticity or apply a measure of fair judgment.
Judge Jon Blue called Lively’s remarks an “extraordinary interjection by a juror,” one he had never encountered in his 21 years on the bench. He likened it to running the Boston Marathon, but complaining only half-a-mile into the race.
The jury is charged with deciding the facts of the case — determining what actually happened — and basing its verdict on the evidence and the rules of law as explained to them by the judge. It is customary to hear all of the testimony and evidence, in whatever manner it unfolds, before reaching a decision. This is an important, and sometimes long, part of the process that Lively appeared to skip. He was excused that day, over the objection of the defense, after convincing the judge that he could not obey the oath he was bound to.
Had Lively hung in on the jury, had he heard the testimony Thursday of State Trooper Karen Gabianelli, he would have seen the pieces of the puzzle falling into place.
As evidence officer of the Major Crime Squad investigating the Petit crime scene, Gabianelli began fitting the evidence that Lively believed was introduced in a “disconnected” manner into its place in the overall narrative of what transpired on July 23, 2007. Hayley Petit’s wallet, which father William Petit identified Tuesday, was found in a pickup truck parked by Hayes in a Stop-N-Shop lot. The coins from the souvenir jars Petit recalled were kept above the dryer were there too. The Louisville Slugger, given to Petit by his father and used to beat him, was propped up against Michaela’s burnt bed. The plastic containers holding the windshield wiper fluid that Petit was responsible for overseeing as “the guy … surrounded by women” were seen melted into the floor of the house.
Judge Blue, as he is fond of doing, recalled the tale of “The Blind Men and the Elephant” to explain to Lively the challenge of dealing with pieces of reality that don’t immediately flow together conceptually, but take shape “one brick at a time.” It is an immensely complicated affair, he explained, one which proved too difficult for Lively to continue.
Previous installments of the Petit Trial Court Diary:
• Day One: Deceptive Calm
• Day Two: It Was All About “The Girls”
• Defense Strategy Emerges: Spread The Blame