“There is a major change in the courtroom,” explained defense attorney Patrick Culligan.
Those of us sitting in Courtroom 6A on Church Street certainly felt the shift.
“Steven Hayes no longer has the presumption of innocence,” continued Culligan, but even so “there is no presumption at this point that the death penalty is appropriate.”
Those words ushered in the second phase of the Steven J. Hayes trial — the part that will determine whether he will live or die for his crimes, and which poses the greater challenge for his attorneys.
It was already a monumental challenge trying to defend one of the two men accused of committing one of the decade’s most horrific crimes in the face of overwhelming evidence. Trying to save his life will call on an even more challenging set of skills.
Nearly two weeks ago, a jury found Hayes guilty of 16 crimes, including six counts of capital felony, in the Cheshire home invasion of July 23, 2007. Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, Hayley and Michaela, were killed, and their home was incinerated. Dr. William Petit survived the attack and has been a vigilant and stoic presence during the trial, bearing witness to the fact that while three perished, a family of four was destroyed.
Judging from the furious online comments to news reports about the trial and commentary on cable news programs, as well as overheard conversations at neighboring tables in local restaurants, it may come as a surprise to some members of the public that there existed for Hayes a presumption of innocence in the first place. The evidence against him was so damning that even his other attorney, Thomas Ullmann, conceded early on in the trial that Hayes was guilty of the sexual assault and murder of Jennifer, but shifted the blame for the rest on Hayes’ co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky. His job during the initial guilt phase of the trial was to chip away at the state’s case enough to plant some degree of doubt in the jurors’ minds as to Hayes’ culpability in the deaths of Hayley and Michaela.
Although Ullman convincingly portrayed Komisarjevsky as the ringleader and brought attention to the poor response of the Cheshire police department to the unfolding violence at the Petit home, he was unable to convince the jury that Hayes was but a petty thief turned accomplice who should not be convicted of capital felony.
During this second phase that began Monday, Ullmann and Culligan continued to portray their client Hayes as the “klutz” criminal, in the words of a former social worker who testified; and the puppet of Komisarjevsky or “the devi,l” in the words of Hayes’ former employer.
For its part, the state must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one aggravating factor exists for each capital crime Hayes is convicted of, relying on the trial testimony that was heard during the first phase.
Alternately, the defense must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that mitigating factors exist concerning Hayes’ character, background or history, or the nature and circumstances of the crime, that in fairness and mercy would relieve Hayes of a death sentence.
That the mitigating factor is determined by a lesser standard than the aggravating factor is justified when a defendant is faced with the ultimate deprivation — his life. If the jury finds that both aggravating and mitigating circumstances exist, it must determine whether one outweighs the other. It is a process that discourages presumptions in either direction.
So, while the public is demanding nothing less the death penalty, Hayes’ attorneys began their quest to humanize Hayes and convince the jurors that a death sentence is not a forgone conclusion. They sought to show “who Steven Hayes was before he committed these crimes” and his attempts to pull his life together.
So D’Arcy Lovetere, a former social worker for the public defender’s office, described for the jury a “gentleman … always remorseful … who wanted a life.”
Eileen Mullen, a retired apartment complex manager, recounted when, only a few months before the Cheshire crimes, Hayes politely inquired about an available apartment but was rebuffed due to his criminal record.
Christiane Gehami, owner/chef of Arugula in West Hartford, remembered the five weeks in 2006 when Hayes worked for her as a pantry cook, where “he was good-natured and jovial. He made people laugh. He blended.”
And another social worker, Sylvester Esangbedo, of Community Solutions, a drug and alcohol treatment facility, concluded that Hayes was “very fragile emotionally” just one year before he hooked up with Komisarjevsky and committed the crimes of which he is now convicted.
Culligan and Ullmann have a hard road to travel in convincing the jurors that who Hayes was before the crimes mitigates who he was during the commission of the crimes — at least to the extent that it can overcome the aggravating factors that will weigh heavily against him. Komisarjevsky will continue to play a lead role in that evolution. That presumption, at least, is safe to make.
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