“Sometimes you get into something so deep, you can’t figure out how to get out,” explained the defense attorney to jurors.
“The plan changed, but people roll with the punches,” countered the state prosecutor.
With those two closing remarks on Friday, following the conclusion of testimony in the murder trial of Steven Hayes, both attorneys zeroed in on the key element that was seldom mentioned by name but is crucial to the question of Hayes’ ultimate fate — specific intent.
Closing arguments were presented in Courtroom 6A on Day 9 of the Hayes trial. Hayes is accused of triple murder, kidnapping, arson, sexual assault, and a handful of other crimes perpetrated against William, Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela Petit in July, 2007.
If convicted of capital felony, Hayes may face the death penalty in the sentencing phase of the trial.
Since the trial began, the presence of his co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, who is accused of virtually the same crimes, has been almost palpable even though he is locked away in prison awaiting his own trial early next year. Both attorneys summoned the specter of Komisarjevsky repeatedly during Hayes’ trial. Michael Dearington, the chief state’s attorney, stressed the joint nature of the venture and common intent of the two men to destroy a family. Thomas Ullmann, Hayes’ attorney, shifted the blame and the specific intent to escalate the destruction on “the one who controlled the homicidal violence” — Joshua Komisarjevsky.
When the jury begins deliberations on Tuesday, after receiving instructions from Judge Jon C. Blue, the most significant question they will wrestle with is what Hayes’ mental state was at the time of the crimes. If the jury finds that Hayes specifically intended to cause the death of two or more persons at the same time or in the course of a single transaction (the murders need only be connected by a common purpose or plan); or that he is culpable for the murder of a person under 16 years of age (specific knowledge of the victim’s age is not an element that must be proved); or that he murdered Jennifer, Hayley, or Michaela during the course of a kidnapping or before they could reach safety or be saved, then he is eligible for the death penalty. If the jury cannot conclude that he possessed the mental purpose or aim to accomplish any one of these specific harms or results then he can’t be found guilty of a capital offense.
To prove Hayes’ intent, Dearington outlined the concerted plan and collaborative efforts he shared with Komisarjevsky that began with text messages back and forth to each other concocting a home invasion scheme to steal money, which Hayes wrote he “would do anything” to get. Dearington continued with the unlawful entry, kidnapping, sexual assaults of Jennifer and Michaela, and murder of Jennifer, which he argued could not be accomplished by Komisarjevsky without Hayes’ complicit assistance. He pointed out each juncture where the “plan changed” and where Hayes evolved with it — forming instantaneously the new intent to carry out the specific harms that resulted.
At no time, Dearington noted, did Hayes opt out of the violence.
Finally, Dearington invoked the arson that claimed the lives of Hayley and Michaela, pointing out that it was Hayes who bought the gas, Hayes’ clothes that wreaked the most heavily of petroleum, Hayes who drenched the stairs with gas — the only means of escape for the girls trapped on the second floor — and Hayes who fled the home behind Komisarjevsky and, if “common sense” is the guide, must have lit the match that ignited the fire.
In response, Ullmann argued that Hayes “should pay the price for what he did but not for what he didn’t do.”
Describing Komisarjevsky as a “psychopath,” he portrayed Hayes as more the “petty thief” acting at the behest of the mastermind of destruction.
“Steven Hayes is no angel.” asserted Ullmann, but he had “no motive to kill those girls.”
Ullmann needed to convince the jury that Hayes did not intend for Hayley and Michaela to be killed and thus cannot be convicted of causing the death of two or more persons, particularly in light of his admission to murdering Jennifer.
He contradicted Dearington’s assertion that the two men were constantly communicating via cell phone about the evolving plan each time Hayes left the Petit home to buy gas and escort Jennifer to the bank. Referring to Hayes’ statement that he did not know of events transpiring behind his back until he learned of them upon returning to the house, Ullmann again told jurors that Komisarjevsky was “the one controlling what’s going on, not the guy with the fake gun” (referring to the unloaded BB gun Hayes was carrying).
The time stamp displayed on the cell phone pictures that Komisarjevsky took of Michaela, while he sexually assaulted her, support that assertion. But does this relieve Hayes of culpability?
Ullmann traced the start of the circle of violence to Komisarjevsky breaking into the house, grabbing a Louisville Slugger baseball bat from the basement, and deciding unilaterally to beat Petit with it, while Hayes waited outside watching through the window. Hayes, Ullmann argued, killed Jennifer because Joshua told him to, wielding the bat in a menacing way as he did so.
Why would Hayes feel threatened by that bat? Hayes, Ullmann answered, “knows [Komisarjevsky] used that already.”
The full circle is complete, said Ullmann, when the Louisville Slugger is found, after the fire is extinguished, leaning against Michaela’s bed — implying that Komisarjevsky poured the gasoline over her and her sister and then ignited it. Ullmann alluded to testimony that the land line had never been cut and that the Cheshire police were waiting outside the house prior to the start of the fire, perhaps in an effort to lead the jury to infer that there was time for Hayley and Michaela to be saved and relieving Hayes of culpability with regards to the capital felony/kidnapping charge.
Finally, Ullmann concluded, Hayes was in the passenger seat (literally and figuratively) when Komisarjevsky drove the Petits’ SUV into a police barricade after fleeing the burning home, and Hayes who explained to his arresting officer that “things just got out of control.”
Closing arguments are not evidence, but rather summaries, aimed at persuasion, based on the evidence presented in the trial. The jury must determine whether Dearington proved all the elements of capital felony beyond a reasonable doubt or if Ullmann provided enough doubt to spare his client the death penalty. They must also consider whether the state met its burden of providing two witnesses who testified to and corroborated the circumstances of each of the capital crimes Hayes is accused of before pursuing a death sentence.
The only person who knows Hayes’ true intent during the commission of the crimes is Hayes himself. So the jury is left to sift through the evidence and, as both lawyers urged, to make reasonable inferences and use common sense in determining Hayes’ intent — no greater burden could be imposed on a jury than that.
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