That's the title of William Glaberson's article in the New York Times. LINK
In the three years since his wife and two daughters were killed at his home in Cheshire, Conn., Dr. William A. Petit Jr. has become perhaps the most passionate and visible advocate for the death penalty in Connecticut. More than once he has indicated that the ultimate punishment ought to be imposed on the two longtime criminals who are charged with killing his family.
Now, as the trial of one of the men, Steven J. Hayes, is set to begin on Sept. 13, defense lawyers are publicly showing their frustration with Dr. Petit. It is a tactic that is fraught with danger for them: This is a man, after all, who is often described as enduring unfathomable loss. Criticism of him has been virtually unheard of since the crime made him the subject of widespread sympathy. Also, if they publicly rebuke him, they could violate a court order directing them not to comment publicly.
But some say the defense has little choice. Dr. Petit’s advocacy of capital punishment, experts on the death penalty say, presents as much of a threat to the goal of avoiding that outcome at trial as anything the prosecution is likely to present in court. Dr. Petit’s feelings have been so widely reported that they may well reach the ears of jurors, swaying their opinions.
“This is a very, very serious challenge to the defense,” said John Holdridge, a former death penalty lawyer in Connecticut who is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Capital Punishment Project.
And:
Jurors’ impression of whether the victim’s family members favor execution has been shown to be a major factor in whether a defendant is sentenced to death, lawyers who have tried capital cases said.
United States Supreme Court rulings make it clear that victims’ family members are not permitted to tell jurors that they want execution, in part because of the power of such emotional appeals.
Capital defense lawyers say they are often confronted with victims’ family members calling outside of court for execution. But several of the lawyers said the unusual place Dr. Petit occupied in Connecticut made his out-of-court comments especially potent.
As a crime victim whose ordeal is regularly described as unthinkable, Dr. Petit is spoken of in hushed tones. When he speaks, listeners grow quiet.
The result is that his views on the death penalty could be viewed by jurors as raising issues of broad significance in the state, said David I. Bruck, a veteran capital defense lawyer who is a professor at Washington and Lee University Law School in Virginia.
“The trial would be perceived by jurors as a high-profile referendum on whether capital punishment should be retained or not,” Professor Bruck said.
Courts have ruled that it is improper for prosecutors to cast capital cases in those terms, saying it is unfair for them to pressure jurors to evaluate capital punishment generally instead of focusing on the circumstances of the individual crime and the specific defendant.
Earlier coverage from Connecticut is here. Related posts are in the vicitms' issues index.
Comments