Today's CT Law Tribune reports, "Cheshire Defenders Attempt To Stretch Boundaries; Lawyers seek permission to argue death penalty is too costly." It's written by Thomas Scheffey.
At first, it looked like defense and prosecution lawyers were both trying to break new legal ground in the death penalty phase of Steven Hayes’ triple murder trial.
New Haven Chief Public Defender Thomas Ullmann has asked to present testimony that the death penalty is both too expensive and too drawn out – with some 15 years of appeals – to be worth imposing, and that life incarceration is cheaper.
Prosecutors Michael Dearington and Gary Nicholson considered requesting that sole survivor, Dr. William Petit Jr., be allowed to make his victim statement before the jury makes its life-or-death penalty decision. By statute, the victim’s impact statement is made to the judge, right before formal sentencing. Prosecutors and victim advocates have complained for years that this is too late to have any significant effect. With his filing, four minutes before the judge’s 1 p.m. deadline, Dearington decided against attempting to get the victim’s statement before the jury.
The penalty phase for Hayes, who was convicted last week, is set to begin Oct. 18. The jury will weigh whether there are more aggravating factors in favor of the death penalty than there are mitigating factors for life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
The state filed notice of 16 aggravating factors in Hayes’ six capital murder counts. All six were aggravated by the fact they were committed during a burglary, a crime which Hayes has previously been convicted of eight times. All six murder counts were aggravated by being “especially heinous, cruel or depraved,” the state claimed. The murders of Hayley and Michaela were aggravated by “grave risk of death to another.” That factor was not added to the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit.
And:
Late last week, Ullmann and Culligan formally notified prosecutors of their intent to call an expert, James Austin, Ph.D., to testify that the cost of carrying out a death sentence far exceeds a sentence of life without parole. This would be a potential mitigating factor, and could counter the “popular assumption that the cost of executing someone saves the state money.”
They also said a Dr. Mark Cunningham, Ph.D., was prepared to testify about Hayes’ “prison adjustment, which will include conditions of confinement.” This would also be a potential mitigating factor, and would counter the popular assumption that a person convicted of violent offenses tends to be violent in prison.
In a counter motion, Dearington and Nicholson said the cost testimony should be excluded as “public policy for the legislature.” Blue is expected to rule by Oct. 12.
The defense motion is here.
"Lawyers: Death row costly for Conn. murder convict," is the AP report, via Google News. It's written by John Christoffersen.
A Connecticut man convicted of murdering a woman and her two daughters in a home invasion will try to avoid the death penalty by arguing that executions cost taxpayers more than life sentences.
Attorneys for Steven Hayes filed papers Friday in New Haven Superior Court saying they intend to call an expert who would testify that carrying out a death sentence far exceeds the cost of a life sentence.
Dr. William Petit, the lone survivor of the home invasion, said he will not submit a victim impact statement during the hearing. Petit said that while state law guarantees his right to make such a statement, it is so vague that it fails to make clear whether the statement can be read before the jury reaches a decision on life or death.
He fears that an appellate court might decide that the way the statement was made did not conform with the law.
"This lack of clarity in the law is a crippling disincentive to surviving family members of victims in capital murder cases," he said in a statement.
Hayes' attorneys said Hayes repeatedly offered to plead guilty before the trial to all charges in exchange for a life sentence. They want to call the expert "to counter the popular impression that the cost of executing someone saves the state money in comparing to imposing a life sentence without the possibility of release."
Prosecutors objected, saying the cost of an execution is irrelevant to whether Hayes should receive the death penalty.
A jury on Tuesday convicted Hayes of the home invasion in Cheshire in 2007. Starting Oct. 18, the same jurors will begin hearing evidence of whether he should be executed and will decide his punishment by weighing mitigating and aggravating factors.
The argument over costs would be cited as a potential mitigating factor.
Studies show death penalty cases cost an average of $3 million, including lawyers' fees, appeal costs and incarceration, compared with about $1 million for life prison sentences, according to Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which is critical of how capital punishment is applied.
The New Haven Register has, "Hayes’ lawyer will argue death penalty too costly; Prosecutor calls tactic ‘irrelevant’," by Luther Turmelle.
With the start of the penalty phase of the Steven Hayes trial a little over a week away, attorneys for the former Winsted man have filed legal papers indicating they will use an economic argument to keep their client from being put to death for the murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters.
Hayes’ attorneys, Patrick Culligan and Thomas Ullmann, filed legal papers Friday afternoon saying they will call an expert witness, James Austin, to buttress claims that “the cost of imposing and carrying out a death sentence far exceeds the cost of life in prison without parole.”
The defense team also intends to call a second expert witness, Mark Cunningham, to offer testimony that a life sentence would not make Hayes a risk to commit further violence during his prison term.
And:
The economics of the death penalty has been used several times around the country — including once in Connecticut — without success.
In Connecticut, it was used six years ago in the trial of Jonathan Mills, who was convicted of the murders of Kitty Kleinkauf of Guilford and her two children.
Ullmann represented Mills in that case and filed a motion similar to the one in the Hayes case. The judge in the Mills case was Blue, who rejected Ullmann’s motion, but the jury ultimately decided not to impose the death penalty against Mills.
John Thomas, a Quinnipiac University law school professor, said he sees no reason to believe that Blue will agree with Ullmann’s motion in the Hayes case either.
“There is no provision in the statutes that allows for that kind of argument,” Thomas said. “But even if there were, it’s sort of an odd argument to make, asking a jury to decide how much taking a person’s life should cost.”
Nationally, there have been a number of studies done comparing the cost of implementing the death penalty to life in prison.
The most recent one, released in March by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, found that over a five-year period in that state, death penalty cases cost $1 billion more than permanently jailing accused individuals.
Related posts are in the cost index; earlier coverage from Connecticut is here.
Comments