The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Triple killer’s case before state high court
Komisarjevsky seeking new trial; claims first one should not have been held in ‘traumatized’ New Haven
HARTFORD — The defense attorney for Joshua Komisarjevsky faced assertive questioning Thursday from several justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court as the attorney argued the Cheshire triple murderer deserves a new trial.
The justices appeared skeptical about attorney John Holdridge’s assertion the 2011 trial should have been moved to Stamford rather than being held in New Haven. They repeatedly asked him why that would have made a significant difference in the attitudes of jurors.
Holdridge said the change of venue, which was sought by Komisarjevsky’s trial attorneys but denied by Superior Court Judge Jon C. Blue, was necessary because “The New Haven community was traumatized and terrified by the crime.”
Holdridge spoke of “anger, terror, fear and trauma” in the New Haven area following the July 2007 home invasion, which ended with the deaths of Jennifer HawkePetit and her daughters, 11yearold Michaela and 17yearold Hayley. The mother was raped and strangled by codefendant Steven Hayes and the daughters died in the fire that was set shortly afterward.
The father and husband, Dr. William Petit Jr., was assaulted with a baseball bat as the home invasion began, then tied up in the basement. He was able to escape and seek help from a neighbor but it was too late, as the house was on fire.
The justices listened to about 90 minutes of arguments by Holdridge and the attorney for the state, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Marjorie Allen Dauster, who opposed the motion for a new trial. A decision is not expected until some time next year.
Hayes was put on trial first, in the fall of 2010. The jury in that trial convicted
him on multiple counts of murder, kidnapping, sexual assault and other counts. The jurors then imposed the death sentence. In 2012, the Connecticut legislature abolished the death penalty but kept it in place for those already on death row. The state Supreme Court in 2015 ruled capital punishment should be banned for all defendants. Hayes and Komisarjevsky then received sentences of life in prison with no chance for parole.
Holdridge told the justices that Komisarjevsky came under even more community prejudice than Hayes because people knew of the Hayes verdict and because Hayes’ attorneys said during the trial that Komisarjevsky had been the “mastermind” of the crime. Komisarjevsky went on trial the year after Hayes was convicted. Komisarjevsky was convicted on similar charges and he too received the death sentence.
Holdridge said Komisarjevsky “was reviled like perhaps no other defendant in state history. Numerous editorials and statements by public officials declared the defendant was guilty and was one of the worst of the worst.”
“The media bombarded the community with prejudicial information which left out critical details,” Holdridge added. “They
said he was a ‘parole violator’ and that he had ‘confessed.’” Holdridge said the public wasn’t told about “his repeated denial of any intent to kill.” (Komisarjevsky said Hayes was the one who escalated the crime.)
Holdridge said people in the New Haven region “were losing it” emotionally. “People had bought guns and dogs. The community was terrified. People were crying in the courtroom.”
Holdridge also noted: “A state legislator said that Mr. Komisarjevsky should be hung by his penis in the town square.”
Holdridge asserted that trying the case in New Haven “really put a stain on the criminal justice system in Connecticut.”
Holdridge said Connecticut’s unusual voir dire process, in which prospective jurors are extensively questioned by defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges before being chosen, was “a circus” in Komisarjevsky’s case.
Holdridge reported that one of the jurors chosen for the Komisarjevsky trial had said during voir dire that he had spoken with friends and work colleagues who believed Komisarjevsky was guilty and he was so worried after the home invasion that he slept with a hammer near his bed. He had also “flipped through” a book about the case in a bookstore.
But Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson told Holdridge: “The issue here is did he get
a fair trial and I haven’t heard yet how you are proving he didn’t.”
Robinson asked Holdridge why he doesn’t believe voir dire questioning weeds out potential jurors who have become prejudiced by pretrial publicity. “We have voir dire to deal with this,” Robinson noted.
Holdridge replied the prospective jurors “can’t be believed when the community has been so badly infected. The prejudice was so severe that a fair trial could not be had.”
Holdridge also said “jurors have trouble admitting bias when questioned by a judge. There is an inability of jurors to recognize their own bias.”
Holdridge cited a defense team poll that showed that 70 percent of respondents in the New Haven area were closely following the Cheshire crime and the legal actions following it. In Stamford, Holdridge said, only about 49 percent followed it closely.
“Stamford was the best of a bad pot,” he said. “New Haven was the worst of a bad pot. So it should have at least been moved to Stamford.”
Robinson then asked: “So it’s unfair or more unfair?” Holdridge said he agreed with that assessment.
Holdridge was then asked what should be done if no impartial judicial district can be found in Connecticut. He replied, “Continue the case until the decibel level decreases and the
prejudice goes away.”
Justice Steven D. Ecker told Holdridge: “I live in New Haven; I’m aware of the media coverage. But I think I could put it out of my head. I hope jurors could too.”
But Ecker also had a question for Dauster during her presentation: What would have to happen for a change of venue to be justified?
Dauster answered: “If they can’t find any jurors who say they can be fair and impartial. But voir dire did find jurors who said they could put aside what they had heard and judge the case solely on what they heard in the courtroom.”
Dauster told the justices, “The publicity for this case was statewide, although greater in New Haven. Awareness of this was very high in the other judicial districts. The differences were not so great as to compel a change of venue.”
Dauster concluded by stating: “The defendant did have a fair trial.”
The two attorneys did not have time within the schedule to argue the other contentions of the defense appeal, including the state’s failure to disclose to Komisarjevsky’s trial attorneys all evidence that might have helped exonerate him, such as 132 pages of letters Hayes wrote. The justices will be able to study those other arguments in legal briefs.