Deliberations resume in Connecticut home invasion case (Petit Family Murder)

CNN ^ | 11/6/2010 | Staff

[mojito]

New Haven, Connecticut (CNN) -- Connecticut jurors on Saturday resumed deliberating the sentence for Steven Hayes, who was convicted of killing two sisters and their mother during a 2007 home invasion.

Hayes faces a sentence of life in prison or death. Judge Jon Blue had ordered the five men and seven women to resume their work at 9 a.m. Saturday.

Earlier Friday, the jury asked Blue for clarification of the statute regarding mitigating factors. "How do we fill out the form?" the jurors asked.

Blue instructed the panel members that they could not go into the second phase -- determining whether the prosecution has proved the aggravating factors -- until they were unanimous about whether there were mitigating factors.

Friday's deliberations, which lasted about five hours and 10 minutes, came a day after Hayes' lawyer told jurors his client would suffer more if given a life sentence.

[mojito]

The fact that this idiot jury needs more time to deliberate on whether this repulsive excuse for a human being should be executed is a sad commentary on the wishy-washy stupidity of the average citizen.

This semi-man is guilty of one of the most repellent, stomach churning, evil crimes it has ever been my displeasure to hear of. Drawing and quatering would be too good for him.

[cripplecreek]

If jurors had a clue about the rights they actually had, this case would have been over inside of an hour.

[Sarah Barracuda]

I don’t know what is taking these people so long. The entire deliberation process should have taken 10 seconds at the most. Take the guy and set his sorry ass on fire, that would be sweet justice as far as I’m concerned and still he would be getting off easy

[cripplecreek]

What’s taking them so long is a court system that falsely tells jurors that they must rule in accordance with the law when the reality is that no such requirement exists.

[montag813]

WTF is taking them so long? It should take less time to decide his death than to decide whether to put down a rabid animal.

[nmh]

Capital punishment is needed here.

There is no way a person will suffer in a prison for life than in hell where they belong. Plus people should NOT have to pay for this scumbag. Knock off the humanistic excuses.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Something like this shouldn’t have to be akin to the pain of filling out a long form 1040 for the IRS, with nothing but the original tax code to refer to. It’s lawyers and liberals who have inserted all this red tape.

[skr]

Wonder what the judge’s instructions are?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Look at where this is happening, it’s Moonbat Heaven!

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

In a former life, I worked editing court transcripts for a court reporter. On two occasions, I worked in the courthouse during murder trials as the defense/prosecution attorneys wanted the transcripts in their hands pronto.

One of the cases involved a particularly vicious murder and attempted murder. The case had gone to the jury, and all the attorneys were sitting in the court reporters office. Less than two hours after the jury began deliberating, the word came that they had reached a verdict. The defense attorney said, "well, that's not good." The perp was found guilty, death penalty.

[Cheetahcat]

That guy should be burned at the stake,The old boys knew how to deal with trash.

[cripplecreek]

Our nation's founders set up a court system where the most powerful lawmakers in the land were the jurors. They could overrule the sitting judge, prosecution, defense, supreme court and even the president.

In 1895 the supreme court ruled that jurors "need not be informed" of their rights and the courts have been further dismantling them ever since.

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."

[PapaBear3625]

What’s taking them so long is a court system that falsely tells jurors that they must rule in accordance with the law when the reality is that no such requirement exists.

They may ACQUIT in defiance of the law, if they so choose. To convict, they must follow the procedure exactly.

[Red in Blue PA]

The fact that deliberations have exceeded 5 minutes in this case shows what is glaringly wrong with this country today.

[Red in Blue PA]

If this case does not warrant capitol punishment, then WTF does?

[Luke21]

By the time, CNN finished with the story, who could tell what happened? Talk about obfuscation.

[cripplecreek]

True enough but many of our complicated cases only become that way because of attorneys and uninformed juries.

A juror has the right to call witnesses and evidence, cross examine the accused and witnesses, and the right to decide for himself what is or isn’t admmissable evidence.

I look at the John Couey trial as a beautiful example of how screwed up our courts have become. His past history as a sexual predator who targeted children was deemed inadmmissable. An informed jury wouldn’t have allowed that to happen.

[R. Scott]

Mitigating factors?
Two young girls and their mother were burned alive while tied to their beds. The mother was raped. What could possibly mitigate the sentence?

[tiki]

Back in the day we had a guy rape and murder a mother and her 6 and 8 yr old daughters. I don’t remember his sentence but they had a riot at the prison and the prisoners gave him the death penalty.

[freespirited]

The fact that this idiot jury needs more time to deliberate on whether this repulsive excuse for a human being should be executed is a sad commentary on the wishy-washy stupidity of the average citizen.

Or perhaps on the liberalism that has infected most of Connecticut.

My guess is that this puke will get life without parole, while the co-defendant will get death.

It's just sickening. It would have taken me 10 seconds to vote for the death penalty ... for both of them.