Dec 5, 2010

Motion to "reconsider motion for a New Trial" filed by Hayes Defense Team

Another motion was filed in New Haven Superior Court on Thursday by Steven Hayes Defense Team; The motion requested a recosideration" of  a former motion filed by said defense, last week
requesting a new trial for Mr Hayes. That motion cited multiple factors that the defense claimed caused the Hayes Jury to become biased,
distracted and unduly influenced  by the unusually large media presence among other things.

It should be noted that the defense never objected, formally or otherwise,to the media presence during the entire trial proceedings,themself, nor did they object verbally,or in writing, to the judge or prosecutor, regarding the seating arrangements for the Petit/ Hawke families,an issue that is believe it or not, shamelessly being cited as a reason for the need for a new trial, both within the first and 2nd motion filed by hayes's attorneys. 

The original motion for a new trial was officially denied by Judge Blue six days after it was received by the court. Blue clearly gave the motion due diligence, he offered  extremely succinct counter-arguments for each and every defende claim re how Hayes right to a fair trial was infringed upon ie  by;the media presence, the presence of the Petit's extended family in the Jury's presence, and a host of other objections, many of which bordered on just plain ludicrous..

In the original motion, the defense used the heavy media presence and the "distraction" that it\ had on the Jury, claiming it ultimately affected the verdict,as well as the sentencing during the sentencing phase.
This argument was once again at the nucleus of the motion to "reconsider" The defense team essentially said that Judge Blue's decision regarding the original motion was based upon unsound legal reasoning, and they basically tried to dismantle each point that the Judge carefully laid out in his brief.

This succession of motions is perfect example of why our courts need to begin setting limits on what is clearly abuse of the system by defense attorneys -  public defenders or otherwise.It almost becomes a form of
blackmail, holding the process hostage as it were, which is how our courts got into this mess to begin with.
It is clear that Mr.Ullmann, being an avid anti death penalty propagandist, simply will not let any defeat" stand in any Death Penalty case where he is the defense attorney.

It certainly cheapens Ulmann's vociferous stance when he dons the same  arrogant indigence  over every single case, no matter the brutality of the crimes that his client commits, how many victims lay in his wake and whether they include children, etc..

 In Ullmanns world,  the moral "wrngness of the death penalty" transcends all of these small
insignificant  facts like actual guilt -  the law- how many people suffered as a result of the violence and death..
The contention surrounding the death penalty  gives Attorneys like Thomas Ullmann permission to throw all  considerations out the window;The state is trying to kill his client-that's all he needs,or cares to know; he is thus transformed from a public defender who will defend anyone for anyhting into a self appointed hero for the "underdog."
Never mind that the Dog is rabid.

According to statement made in court during last weeks sentencing, Steven Hayes said that he was glad to receive the death Penalty by the Jury. Indeed he claimed that he" is  tortured by the crimes that he has committed, and that death will be a welcome relief when it comes. He added that he hopes his death will bring some comfort and peace to Dr Petit and the other family members of those he hurt.