Komisarjevsky Jury Selection Moves Closer to Conclusion

Jury selection for the Joshua Komisarjevsky trial is finally headed for completion with the selection last week of the sixth and last alternate juror.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors still must pick three backup alternates, but most of the jury selection work is done. Since March 16, they have chosen twelve regular jurors and six alternates.

Komisarjevsky faces the death penalty for the Cheshire home invasion triple homicide in 2007, in which Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters were murdered. His co-defendant, Steven Hayes, was convicted last year and is on death row.

The latest alternate juror is a 36-year-old New Haven man who works as a caseworker for the state Department of Children and Families.

He was supposed to be one of the backup alternates, but a previously selected alternate juror, a 35-year-old Wallingford woman, was excused by Superior Court Judge Jon C. Blue, the trial judge, on Thursday.

The Wallingford woman created some unexpected drama on May 26 when she returned to court a few hours after being picked as an alternate juror and tearfully begged to be let out of her jury obligation.

She told the judge that after she learned from her babysitter about the gruesome details of the triple homicide, she felt she could not be fair and impartial as a juror.

According to the Hartford Courant, Judge Blue reminded her that during initial questioning on May 26 she had assured the court she could be fair. She replied that she had already concluded that Komisarjevsky is guilty.

The Courant quoted defense lawyer Walter Bansley III that the juror’s decision was evidence that Komisarjevsky could not get a fair trial. The juror was exposed to community pressure only hours after being chosen, Bansley said.

The Wallingford woman was the second juror to return and ask to be excused. A teacher chosen as the first alternate on May 16 returned the next day and said serving on the jury would be a financial hardship for him.

He said within hours of being picked as a juror his friends figured out that it was him and called to tell him Komisarjevsky should get the death penalty.

Witness lists on hold

The Connecticut Supreme Court has agreed to review an Appellate Court ruling that could have led to the release of the Komisarjevsky trial witness lists to the public and the news media.

The Hartford Courant has battled since March to obtain the witness lists over defense objections. Judge Blue and the state Appellate Court sided with the Courant, but extended a stay keeping the lists sealed. On May 31, the Appellate Court extended the stay until the Supreme Court completes its review.

The defense claims releasing the witness lists could expose Komisarjevsky witnesses to threats and intimidation and jeopardize his right to a fair trial.

Judge Blue said the defense failed to specify which witnesses might be threatened, and he agreed with the Courant that the lists are public court documents, so he ordered them unsealed.

The Appellate Court ruled the defense could not appeal Judge Blue’s order, based on a 1990 case, State v. Figueroa, in which the defense tried to block release of a police report on the grounds it would create excessive pretrial publicity.

A footnote contained in almost every argument brief filed in this matter quotes a key point in the earlier Appellate Court decision:

"The defendant is not without remedy. In the event that he is convicted and is of the opinion that the verdict has been tainted by pretrial publicity, he may challenge the trial court’s unsealing of the police report in a timely post-trial appeal." (From a prosecution response filed on May 11, 2011 opposing Komisarjevsky’s defense lawyers’ request for an Appellate Court review.)

However, there are differences between the Figueroa and Komisarjevsky cases. Releasing the Figueroa police report would not alter the evidence and testimony introduced in the trial, while releasing the Komisarjevsky witness lists might.

Also, the Appellate Court’s Figueroa decision was never reviewed by the state Supreme Court.