Defense attorneys for Steven Hayes, who was convicted on October 5, 2010 of six counts of capital felony, were unsuccessful in their attempt to get the jury in the penalty phase of their client to hear the report they had commissioned that argued that life without possibility of parole would be a more cost effective solution than the death penalty.
Defense Attorneys Thomas Thomas J. Ullmann and Patrick Culligan hired Dr. James Austin to prepare a cost comparison report showing that Connecticut taxpayers would fare better if Hayes was sentenced to life in prison instead of lingering on death row until the time of his execution. The attorneys hoped that the analysis of trial costs, direct appeal costs, state and federal Habeas Corpus- post conviction appeals costs, and imprisonment costs could be presented to the jury in an effort to persuade them to vote against the death penalty.
On October 14, Judge Blue ruled against allowing the jury to hear Dr. Austin’s report, citing “The courts have unanimously ruled that economic arguments along these lines are inadmissible regardless of whether they are made by prosecution or defense counsel.” Judge Blue further ruled “The fact (assuming that it is a fact) that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment is not a mitigating factor for two separate reasons.” Connecticut law decrees that in order to be considered a mitigating factor, the factor has to concern a defendant’s “character, background or history, or the nature and circumstances of the crime.” Further, Blue concluded, “This asserted fact is not a legal argument but rather political debate that in essence attack(s) the propriety of the death penalty itself,” quoting a Florida Supreme Court ruling.
Judge Blue opined that if cost was a consideration in death penalty cases, younger prisoners might be put to death as a cost-cutting measure rather than shouldering the expense of keeping them in prison for decades, even if this was the defendant’s first crime. Accordingly, an older defendant with a longer criminal history might be kept alive because it would be cheaper than the costs incurred in sentencing him to death. Judge Blue concluded his decision by writing “Although a defendant fighting for his life should be given great latitude in presenting mitigating evidence, the evidence offered here is not legally admissible.” While the Court’s decision was a blow for Attorneys Ullmann and Culligan, the public was educated on the financial pros and cons of the death penalty, putting to bed the false concept that killing Hayes would say the taxpayers money.
|
|
|
|
