Vocabulary > Justice > USA > Jury > Verdict
12 November 2004
Danny Lewin, Geoff Shenk, Katherine Lewin and Katie Lewin
Extra edition put out
by the Redwood City Daily News
after the verdict in the Scott Peterson trial
in Redwood City, California,
Peterson, 32, was found guilty in the Christmas Eve 2002 murder of
wife, Laci Peterson, in a family-next-door case that captivated America.
The jury also found Peterson
guilty of the second-degree murder of their unborn child.
Photo by Pool/Reuters.
After a trial that attracted nationwide attention,
fertilizer salesman Scott Peterson, 32,
was found guilty on November 12, 2004
in the Christmas Eve 2002 murder of his
Peterson and defense attorney Mark Geragos
are seen in the courtroom November 3.
Photo by Pool/Reuters.
The Arizona Republic
a majority of the nine men and three women on
the Los Angeles Superior Court jury
jury > begin
the jury's findings on the
10-count indictment against...
members of the jury
in the jury box
on a jury
jury pool / potential jurors
jury selection / screening
be sworn in
jury box chair
the juror in the first seat in the first row of the jury box
face up to 10
years in prison
three strikes and
face life in
get life in
prison without parole
face a sentence as
long as life in prison if convicted
have three sentencing options:
the death penalty, life in prison with parole, or life without parole
deserve the death penalty
impose the death penalty on...
reach a decision
deadlock > mistrial
call for a mistrial
follow the jury's
hung jury > unable to
reach a verdict
hand the case
over to the eight-woman, four-man panel
be handed the case
by Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville
a Santa Barbara County Grand jury indictment that
with four counts of molesting a 13-year-old boy,
four counts of plying the young cancer patient with alcohol in order to abuse
one count of conspiracy and one count of attempted molestation
behind closed doors
a verdict /
reasonable doubt / beyond a reasonable doubt
prove beyond a
genital mutilation > be
found guilty of aggravated battery and cruelty to children
caged kids case > be
convicted of endangering and abuse
enter a no contest
be convicted of
be convicted of
three counts of first-degree murder
be found guilty of
first-degree murder, sexual battery on a child, kidnapping and burglary
be found guilty of
first-degree murder, rape and burglary
if convicted of the
felony alcohol charge
be an indicted
more than two decades in prison
maximum of about 10 years in prison
the country’s first cyberbullying verdict
Cartoons > Cagle > Madoff gets 150 years
be convicted of
be convicted of capital crimes
teenagers > convicted as an adult
be convicted of
guilty of first-degree murder
guilty of arranging the fatal shooting of...
second degree murder
third degree murder
be convicted of
be convicted of
be convicted of
vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence
be convicted of
be convicted on
be convicted of
be found not
guilty by reason of insanity
be committed to a
state mental hospital
≠ be sentenced
get 8 years for
get 12 years for
get 800 years
impose the maximum sentence
juveniles > life sentence
get life term
be sentenced to
life in prison
be sentenced to
seven consecutive terms of life in prison
be sentenced to
be sentenced to
life in prison without parole
be sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole
get life without parole
put to death
be ruled mentally
on all 10 counts
of all charges
be cleared of a
be cleared by DNA
in Giffords Shooting
Sentenced to 7 Life Terms
The New York Times
By FERNANDA SANTOS
Jared L. Loughner was sentenced Thursday to seven consecutive terms of life in
prison at a court hearing punctuated by raw emotion as former Representative
Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark E. Kelly, for the first time confronted
the man who shot her in the head during a rampage last year that left 6 dead and
12 others wounded.
Ms. Giffords, her right arm in a sling, stared at Mr. Loughner as Mr. Kelly
delivered his defiant remarks before a packed courtroom, from a dais a few feet
from the defendant’s chair.
“By making death and producing tragedy, you sought to extinguish the beauty of
life, to diminish potential, to strain love and to cancel ideas,” Mr. Kelly
said. “You tried to create for all of us a world as dark and evil as your own.
But remember it always: You failed.”
Mr. Loughner’s punishment — in addition to the life terms, he was sentenced to
140 years in prison — came as no surprise. It was a condition of the guilty plea
he entered on Aug. 7, admitting to the shootings and bringing to an end a case
that had prompted much soul-searching about mental health treatment and the
country’s gun laws.
From the bench in Federal District Court, Judge Larry A. Burns said he was not
going to make “political statements,” that he was just “a single federal judge”
who had “no intention to change the law.” Still, he questioned the wisdom of
allowing the unrestricted sale of high-capacity magazines, like the one Mr.
Loughner used to carry out his crimes.
“I don’t understand the social utility of allowing citizens to have magazines
with 30 bullets in them,” Judge Burns said.
For Mr. Kelly, though, who has been Ms. Giffords’s unrelenting companion and her
voice as she has struggled to articulate her words since the shooting, the
politics of gun control is the “elephant in the room.” He denounced politicians
who are “afraid to do something as simple as have a meaningful debate about our
gun laws,” singling out Gov. Jan Brewer, whom he called “feckless,” and the
Legislature, which “thought it appropriate to busy itself naming an official
Arizona state gun just weeks after this tragedy.”
Mr. Kelly went on, “After Columbine, after Virginia Tech, after Tucson and after
Aurora,” the Colorado suburb where a gunman killed 12 and wounded 58 in a movie
theater in July, “we have done nothing.”
A spokesman for the governor said in a statement that “on this solemn occasion,”
Ms. Brewer “isn’t interested in engaging in politics.”
Ms. Giffords did not say anything, only stroking her husband’s back when they
slowly made their way back to their seats.
On Jan. 8, 2011, Mr. Loughner, now 24, arrived at a constituents meeting hosted
by Ms. Giffords, then a member of the House of Representatives, in a shopping
center parking lot. He had a loaded Glock 9-millimeter pistol and carried 60
extra rounds of ammunition. In less than 30 seconds, he fired 31 shots.
Onlookers tackled and restrained him when he paused to reload. One of them was
Pamela Simon, an aide and close friend of Ms. Giffords’s who was shot by Mr.
Loughner and was one of seven victims to speak in court.
Ms. Simon, who taught at the middle school Mr. Loughner had attended, said she
remembered him as “a kid who loved music.” On Thursday, she told him, “You
remind us that too often we either do not notice the signs of mental illness, or
we just choose to look away.”
Mavy Stoddard, whom Mr. Loughner shot three times, told him she cradled her
wounded husband, Dorwan, in her arms and whispered, “Breathe deeply, honey.”
Ten minutes later, he was dead.
Mr. Loughner stared at each of them, virtually motionless. He slurred his only
words, “That’s right,” which he spoke after the judge asked if he had indeed
waived his right to address the court.
He had been given a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but was deemed competent to
agree to the plea deal, which makes him ineligible for parole or to appeal. He
has been held at a federal hospital in Missouri for more than a year, undergoing
psychiatric evaluations and treatment. On Thursday, Judge Burns said he should
stay “in a place where he can get continual medical treatment.”
His mother, Amy Loughner, sniffled loudly at times, convulsing as people
described the horror her son had unleashed. His father, Randy, was also there.
Representative Ron Barber, a close aide of Ms. Giffords’s at the time of the
shooting who was struck by a bullet in the leg, told them, “Please know that I
and my family hold no animosity toward you.”
To Mr. Loughner, he said, “You must pay the price.”
Williams contributed reporting from New York.
has been revised to reflect the following correction:
November 8, 2012
An earlier version of this article and headline
misstated the number of life
Jared L. Loughner. It is seven, not six.
also misspelled the given name
of a woman shot by Mr. Loughner.
It is Mavy
Stoddard, not Mary.
Gunman in Giffords Shooting Sentenced to 7 Life Terms, NYT, 8.11.2012,
Verdict in Murder Case
That Involved Singer’s Family
The New York Times
By MONICA DAVEY
The former brother-in-law of Jennifer Hudson, the singer and actress, was
convicted on Friday of murdering her mother, her brother and her young nephew.
With a crush of news and entertainment reporters monitoring her every move, Ms.
Hudson, who rose to national fame from one of this city’s toughest
neighborhoods, attended the trial, which ran nearly three weeks, and appeared as
prosecutors’ first witness, saying she had always disliked William Balfour, now
convicted in the case.
“I would tell her over and over again not to marry William,” Ms. Hudson
testified about her sister, Julia, who eventually did.
Calling more than 80 witnesses, prosecutors said Mr. Balfour had shot and killed
members of the Hudson family in their home in the Englewood neighborhood in
October 2008 after growing jealous and possessive of Julia Hudson.
Mr. Balfour’s defense team had characterized the case as largely circumstantial,
suggesting that the police hastily focused on Mr. Balfour in a rush to close a
case that drew national headlines. Mr. Balfour, 31, faces life in prison.
Prosecutors said Mr. Balfour had been to the Hudson family home on the morning
of the shootings, and witnesses said that he had previously been seen with the
gun that was used. But no DNA evidence or fingerprints proved Mr. Balfour’s
involvement, and defense lawyers told jurors that the work of Ms. Hudson’s
brother, Jason — selling drugs, the defense team said — was more likely what led
to the shootings.
The jury, six men and six women, deliberated during parts of three days, and had
indicated not long before they announced their verdict that they were split.
They were sequestered during deliberations in the high-profile case.
The daily machinations of the trial had little to do with Ms. Hudson’s
celebrity, which was, nonetheless, ever-present. Reports on the trial noted her
tears, her bowed head, her fourth-row seat, her departures from the courtroom
and her clothes.
Ms. Hudson drew national attention with appearances on “American Idol” in 2004,
then went on to win an Oscar for her role in “Dreamgirls.” In a way, the trial
was a reminder of how much her life has been altered.
Ms. Hudson, who testified that she began singing at age 7 at a Baptist church
here, no longer lived in her mother’s home in Englewood, a neighborhood troubled
by violence and where she said her sister had worked many jobs, including at a
Burger King and as a school bus driver. Not long before the deaths, Ms. Hudson
told jurors, she had left signed, blank checks for her mother, Darnell Donerson,
to pay for items like the family’s gas bill, had bought her sister a computer
and had given her brother an S.U.V., apparently the same one that the nephew,
Julian King, 7, was later found dead inside.
Guilty Verdict in Murder Case That Involved Singer’s Family, NYT, 11.5.2012,
Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences
The New York Times
By GAIL GARINGER
IN the late 1980s, a small but influential group of criminologists predicted a
coming wave of violent juvenile crime: “superpredators,” as young as 11,
committing crimes in “wolf packs.” Politicians soon responded to those fears,
and to concerns about the perceived inadequacies of state juvenile justice
systems, by lowering the age at which children could be transferred to adult
courts. The concern was that offenders prosecuted as juveniles would have to be
released at age 18 or 21.
At the same time, “tough on crime” rhetoric led some states to enact laws making
it easier to impose life without parole sentences on adults. The unintended
consequence of these laws was that children as young as 13 and 14 who were
charged as adults became subject to life without parole sentences.
Nationwide, 79 young adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison — a
sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were
told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them.
They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left
without help or hope.
But the prediction of a generation of superpredators never came to pass.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, violent juvenile crime declined, and it has
continued to decline through the present day. The laws that were passed to deal
with them, however, continue to exist. This month, the United States Supreme
Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v.
Alabama, which will decide whether children can be sentenced to life without
parole after being convicted of homicide.
The court has already struck down the death penalty for juveniles and life
without parole for young offenders convicted in nonhomicide cases. The rationale
for these earlier decisions is simple and equally applicable to the cases to be
heard: Young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imaging
studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for
controlling thoughts, actions and emotions are not fully developed. They cannot
be held to the same standards when they commit terrible wrongs.
Homicide is the worst crime, but in striking down the juvenile death penalty in
2005, the Supreme Court recognized that even in the most serious murder cases,
“juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst
offenders”: they are less mature, more vulnerable to peer pressure, cannot
escape from dangerous environments, and their characters are still in formation.
And because they remain unformed, it is impossible to assume that they will
always present an unacceptable risk to public safety.
The most disturbing part of the superpredator myth is that it presupposed that
certain children were hopelessly defective, perhaps genetically so. Today, few
believe that criminal genes are inherited, except in the sense that parental
abuse and negative home lives can leave children with little hope and limited
As a former juvenile court judge, I have seen firsthand the enormous capacity of
children to change and turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes
them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes them promising candidates for
An overwhelming majority of young offenders grow out of crime. But it is
impossible at the time of sentencing for mental health professionals to predict
which youngsters will fall within that majority and grow up to be productive,
law-abiding citizens and which will fall into the small minority that continue
to commit crimes. For this reason, the court has previously recognized that
children should not be condemned to die in prison without being given a
“meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
The criminologists who promoted the superpredator theory have acknowledged that
their prediction never came to pass, repudiated the theory and expressed regret.
They have joined several dozen other criminologists in an amicus brief to the
court asking it to strike down life without parole sentences for children
convicted of murder. I urge the justices to apply the logic and the wisdom of
their earlier decisions and affirm that the best time to decide whether someone
should spend his entire life in prison is when he has grown to be an adult, not
when he is still a child.
a juvenile court judge in Massachusetts from 1995 to 2008,
is the state’s
child advocate, appointed by the governor.
Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences, NYT, 14.3.2012,
Death Penalty for 2nd Man
in Connecticut Triple-Murder Case
December 9, 2011
The New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
One of Connecticut’s most agonizing courtroom dramas came to
an end on Friday as a jury voted to impose the death penalty on the second of
two killers of three family members after an ordeal of violence and sexual
assault that challenged suburban ideals of safety.
Lawyers for the second convicted killer, Joshua Komisarjevsky, 31, had waged an
aggressive fight to avoid a capital sentence since Oct. 13, when he was
convicted of the crimes, which drew national attention in 2007. But the jury in
New Haven unanimously voted for capital punishment on each of the six capital
counts he faced.
Mr. Komisarjevsky’s trial in Superior Court followed the trial of his
co-defendant, Steven J. Hayes, who was sentenced to death last year. The two men
burst into the home of the Petits in Cheshire, Conn., beat and tied up the
father, Dr. William A. Petit Jr., and wreaked havoc for hours before setting the
house on fire with the family’s two girls tied to their beds.
The crime and the long court proceedings, attended by Dr. Petit, the lone
survivor, brought legal reforms, played a central role in the failure of an
effort to repeal the death penalty and seemed to rivet the state until, in
recent months, a kind of mass fatigue with the depressing details of the crime
and its punishment appeared to set in.
“I believe God’s will has been done,” Dr. Petit said to a crowd outside the
courthouse just after the verdict. But, he added, “The pain is there forever.”
One juror, Timothy Anderson, said jurors were sobbing on Friday as they reached
the verdict. Mr. Anderson said he was the last to decide to vote for death, “but
when you look at the whole thing, it’s so horrific.”
The defense lawyers presented a series of misfortunes that they said Mr.
Komisarjevsky had suffered in his life as they worked to change perceptions of
him that had been forged by revulsion at the killing of Jennifer Hawke-Petit,
and her daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11.
Mr. Hayes was convicted of raping and strangling Ms. Hawke-Petit and killing the
daughters, who died of smoke inhalation. At his separate trial, Mr.
Komisarjevsky was convicted of the killings and a host of other crimes,
including sexually assaulting the 11-year-old and making prurient photographs of
her on his cellphone.
In weeks of testimony, the defense lawyers worked to cast Mr. Komisarjevsky as a
damaged person worthy of life, though one that would certainly be lived behind
The lawyers said that Mr. Komisarjevsky was sexually abused as a child, suffered
mood disorders and head injuries, abused drugs and cut himself with glass,
knives and razors, and that his evangelical Christian adoptive parents denied
him proper care, relying instead on religion.
On Friday night, Mr. Komisarjevsky’s family issued a statement: “From the very
beginning, we have spoken out about the horror of the crime and taken the
position that whatever verdict the jury reached was the right verdict. With
today’s jury decision, our view is the same. The crime was monstrous and beyond
comprehension. There are no excuses.”
The killings dominated the state’s front pages and airwaves for so long that
some in Connecticut said they had grown weary of Mr. Komisarjevsky’s trial..
Colin McEnroe, one of the state’s best-known columnists and commentators, wrote
during the trial that he avoided articles about it because he felt he already
knew what he needed to know about the case.
“It is not possible to have lived in this state since 2007 and not know the
Petit case,” Mr. McEnroe said. “It enters our night dreams and day musings.
There is no vaccine against it.”
Elizabeth Maker contributed reporting.
Death Penalty for 2nd Man in Connecticut
Triple-Murder Case, NYT, 9.12.2011,
Is Guilty in Michael Jackson’s Death
The New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA
— Michael Jackson, among the most famous performers in pop music history, spent
his final days in a sleep-deprived haze of medication and misery until finally
succumbing to a fatal dose of potent drugs provided by the private physician he
had hired to act as his personal pharmaceutical dispensary, a jury decided on
The physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
nearly two and a half years after Jackson’s shocking death at age 50. The
verdict came after nearly 50 witnesses, 22 days of testimony and less than two
days of deliberation by a jury of seven men and five women. The trial had
focused primarily on whether Dr. Murray was guilty of abdicating his duty or of
acting with reckless criminal negligence, directly causing his patient’s death.
Dr. Murray, 58, faces up to four years in prison and the loss of his medical
license. He sat stoically as the verdict was read and did not react as he was
led out of the courtroom in handcuffs. Judge Michael Pastor ruled that he should
be held without bail until his sentencing, set for Nov. 29.
Jackson, who had become a star as a child in Gary, Ind., singing with his
siblings in the Jackson 5, grew into one of the best-known performers in the
world. Though increasingly eccentric in his later years, often living on a
secluded California estate he called Neverland, Jackson always had a fervent
core of fans and, despite scandals, his lavish lifestyle and persistent money
woes, always seemed just a comeback away from a return to the top.
Hundreds of fans showed their devotion by gathering outside the downtown
courthouse throughout the trial — many of them sporting Jackson’s signature
single white glove. On Monday, they chanted “Justice, justice” and spent hours
after the verdict dancing to his hits, from “Beat It” to “I Want You Back.” Huge
crowds had also gathered outside the California court where Jackson was tried,
and acquitted, on child molesting charges in 2005.
The singer’s parents, Joe and Katherine Jackson, and siblings La Toya, Jermaine
and Randy were in the courtroom for the verdict. The family left the courthouse
without speaking to the hordes of reporters gathered outside, simply saying they
were “very happy” with the verdict and flashing a thumb.
Dr. Murray, a Houston cardiologist, was paid $150,000 a month to work as
Jackson’s personal physician as he rehearsed in Los Angeles for “This Is It,” a
series of 50 sold-out concerts in London that he needed to pay off hundreds of
millions of dollars in mounting debts.
Testimony showed that Dr. Murray had stayed with Jackson at least six nights a
week and was regularly asked — and sometimes begged — by the insomniac singer to
give him drugs powerful enough to put him to sleep. Jackson, Dr. Murray told the
authorities, was especially eager to be administered propofol, a surgical
anesthetic that put him to sleep when other powerful sedatives could not.
Testimony indicated that propofol, in conjunction with other drugs in the
singer’s system, had played the key role in his death on June 25, 2009.
Prosecutors tried to paint Dr. Murray as a money-hungry physician who would do
things no reputable doctor would do — including improperly and recklessly
administering an anesthetic normally given only in a hospital. The full retinue
of drugs given to Jackson while he was under Dr. Murray’s care was so beyond
normal practice, prosecutors said, that it amounted to a “pharmaceutical
For its part, the defense tried to portray Jackson as a man so desperate to make
his comeback concerts a success that he was willing to take wild chances and
grew terrified that he would not be able to perform to his own exacting
standards without more rest and less stress.
The morning Jackson died, Dr. Murray told investigators during a recording
played in State Superior Court here, the singer told him, “Just make me sleep;
it doesn’t matter what happens.”
When Jackson died, he was more than $400 million in debt, but since his death,
his estate has prospered, generating more than $310 million and paying off most
of his debts.
The estate has struck several lucrative deals, including a movie, video games, a
new recording contract and two productions by Cirque du Soleil.
Shortly after Jackson’s death, Dr. Murray told investigators that the pop star
would routinely plead with him to administer more propofol, calling it his
“milk.” The defense argued that Jackson gave himself the fatal dose of the drug.
The Los Angeles County coroner ruled that Jackson’s death was caused by “acute
propofol intoxication,” in combination with two other drugs in his system.
Two days after Jackson’s death, Dr. Murray told investigators that he had been
using propofol almost nightly for two months to help the singer sleep.
In their closing arguments, prosecutors repeatedly invoked Jackson’s three
children to a jury that included nine parents, saying that the singer wanted to
perform, in part, so that they could see their father on stage. David Walgren,
the deputy district attorney in charge of the case, described the frantic
moments after Dr. Murray realized that Jackson was not responsive and as the pop
star’s children watched him lie lifeless on his bed.
Prosecutors sought to show that Dr. Murray veered significantly from acceptable
medical practice at nearly every turn: by administering the propofol, not having
proper monitoring equipment and failing to call 911 right away, among other
things. They said Dr. Murray had not kept any records of administering propofol
but had taken time to record Jackson’s voice on his iPhone.
He did not tell the paramedics who arrived at Jackson’s home about the propofol,
which prosecutors said showed that he knew he was responsible for the singer’s
death. Just one day before the trial ended, Dr. Murray decided he would not
Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, said that he hoped the
trial would send a message to other “unscrupulous, corrupt” doctors who help
fuel patients’ reliance on powerful drugs.
“In Los Angeles we see many examples of high-profile people losing their lives
because of their addiction to prescribed medication,” Mr. Cooley said. “To the
extent that someone dies as a result of their playing the role of Dr. Feelgood,
they will be held accountable.”
Mr. Cooley said that he doubted that Dr. Murray would serve a full four-year
sentence because of the state’s chronically overcrowded prisons.
In one of the most dramatic moments in the trial, prosecutors played the iPhone
recording Dr. Murray made of Jackson toward the end of his life and the court
heard the singer rambling about his dream of building the world’s largest
“I’m going to do that for them,” Jackson is heard saying in slurred speech.
“That will be remembered more than my performances. My performances will be up
there helping my children and always be my dream. I love them. I love them
because I didn’t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain.”
When his voice trailed off, Dr. Murray waited several seconds before asking,
After several more seconds, Jackson answered, “I am asleep.”
contributed reporting from New York,
and Ian Lovett from Los Angeles.
Doctor Is Guilty in Michael Jackson’s Death, NYT,
Hears a Final Round of Finger-Pointing
Trial of Michael Jackson’s Doctor
The New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA
— Michael Jackson’s death was caused by a doctor who was more concerned with
making money and protecting himself than caring for his patient, prosecutors
said in closing arguments on Thursday in the trial of the man who served as the
pop singer’s private physician in the final months of his life and is now
charged with manslaughter.
After 22 days of testimony over six weeks, the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray came
to an end with closing statements from prosecutors and defense lawyers, who
painted dramatically different pictures of the legendary pop star and the doctor
caring for him. The jury is expected to begin deliberations on Friday.
The defense lawyer, Ed Chernoff, said that Mr. Jackson was a man desperate to
prepare for a series of 50 sold-out concerts in London and relied on a cocktail
of drugs to keep him going. Mr. Chernoff argued that prosecutors were asking the
jury to convict Dr. Murray for something that Mr. Jackson had done. The defense
argues that Mr. Jackson self-administered the dose of the drug that killed him.
“We’ve been dancing around this for six weeks, maybe two years,” Mr. Chernoff
told the jury. “If it were anybody else besides Michael Jackson — anybody else —
would this doctor be here today?”
The Los Angeles County coroner ruled that “acute propofol intoxication” in
combination with two other drugs in his system caused Mr. Jackson’s death.
David Walgren, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, said that Murray
had “grossly corrupted” the doctor-patient relationship with Mr. Jackson and
knew that his actions had led to his death.
“Conrad Murray sought payment for services rendered, the services rendered being
the provision of propofol,” Mr. Walgren said. “It was an employer-employee
relationship. Conrad Murray sought payment for services rendered, not for proper
medical care, not for the sake of doing no harm.”
During the trial, the jury heard testimony from medical experts, as well as Mr.
Jackson’s former aides and several of Dr. Murray’s former patients. One expert
for the defense testified that Mr. Jackson was most likely addicted to drugs
that made it difficult to sleep and caused his own death by injecting himself
with propofol when Dr. Murray was out of the room. A prosecution witness said
that the defense’s argument that Mr. Jackson injected the drug himself was
Two days after Mr. Jackson’s death on June 25, 2009, Dr. Murray told detectives
that he had been using the surgical anesthetic propofol nearly daily for the
last two months to help Mr. Jackson sleep. But he said that he had been trying
to wean Mr. Jackson off the drug and had tried sedatives instead.
After those drugs did not work and he had spent 10 hours trying to fall asleep,
Mr. Jackson begged for propofol, Dr. Murray told investigators.
Prosecutors said that this statement alone amounted to enough of an admission of
gross negligence to convict Dr. Murray of manslaughter. But prosecutors also
called several expert witnesses who testified that Dr. Murray lied to the
Before the closing arguments began, Judge Michael Pastor of the Superior Court
of California instructed jurors that they had to come to a unanimous agreement
on one of two theories in order to convict Dr. Murray on the charge of
involuntary manslaughter: either that Dr. Murray was acting legally but in a
criminally negligent way or that he failed to perform his legal duty as Mr.
Dr. Murray decided late in the trial that he would not testify on his own
behalf. If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison and the loss of his
Jury Hears a Final Round of Finger-Pointing
in the Trial
of Michael Jackson’s Doctor,
Anthony Not Guilty
in Slaying of Daughter
The New York Times
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Fla. — Casey Anthony, the young mother whose seeming heartlessness at the
disappearance of her daughter transfixed America for three years, was found not
guilty on Tuesday of killing the girl, Caylee Marie.
After nearly six weeks of testimony, a jury of seven women and five men rejected
the prosecution’s contention that Ms. Anthony had murdered Caylee, 2, by dosing
her with chloroform, suffocating her with duct tape and dumping her body in a
wooded area. They did, however, find her guilty of lesser charges of providing
false information to law enforcement officers.
In a sign that jurors had little difficulty reaching a verdict, the jury did not
ask to review any evidence and reached a decision in fewer than 11 hours.
Jurors, who were imported from the Clearwater area and had been sequestered for
six weeks, declined to talk with reporters and returned home to Pinellas County.
When the verdict was read, Ms. Anthony, 25, who faced a possible death sentence,
cried quietly, the relief made plain on her face. After the jury left the
courtroom, she broke down and sobbed, hugging her lawyer, Jose Baez, tightly.
She has spent about two and a half years in jail awaiting trial. She is expected
to be released soon because she is not likely to serve any more time for
misdemeanors. Ms. Anthony was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse.
Her parents, George and Cindy, who lost a granddaughter and then listened in
court as Mr. Baez blamed the family for Caylee’s death, sat stone-faced after
the verdict was read. Prosecutors, who had entered the courthouse with broad
smiles and to cheers, sat stunned.
The defense had argued from the start that Caylee drowned accidentally in the
family swimming pool and that the death was concealed by a panicked George
Anthony and Casey Anthony.
It was unclear if that version of Caylee’s death swayed jurors. But the
circumstantial nature of the prosecution’s case seemed to be insurmountable.
There was no direct evidence tying Ms. Anthony to the death of her daughter.
Forensic evidence was tenuous, and no witnesses ever connected her to Caylee’s
death. Investigators found no traces of Ms. Anthony’s DNA or irrefutable signs
of chloroform or decomposition inside the trunk of Ms. Anthony’s car, where
prosecutors said she stashed Caylee before disposing of her body. The
prosecution was also hurt by the fact that nobody knows exactly when or how
Caylee died; her body was too badly decomposed to pinpoint cause of death. And
it permitted Mr. Baez, Ms. Anthony’s lawyer, to create a reasonable doubt in
jurors’ minds — despite the prosecution’s relentless portrayal of her as a
callous liar who sought to kill Caylee so she could lead a carefree life of
boyfriends and bars.
“The best feeling I have today is I know I can go home and my daughter will ask
me, ‘What did you do today?’ and I can say, ‘I saved a life,’ ” Mr. Baez said at
a news conference.
Mr. Baez also denounced the death penalty, saying Ms. Anthony’s acquittal is an
example of why “we all need to stop and look and think twice about a country
that decides to kill its own citizens.”
This case was widely reported in real time through Twitter and cable television,
and outrage over the verdict came swiftly as did criticism of the news media.
But the public was equally captivated by the trial, with some people flying in
to grab a hard-to-get seat in the courtroom.
Cheney Mason, Mr. Baez’s co-counsel, sharply criticized reporters and pundits
for “media assassination” in maligning Ms. Anthony and sprinting to an
assumption of guilt.
“I can tell you that my colleagues coast to coast and border to border have
condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television to talk about
cases they don’t know a damn thing about,” Mr. Mason said.
Outside, Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for the Ninth Judicial Court, praised
prosecutors for their meticulous work but added that it was a tough trial
because it was a “dry bones case,” a reference to Caylee’s decomposed state,
with “no smoking gun.”
Caylee was last seen June 16, 2008. Her remains were found Dec. 11 in a wooded
lot near the Anthony home. Ms. Anthony failed to report Caylee missing for 31
days and created a tangle of lies, including that a baby sitter kidnapped
Caylee, to cover up the absence.
The defense conceded Ms. Anthony’s lies, but said they happened for one reason:
she had been sexually abused by her father and had been coached to lie her whole
Prosecutors argued all along that Ms. Anthony killed her child so she could
carouse with her boyfriend, go clubbing and live the “bella vita” — beautiful
life — as her tattoo, done after Caylee’s disappearance, proclaimed. They used
jailhouse recordings of Ms. Anthony and photographs of her reveling with friends
to show she was clearly not grieving.
One prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, called it “absurd” that Mr. Anthony, a former
homicide detective, would find Caylee dead in the swimming pool and, rather than
call 911, cover up the drowning, wrap dead Caylee’s face with duct tape and dump
“It is a trip down a rabbit hole into a bizarre world where men who love their
granddaughters find them drowned and do nothing,” Mr. Ashton said.
Mr. Anthony, who had testified tearfully during the trial, denied abusing his
daughter and finding Caylee in the swimming pool.
Prosecutors failed to offer evidence or testimony that showed Ms. Anthony was
actually a bad or negligent mother.
From the start of the trial, Mr. Baez, who began his law career in 2005 and
three years later landed Ms. Anthony as a client, was often pilloried for his
risky opening argument — the drowning and sexual abuse theories — and his
failure to bolster that defense during the trial.
Mr. Baez delved lightly into the idea that Caylee drowned and said nothing more
about the sexual abuse after the first day of the trial. Judge Belvin Perry Jr.,
the presiding judge who also heads the Ninth Circuit Court, barred Mr. Baez from
mentioning the abuse accusation during closing statements because there was no
evidence to support his claim.
Yet Mr. Baez successfully hammered away at the nearly 400 pieces of evidence
that were recovered, including Ms. Anthony’s car. He also accused prosecutors of
relying on faulty science to bolster their case and labeled the state’s work
As the trial continued, Mr. Baez cast Mr. Anthony as the villain who covered up
the drowning and allowed Ms. Anthony to take the blame. And he detailed what he
viewed as the Anthony family’s dysfunctional behavior.
The sheriff’s office also faced criticism for failing to find Caylee’s remains
in August 2008, when a meter reader, Roy Kronk, reported a suspicious item for
three consecutive days. On the third day, deputies met the reader at the crime
scene, where he pointed to the area from a distance. Mr. Kronk testified that
deputies found nothing and were dismissive. Caylee’s body decomposed over six
In closing statements, Mr. Baez reminded jurors that the burden of proof rested
entirely with prosecutors and pleaded that they keep their emotions in check
“This case should not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry
for anyone or are angry at anyone,” Mr. Baez told the jury.
Casey Anthony Not Guilty in Slaying of Daughter, NYT, 5.7.2011,
Cheshire Case Jurors
Speak on Death Verdict
November 8, 2010
The New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
NEW HAVEN — Day after day since Sept. 13, they sat in the jury box. They had
to look at photographs of children who were burned while tied to their beds.
They sat feet from grieving family members.
On Monday, the jurors had their verdict for the defendant, Steven J. Hayes, who
had wreaked havoc at the Petit house in Cheshire, Conn. It had almost been
expected from the start of the home-invasion trial: Death by lethal injection.
As the jurors began to talk publicly about their verdict on Monday night, they
said they were certain of it and unified. They said there had never been a deep
division on the panel and that the three and a half days of deliberation were to
solemnly consider when capital punishment was warranted and then to work through
the complexities of the pages of legal questions they had to answer.
But several of them said in interviews that sitting in the Cheshire
home-invasion case had been a harrowing experience, thinking for weeks about the
two parolees who broke into a suburban home in the middle of the night and
killed a mother and her two daughters, beat and tied up the girls’ father and
committed countless other offenses.
“It was a challenge to me to see if I have the courage and the strength of
character,” said Diane N. Keim, 59, a special-education teacher from Madison.
“Other than what you see in movies, I have not seen children burned.”
Herbert R. Gram, 77, also of Madison, said it was the hard-to-hear facts of the
home invasion by two intruders with disturbing criminal pasts and the horrifying
crime-scene photographs that made the case for capital punishment.
“I’ve seen a lot, and been a lot of places,” Mr. Gram said. “I’ve certainly seen
death before.” Then he paused. “This was not easy. There was nothing easy about
Some jurors mentioned that it was impossible to be in the courtroom day after
day and not wonder, as they looked at Mr. Hayes, how many more people like him
were out there willing to break all the rules and ruin people.
Elizabeth Burbank, 45, an interior designer from New Haven, said she could not
help wondering how safe she and the people she loved truly were. “The idea of
being invaded while you’re asleep, when you’re vulnerable — we can’t help but
worry about it now,” she said.
She used to work in a prison, Ms. Burbank said, and she thought she had a thick
enough skin to handle this case. But, she said, “Nothing can ever prepare you
for this kind of thing.”
The daily inundation in topics most people do not have to think about took a
toll, said Delores A. Carter, a retired health care worker from Hamden. “It was
life changing,” she said. “You see everything in a whole new light after you’ve
been through something like this.”
As the weeks of testimony went on, the toll on the jurors grew. “The weight just
got heavier and heavier,” said Ian Cassell, 35, of New Haven, who was the jury
foreman in the penalty phase of the trial.
By the time they had agreed on the death verdict, “all the jurors were really
emotional,” Mr. Cassell said. It was a verdict based on the law, he said. “No
one is happy. Nothing is better. Nothing is solved.”
The jurors said that reporters had completely misinterpreted the notes they
handed court officials during deliberations on Friday and Saturday that seemed
to suggest some of them were leaning toward accepting a defense argument that
Mr. Hayes should be spared because of a defense claim that he was mentally
impaired at the time of the crime.
They said those notes had been purely hypothetical, as they tried to work
through confusing legal instructions about the many questions they were required
They said the jurors worked agreeably, and that three or four seemed
particularly upset early in the deliberations at the prospect of voting for an
execution. But they said they spent some of Friday and much of Saturday talking
philosophically about when capital punishment was warranted.
Mr. Gram said the conversation veered broadly and included discussion of whether
society had the right to take a life. In the end, he said, all the jurors agreed
that if there was ever a case in which the death penalty was appropriate, the
Cheshire case was it.
The sentiment was unanimous, he said. “It was just so heinous and just so over
the top and depraved. Here is a case where somebody doesn’t deserve to remain on
the face of the earth.”
After the verdict, most of the jurors met with Dr. William A. Petit Jr., who was
beaten by the intruders and tied up while his wife and daughters were tormented
and killed. After some of the jurors asked for the meeting after the verdict
Monday, court officials quietly arranged for it in an out-of-the-way spot in the
court building where the jurors and Petit family members had crossed paths for
Ms. Keim said the meeting was emotional, with jurors hugging members of the
family, and Dr. Petit and members of the extended family thanking the jurors for
the grueling task they had undertaken.
Ms. Keim said that on the worst days of the trial she had often had a sensation
that she would never be able to do what she wanted to do for the Petits and
their daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, who were killed after the worst
night of their lives.
In the jury box, Ms. Keim said: “I just wanted to hold the girls. I wanted to
take whatever they experienced before they died and take it away. But it wasn’t
in my power.”
Ms. Keim said she would not forget something one of the girls’ grandmothers had
said in the jurors’ meeting with the family members. The elderly woman told the
jurors, “We’re so sorry we had to put you through this.”
Robert Davey and Elizabeth Maker contributed reporting.
Cheshire Case Jurors
Speak on Death Verdict, NYT, 8.11.2010,
Jurors Vote for Death
in Conn. Triple-Murder Case
November 8, 2010
The New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
NEW HAVEN — A jury in Connecticut voted on Monday to impose the death penalty
for a long-time criminal convicted for his role in a home invasion in Cheshire,
Conn., that left a mother and her two daughters dead. The panel had deliberated
just more than three full days.
The jurors stood in the jury box, some looking drawn, as the clerk of the court
read through the long verdict form they had filled out. Some members of the
victims’ family rested their heads on the benches in front of them. The
defendant, Steven J. Hayes, sat motionless at the defense table.
The 2007 crime horrified, fascinated and repelled from the start. It was called
one of the worst in Connecticut history and was compared with the grisly family
murder that was the centerpiece of Truman Capote’s account of a 1959 family
killing in Kansas, “In Cold Blood.”
The details were stark: two habitual criminals invaded the quiet suburban home
of a doctor and his family after spotting them in a shopping center parking lot
the day before. In a night and morning of unimaginable terrors, they beat and
tied up the doctor, forced the mother to withdraw $15,000 from a bank, before
sexually abusing her and her youngest daughter, then strangling the mother and
setting a blaze that killed her two daughters and blackened the home.
The killings brought a searching review of criminal justice and corrections
practices in the state and, particularly during the recent election, came to be
the prism through which the state viewed a debate about the future of the death
Mr. Hayes, a parolee at the time of the 2007 crime, has spent much of his adult
life as a prisoner.
Connecticut provides for execution by lethal injection. But because of appeals,
death penalty lawyers said it would probably be many years before Mr. Hayes
faced execution, if he ever does. A serial killer, Michael Ross, was executed in
Connecticut in 2005 after he decided to forgo further appeals, but he was the
first inmate executed in New England since 1960.
Mr. Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, who has yet to be tried, entered the home of
the Petit family in a bucolic Cheshire neighborhood on July 23, 2007.
By the time they left with a squeal of rubber from the family’s stolen minivan,
the family’s two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, as well as the mother
of the family, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, were dead in a house that had been set
ablaze with gasoline the intruders had spread.
More than three years later, the trial — which began on Sept. 13 — featured
graphic details of the beating of the father, Dr. William A. Petit Jr., who
survived, as well as descriptions of arson, children tied to their beds, the
forced trip to a bank where the mother vainly tried to placate the intruders by
withdrawing $15,000, and sexual assaults of Ms. Hawke-Petit and the younger of
the Petit girls.
But it also featured a catalog of arguments by the defense to try to defeat a
potential death sentence. The claims included assertions that Mr. Hayes “can’t
live with himself,” and was suicidal and remorseful. The defense lawyers also
brought out testimony portraying Mr. Hayes as a klutz of a criminal, while a
witness called by the defense described Mr. Komisarjevsky as “the devil,” a
comparison the defense lawyers fostered through weeks of testimony.
Mr. Komisarkevsky’s prison journals, read into evidence at the request of Mr.
Hayes’s lawyers, made him a central character of Mr. Hayes’s trial, though he
was never present. The journals presented a chilling view of Mr. Komisarjevsky
as a man who thrived on the excitement of the crime and had hoped to kill
himself and Mr. Hayes by crashing into a police roadblock not far from the
Petit’s blazing home.
In excruciating detail, Mr. Komisarjevsky described beating Dr. Petit and
sexually assaulting 11-year old Michaela. He is expected to be tried next year.
The trial was an emotional journey for the jurors, who were sometimes tearful as
they reviewed photographs of the burned bodies and heard testimony about
matter-of-fact confessions made both by Mr. Hayes and Mr. Komisarjevsky. Each
man said the other had taken the night and morning on an unexpected path toward
violence that had not been planned.
Mr. Hayes claimed Mr. Komisarjevsky busied himself trying to send cell-phone
photographs displaying the child he had abused to his friends during the crime.
Mr. Komisarjevsky said Mr. Hayes’s rape and strangulation of Ms. Hawke-Petit
“brought both of us to a whole different level.”
The story of the crime “will break your hearts,” the chief defense lawyer,
Thomas Ullmann, told the jurors in his opening statement at the start of the
Jurors Vote for Death in Conn. Triple-Murder
Case, NYT, 8.11.2010,
Shahzad Gets Life Term
for Times Square Bombing Attempt
October 5, 2010
The New York Times
By MICHAEL WILSON
The defendant came to Federal District Court in Manhattan on Tuesday ready to
ladle out several minutes of anti-American justification for his act of
terrorism in Times Square. But the judge, Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, best known
of late for presiding over Martha Stewart’s trial, came ready, too.
She repeatedly interrupted the defendant, Faisal Shahzad, to spar with him over
his interpretation of the Koran, his invocation of a Muslim warrior in the
Crusades and, above all, the relevance of any of it to the life sentence that
hung over him like the dozen United States deputy marshals who guarded the
prisoner in court.
And after the judge formally sentenced Mr. Shahzad to life in prison, she left
him a parting shot: “I do hope that you will spend some of the time in prison
thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people.”
The six or eight minutes or so of back and forth brought a bit of drama to the
endgame of a case that, as nerve-rattling as it was at its inception, with the
discovery of a potentially lethal bomb in Times Square on May 1, had drawn to a
close with the sentencing on Tuesday.
The hearing was a part-sentencing and part-scolding, and the latter started
before the former. Judge Cedarbaum looked at Mr. Shahzad, seated between
lawyers, his beard thick and his hair long under his white skullcap, and said,
“I think you should get up.”
Mr. Shahzad, 31, rose. He seemed to have aged in the last five months from the
boyish man who was arrested aboard a jet that had been cleared for takeoff at
He asked the judge for 5 or 10 minutes, then launched into a soliloquy that was
at times rambling, at times threatening and delivered with the crinkly-eyed grin
of a man who acted as if he could not be happier than where he was at that
“This is but one life,” he said. “If I am given a thousand lives, I will
sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah, fighting this cause, defending our
lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system.”
He made his one and only reference to his arrest by claiming, for the first
time, that his rights had been denied. Law enforcement officials have said that
immediately following his arrest, on May 3, Mr. Shahzad cooperated, but he said
otherwise on Tuesday.
“On the second day of my arrest, I asked for the Miranda,” he said, referring to
the required notification of his right to counsel. “And the F.B.I. denied it to
me for two weeks” and threatened his wife and children, he said. The judge,
prosecutors and defense lawyers stayed silent as Mr. Shahzad, who has mounted no
substantive defense in his case and who pleaded guilty to all charges against
him on June 21, continued to speak. His lawyer, Philip L. Weinstein, had no
comment on the statements after the hearing.
Mr. Shahzad attacked the American military forces “who have occupied the Muslim
lands,” and said that attacks like his attempted bombing would continue.
“Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun,” he said.
“Consider me only a first droplet of the flood that will follow me.”
He went on about the war and about the “fragile economy” that he said would soon
prove unable to sustain the troops, when Judge Cedarbaum interrupted and asked,
“Do you want to comment in any way in connection with sentence?” He said he was
getting to that, his motivations, when the judge asked, “Didn’t you swear
allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”
He smiled like a boy caught in a fib, and said as much: “I did swear, but I did
not mean it.”
“You took a false oath?”
“Very well. Is there anything else you want to tell me?”
“Sure,” he began, and went on to say, “Blessed be” Osama bin Laden, “who will be
known as no less than Saladin of the 21st-century crusade, and blessed be those
who give him asylum.”
The judge stopped him again. “How much do you know about Saladin, as you called
He is known in the Middle East as Salahuddin al-Ayubi, but commonly known in the
West as Saladin, the Muslim leader who took Jerusalem from the Crusaders in
1187. He is remembered in biographies as being a lover of peace who waged war
“He didn’t want to kill people,” the judge told the defendant.
“He liberated — ” Mr. Shahzad continued.
“He was a very moderate man,” Judge Cedarbaum said. Mr. Shahzad spoke more about
the war in Iraq and said, “If you call us terrorists, then we are proud
terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people
He finished, and it was time for the sentencing by Judge Cedarbaum. “Although
happily, the training you sought in making bombs was unsuccessful and you were
unsuccessful in your effort to kill many Americans,” she said, the facts of the
case “require that you be incarcerated for life.”
She began going through the 10 separate sentences he faced: “I sentence you to
life in prison,” she said.
“Allahu akbar,” he replied. (“God is great.”)
“I understand that you welcome that,” the judge said.
Mr. Shahzad was handcuffed and led away.
Shahzad Gets Life Term
for Times Square Bombing Attempt, NYT, 5.10.2010,
Convictions on 16 Counts
in Triple-Murder Case
October 5, 2010
The New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
NEW HAVEN — A former parolee with a long history as a petty criminal was
convicted of capital crimes on Tuesday for his part in a nighttime home invasion
in Cheshire, Conn., three years ago that left a woman and her two daughters
dead. The jury deliberated less than one full day.
The defendant, Steven J. Hayes, who, the testimony showed, described his eager
anticipation of the crime with an “LOL” — laughing out loud — text message hours
before taking part in murder, rape, kidnapping and assault at the home of the
Petit family, was convicted of 16 of 17 crimes in all; he was acquitted of
Six of the crimes he was convicted of make him eligible for the death penalty.
The same jury that sat during the three-week trial must soon determine, in a
penalty phase that could last a month, whether Mr. Hayes is to be sentenced to
death. The penalty phase is to begin on Oct. 18.
“There is some relief, but my family is still gone,” Dr. William A. Petit Jr.,
whose wife and two daughters were killed, said after the verdict. “It doesn’t
bring them back. It doesn’t bring back the home that we had.”
The testimony in Judge Jon C. Blue’s courtroom in State Superior Court here
showed that Mr. Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, a friend from a Connecticut
halfway house for parolees, entered the house on July 23, 2007; beat and
restrained Dr. Petit, now 53; and wreaked havoc, including the rape and
strangulation of Dr. Petit’s wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48. The two daughters,
Michaela, 11, and Hayley, 17, died of smoke inhalation in a fire the intruders
were accused of setting.
The news that there was a verdict came to the sixth-floor courtroom with a quiet
knock from the jury room door about 12:25 p.m.
In a case featuring extensive evidence, including confessions from the
defendant, there was never much suspense. Still, as the families of Dr. Petit
and his murdered wife filed into the room, there was tension.
After a few preliminaries, the foreman rose and began answering the court
clerk’s questions by repeatedly saying, “Guilty.” He spoke without a tremor, and
without notes. The answer was the same until he reached the 16th of the 17
counts, this one for arson. “Not guilty,” he said.
The jurors, who may not speak publicly until the penalty phase of the case is
complete, offered no explanation.
Finally, the foreman announced a final “guilty” for the last count, the assault
of Dr. Petit with a baseball bat.
Mr. Hayes, 47, stood between his two lawyers, smaller than both of them. He was
convicted of the murders of all three victims, kidnapping, burglary, the rape of
Ms. Hawke-Petit and all six of the capital felony counts he faced.
The judge sent the jurors home with instructions: “Think of yourselves as jurors
in the middle of a trial.” Then the marshals handcuffed Mr. Hayes, and he was
taken out through a side door.
Dr. Petit fought back tears as he huddled with the chief prosecutor, Michael
Dearington. Then, moments later, he emerged from the courthouse into a chill
drizzle with members of his family and his wife’s family lined up behind him.
He was asked how he had the strength to keep going through the court ordeal.
Speaking calmly, and with his father clutching his arm tightly, he looked around
the crowd and said that each of them would do the same thing “if your family was
destroyed by evil.”
The acquittal on the single arson count seemed to perplex the defense lawyers,
Thomas J. Ullmann and Patrick Culligan.
Little more than two hours after they started deliberating on Monday, jurors
sent a note asking the judge to define what it meant in the law to start a fire,
and whether the pouring of gasoline would be considered starting a fire.
Testimony suggested that Mr. Hayes bought gasoline in plastic containers the
morning of the killings and, in a jailhouse confession to another inmate, he
said he had poured gasoline “on the stairs” in the Petit home.
But it was unclear how much of the gasoline may have been spread by Mr.
Komisarjevsky, who still faces trial. The chief prosecutor told the jury that
the evidence suggested Mr. Hayes had started the fire as the two ran from the
Convictions on 16 Counts
in Triple-Murder Case, NYT, 5.10.2010,
Defendant Ignited Fire,
Cheshire Prosecutor Tells Jury
October 1, 2010
The New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
NEW HAVEN — A prosecutor at the trial of one of the two men
accused of invading a home and murdering a woman and her two daughters contended
on Friday for the first time that it was the defendant, Steven J. Hayes, who
ignited the fire that killed the girls.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor, Michael Dearington, reminded jurors of
testimony that Mr. Hayes ran from the house following the other suspect, Joshua
“The last one out is the one who lights the fire,” Mr. Dearington said.
In a courtroom darkened so jurors could see slides of the victims and their home
in Cheshire, Conn., which was ruined by an arson fire after a home invasion,
rape and murder in 2007, Mr. Dearington repeatedly emphasized that no matter how
much of a role Mr. Komisarjevsky had in the crime, Mr. Hayes played a crucial
role and personally committed many of the acts involved.
Mr. Komisarjevsky has been a central focus of Mr. Hayes’s trial, though he has
not been in the courtroom.
The two men face the possibility of the death penalty. Mr. Komisarjevsky is to
be tried later.
Mr. Dearington, speaking unemotionally but somberly, reminded jurors that soon
after his arrest Mr. Hayes told an officer that “things got out of control.”
“It wasn’t ‘things,’ ” he continued. “It was two people acting together.”
Mr. Dearington also reminded the jurors that Mr. Hayes admitted to having had
sex with and then killing the mother of the family, Jennifer Hawke-Petit.
“Hayes had sex — having sex is not the right term — brutally raped” her, the
In his summation, Mr. Hayes’s lawyer, Thomas J. Ullmann, offered a defense that
seemed geared toward saving his client from the death penalty, but not
establishing his innocence, while putting the blame on Mr. Komisarjevsky.
Mr. Ullmann conceded many of the charges against his client, including those
that he raped and killed Ms. Hawke-Petit.
Speaking softly and occasionally shaking his head at the acts his client
committed, he also said Mr. Hayes had committed arson, burglary and larceny.
And Mr. Ullmann conceded that Mr. Hayes took part in the kidnapping of all four
members of the family, including the two girls, Michaela, 11, and Hayley, 17,
who died from smoke inhalation, and their father, Dr. William A. Petit Jr., who
was beaten but survived.
But Mr. Ullmann said that Mr. Komisarjevsky was the one controlling events; he
portrayed Mr. Hayes as someone who never could have committed the crimes.
He said Mr. Hayes had not known that Mr. Komisarjevsky would change what he said
had been their plan: break in, tie up the family, take money and get out.
Instead, Mr. Ullmann argued, Mr. Komisarjevsky changed the plan first by beating
Dr. Petit and then by raping Michaela.
“The psychopath in this case is Joshua Komisarjevsky, not Steven Hayes,” Mr.
“He should pay the price for what he did,” Mr. Ullmann argued about his client,
“but not for what he did not do.”
Connecticut law generally requires what lawyers call “death plus” for a crime to
warrant capital punishment.
As a result, Mr. Hayes could be sentenced to life in prison for killing Ms.
Hawke-Petit, but committing a murder during the course of the rape would be a
Mr. Ullmann argued that the rape of Ms. Hawke-Petit that Mr. Hayes confessed to
might have been separate from his later strangulation of her.
Killing Michaela would make Mr. Hayes eligible for the death penalty because it
is a capital offense under Connecticut law to kill a person who is younger than
Mr. Ullmann devoted a good deal of his remarks to arguing that Mr. Komisarjevsky
had a motive to kill the child: to cover up his sexual assault.
The 12 jurors and 2 remaining alternates were attentive to both arguments. In
keeping with the reserved tone of the lawyers, they appeared unemotional.
A few of them nodded as lawyers for both sides pieced together narratives from
what has often been disjointed, emotional testimony during the three-week trial.
Deliberations are to begin on Monday after the judge, Jon C. Blue of State
Superior Court, gives the jurors legal instructions.
If Mr. Hayes is convicted of capital offenses, the same jury will hear a
separate penalty phase of the trial.
The lawyers for both sides acknowledged the wrenching nature of the case.
Mr. Dearington displayed a family photograph of Ms. Hawke-Petit and her
daughters for the jury on a large screen. But he referred to other photographs
in evidence, like those of burned bodies.
He thanked the jurors for enduring “what has been indescribable evidence.”
Mr. Ullmann said the “the tragedy of this incident has affected us deeply — all
When he claimed that Mr. Hayes had killed Ms. Hawke-Petit “at the behest of” Mr.
Komisarjevsky, Mr. Hayes, who was slumping at the defense table, did not stir.
In the end, Mr. Dearington argued, it did not really matter precisely which
intruder took which action. Both were responsible, he said.
And, he said, both men had a problem because of the series of crimes they had
“The solution was to destroy the house,” the prosecutor said to the jurors,
“and, you may find, the people in it.”
Fire, Cheshire Prosecutor Tells Jury, NYT, 1.10.2010,
Closes Chapter in Arizona Shootings
July 30, 2009
Filed at 3:49 a.m. ET
The New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PHOENIX (AP) -- A sentence of life in prison for one of two men convicted in
a series of random nighttime shootings closes a significant chapter in a case
that unnerved metropolitan Phoenix residents in 2005 and 2006.
A jury decided Wednesday to spare Samuel Dieteman from the death penalty, unlike
his partner in the Serial Shooter case, Dale Hausner. Authorities say the two
preyed on pedestrians, bicyclists and animals in attacks that ended in August
2006 when both men were arrested at the apartment they shared in Mesa.
Hausner received six death sentences in the case earlier this year.
Dieteman, who never asked for leniency and was a key witness against Hausner,
thanked the court for treating him like a human being after the verdict was read
''I'm truly sorry for the pain that I've caused to many, many people,'' said
Dieteman met Hausner in April 2006 -- about nine months after the Serial Shooter
attacks began, and Dieteman's defense attorneys painted him as being Hausner's
Paul Patrick, a victim of the shooting spree who nearly died when Dieteman shot
him as he walked down a street in June 2006, was in the court for the verdict
and said he agreed with it.
''It's not a cause to celebrate; a mother just lost a son, and children lost
their father,'' he said of Dieteman's family. ''No hatred for the family. Too
much time has been wasted on that.''
Patrick said if there is such a thing as closure for him, the verdict is ''the
closest thing to it.''
Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill, who also was in court, said the verdict
was the culmination of four years of pain and suffering for the victims in the
case and their family members.
''This is a closure,'' he said. ''The verdict, we think is just. Without the
forthrightness of Sam Dieteman coming forward we might not have had a verdict
Dieteman, who had been charged with murdering two people and attacking 14
others, had admitted to fatally shooting 20-year-old Claudia Gutierrez-Cruz in
Scottsdale in May 2006 and assisting in the deadly shooting of 22-year-old Robin
Blasnek in July 2006 as she walked from her parents' home to her boyfriend's
house in Mesa.
Testimony at Dieteman's sentencing trial included a written apology from
Dieteman to Patrick, in which he said he would make ''no cries for mercy.'' He
also said he regretted his actions, including not turning in Hausner to
authorities when he first learned of the shootings.
''There's so many things I would change back then,'' he told jurors.
Ulysses Fuentes, one of the jurors who decided to spare Dieteman's life, said he
initially wanted to sentence him to death.
''I felt that what he had done was just irresponsible and there was just no
excuse for that,'' said Fuentes, a 19-year-old customer service representative
He said he didn't feel sympathy for Dieteman. ''Mercy would be a better term.''
Doug Budner, the jury foreman, said he also wanted the death penalty at first.
''The way I was brought up was an eye is for an eye, but as you go into the jury
room, then you start seeing evidence unfold in front of you, you have to really
listen and really dissect all the information out there and from there make an
educated decision,'' said the 53-year-old aircraft mechanic of Phoenix. ''We
know we came up with the most lawful decision.''
Prosecutors had sought the death penalty for Dieteman. They painted him as a
drifter who was a willing participant, pulling the trigger and serving as
Investigators said their big break came when one of Dieteman's drinking buddies,
Ron Horton, called police to say that Dieteman had bragged about shooting
people. ''They called it 'RV'ing.' Random Recreational Violence,'' Horton told
The Associated Press in a 2006 interview. Horton died last year.
During Hausner's trial, Dieteman said Hausner professed a hatred for prostitutes
and homeless people as they looked for victims in areas frequented by
streetwalkers. Dieteman said Hausner never explained why he wanted to shoot
In describing one shooting, Dieteman said he and Hausner found humor at the
sight of one of their seriously injured victims, who held his stomach and
The Serial Shooter case was one of two serial murder investigations that put
Phoenix-area residents on edge during the summer of 2006. Police attributed 23
more attacks, including nine slayings, to an assailant dubbed the Baseline
Life Sentence Closes
Chapter in Arizona Shootings, NYT, 30.9.2009,
in MySpace Suicide Case
The New York Times
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
— A federal jury here issued what legal experts said was the country’s first
cyberbullying verdict Wednesday, convicting a Missouri woman of three
misdemeanor charges of computer fraud for her involvement in creating a phony
account on MySpace to trick a teenager, who later committed suicide.
The jury deadlocked on a fourth count of conspiracy against the woman, Lori
Drew, 49, and the judge, George H. Wu of Federal District Court, declared a
mistrial on that charge.
Although it was unclear how severely Ms. Drew would be punished — the jury
reduced the charges to misdemeanors from felonies, and no sentencing date was
set — the conviction was highly significant, computer fraud experts said,
because it was the first time that a federal statute designed to combat computer
crimes was used to prosecute what were essentially abuses of a user agreement on
a social networking site.
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Ms. Drew could face up to three years in
prison and $300,000 in fines, though she has no previous criminal record. Her
lawyer has asked for a new trial.
In a highly unusual move, Thomas P. O’Brien, the United States attorney in Los
Angeles, prosecuted the case himself with two subordinates after law enforcement
officials in Missouri determined Ms. Drew had broken no local laws.
Mr. O’Brien, who asserted jurisdiction on the ground that MySpace is based in
Los Angeles, where its servers are housed, said the verdict sent an
“overwhelming message” to users of the Internet.
“If you are going to attempt to annoy or go after a little girl and you’re going
to use the Internet to do so,” he said, “this office and others across the
country will hold you responsible.”
During the five-day trial, prosecutors portrayed Ms. Drew as working in concert
with her daughter, Sarah, who was then 13, and Ashley Grills, a family friend
and employee of Ms. Drew’s magazine coupon business in Dardenne Prairie, Mo.
Testimony showed that they created a teenage boy, “Josh Evans,” as an identity
on MySpace to communicate with Sarah’s nemesis, Megan Meier, who was 13 and had
a history of depression and suicidal impulses.
After weeks of online courtship with “Josh,” Megan was distressed one afternoon
in October 2006, according to testimony at the trial, when she received an
e-mail message from him that said, “The world would be a better place without
Ms. Grills, who is now 20, testified under an immunity agreement that shortly
after that message was sent, Megan wrote back, “You’re the kind of boy a girl
would kill herself over.” Megan hanged herself that same afternoon in her
Although the jury appeared to reject the government’s contention that Ms. Drew
had intended to harm Megan — a notion underlying the felony charges — the
convictions signaled the 12 members’ belief that she had nonetheless violated
federal laws that prohibit gaining access to a computer without authorization.
Specifically, the jury found Ms. Drew guilty of accessing a computer without
authorization on three occasions, a reference to the fraudulent postings on
MySpace in the name of Josh Evans.
Legal and computer fraud experts said the application of the federal Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, passed in 1986 and amended several times, appeared to be
expanding with technology and the growth of social networking on the Internet.
More typically, prosecutions under the act have involved people who hack into
“Keep in mind that social networking sites like MySpace did not exist until
recently,” said Nick Akerman, a New York lawyer who has written and lectured
extensively on the act. “This case will be simply another important step in the
expanded use of this statute to protect the public from computer crime.”
Other computer fraud experts said they found the verdict chilling.
“As a result of the prosecutor’s highly aggressive, if not unlawful, legal
theory,” said Matthew L. Levine, a former federal prosecutor who is a defense
lawyer in New York, “it is now a crime to ‘obtain information’ from a Web site
in violation of its terms of service. This cannot be what Congress meant when it
enacted the law, but now you have it.”
Ms. Drew, who showed little emotion during the trial, sat stone-faced as the
clerk read the jury’s verdict and left the courtroom quickly, her face red and
twisted with rage.
Her lawyer, H. Dean Steward, said outside the courthouse that he believed the
trial was grandstanding by Mr. O’Brien in an effort to keep his job, with the
coming change in the White House.
“I don’t have any satisfaction at all,” Mr. Steward said of the verdict.
Judge Wu scheduled a hearing on the request for a new trial for late December.
Since the story surrounding the suicide became public last year, Mr. O’Brien has
discussed with his staff how his feelings as a parent motivated him to bring the
charges against Ms. Drew. He alluded to those feelings on Wednesday at a news
“This was obviously a case that means a lot to me,” he said.
The case has been a collection of anomalies. Judge Wu appeared ambivalent
regarding some key issues at the trial, like whether any testimony about Megan’s
suicide would be allowed (he did allow it) and how to rule on a defense motion
to throw out the charges (he had not ruled as of Wednesday).
Judge Wu was appointed to the federal bench less than two years ago, and it is
difficult to establish his sentencing record. But Mr. Akerman, the computer
fraud expert, said jail time was common even for first-time offenders in
computer fraud cases.
“If I were her,” he said of Ms. Drew, “I would not be celebrating over the
Tina Meier, Megan’s mother, said in a news conference after the verdict that she
hoped Ms. Drew would serve jail time, and that she felt satisfied.
“This day is not any harder than the day when I found Megan,” Ms. Meier said.
“This has never been about vengeance. This is about justice. For me it’s
absolutely worth it every single day sitting in that court hoping there was
Verdict in MySpace Suicide Case, NYT, 27.11.2008,
Killer Suspect Gets 438 Years
Filed at 6:02 a.m. ET
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
(AP) -- A man accused of being the Phoenix Baseline Killer was sentenced to 438
years in prison Friday for the sexual assaults of two sisters. Mark Goudeau
still faces trial for the slayings of eight women and a man in 2005-2006, and
faces a possible death sentence if he is convicted. He has pleaded not guilty.
The 43-year-old former construction worker was sentenced for his September
conviction on charges of raping one woman and sexually attacking another as they
walked home from a park.
During the two-month trial, both sisters identified Goudeau as their attacker.
DNA evidence also linked him to the rape.
Goudeau has maintained his innocence, and told Maricopa County Superior Court
Judge Andrew Klein that what happened to the two young women was horrible, ''but
I had nothing to do with it.''
Klein said before handing down the sentence that Goudeau must have two
''diametrically opposed'' personalities, one calm and respectful in court and
the other sociopathic and brutal.
One of the victims told the judge Friday through an interpreter that she still
wakes up crying at times: ''I will hope for him to never get out.''
The Associated Press has not identified the woman because she is the victim of
Prosecutors had said earlier that Goudeau faced a maximum of 285 years in
prison. But Deputy County Attorney Suzanne Cohen proved a prior violent record
in court Friday that made him eligible for the higher sentences.
Goudeau is suspected of being a serial predator known as the ''Baseline
Killer,'' named for the south Phoenix street where many of the early attacks
He is the first of three suspected serial killers to go on trial for a rash of
random attacks that terrorized the Phoenix area for more than a year. All three
were arrested last year.
Dale Hausner and Samuel Dieteman were arrested in the so-called ''Serial
Shooter'' case in August 2006 and are expected to go on trial next year. Hausner
faces seven murder counts and Dieteman is charged with two. Their trial is
expect to begin next year.
Baseline Killer Suspect Gets 438 Years, NYT, 15.12.2007,
Convicted child molester gets 800 years
1:03 AM ET
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — The former roommate of one of the
nation's most prolific child molesters was sentenced
Friday to at least 800 years in prison for sexually abusing three boys.
Fred Everts, 36, was convicted
last year of molesting the youngsters, ages 3, 9 and 11. He was sentenced to
800 years to life.
Police discovered the crimes two years ago while investigating Dean Arthur
Schwartzmiller, who authorities say may have molested hundreds of youngsters
over decades and kept detailed logs on the children.
Schwartzmiller, 65, was sentenced in January to 152 years in prison for abusing
two 12-year-old boys. He and Everts had met in prison on earlier molestation
charges and eventually moved in together in San Jose.
Steve Fein, who prosecuted both men, said Everts admitted molesting about 40
children, including his 3-month-old biological son. He asked for the maximum
sentence of 1,175 years to life.
Everts' sentence was compounded under California's three-strikes law because of
two felony convictions in Oregon in 1993 for sodomy and sexual abuse on his
In asking for leniency, defense lawyer Steven Woodson asked the judge to
disregard the previous two felonies and consider his client's admission to the
crimes and cooperation with investigators.
molester gets 800 years, UT, 10.2.2007,
Struggle for Jurors
Filed at 2:43 p.m. ET
The New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Byrne was making a quick trip to the grocery store to buy some cheese when a
sheriff approached her car in the parking lot and slipped something through her
Byrne didn't get the cheese, but she did get a jury summons.
The 64-year-old woman was ordered to report for jury duty a little more than an
hour later at the Lee County courthouse in Sanford, N.C. When Byrne protested,
the sheriff told her: ''Be there or you'll be in contempt.''
''I wasn't too happy,'' said Byrne, one of at least a dozen people handed
summonses at random in March outside a Food Lion and Wal-Mart.
Courts across the country have been going to extraordinary lengths in recent
years to get people to report for jury duty -- a cornerstone of democracy and a
civic responsibility that many citizens would do almost anything to avoid.
Experts say the shirking of jury duty has been a problem as long as anyone can
remember, and it is unclear whether it has gotten any worse in the past few
decades. But according to one study, fewer than half of all Americans summoned
report for duty, in part because of apathy and busy lifestyles.
''Everybody likes jury duty -- just not this week,'' said Patricia Lee Refo, a
Phoenix lawyer who chaired the American Jury Project, an effort by the American
Bar Association to increase jury participation.
Among other efforts around the country to boost participation:
-- In Los Angeles County, officials have put ads promoting jury service on the
court system's mail trucks. They read: ''Jury Service: You Be the Judge.''
-- In New York state, occupational exemptions to jury service have been
eliminated, so doctors, lawyers, firefighters, police officers and even judges
can no longer get out of jury duty.
-- In Florida, court officials use a poster of Harrison Ford, star of the movie
''Presumed Innocent,'' to encourage people to report for jury duty. The poster
was part of a 2005 public service campaign developed by the ABA. ''If a picture
of Harrison Ford helps us be a more democratic society, then I'm all for it,''
said Greg Cowan, a court official in Leon County, Fla.
-- In Washington, D.C., judges have summoned no-shows to court, where they must
explain why they missed their date or face up to seven days in jail and a $300
fine. In Tulare County, Calif., sheriffs go to the homes of no-shows and hand
them orders to appear in court to explain themselves.
-- Around the country, some courts have tried to make jury service less
burdensome by raising daily fees paid to jurors, limiting jury service to one
day or one trial, and reimbursing jurors for parking costs.
Nationally, about 46 percent of people summoned for jury duty show up, according
to a survey of jury improvement efforts conducted by the National Center for
State Courts and published in April. It was the organization's first such
Many of the rest did not show up or were excused or disqualified for a variety
of reasons, including medical or financial hardship, or employment in a job
exempt from jury service. Or, they never received their jury summons because it
was mailed to an outdated address.
Ann Blakely, the clerk of Superior Court in North Carolina's Lee County, said
sending out sheriffs to find jurors at random is done very rarely, and only when
a judge is about to begin a case and there are not enough jurors.
''Not again in my lifetime, I hope,'' she said. ''We got a lot of complaints
from people. You do not make friends like that.''
Some people struggle mightily to get out of jury duty. Earlier this month, a
Cape Cod, Mass., judge reprimanded a potential juror and reported him to
prosecutors after he tried to get out of jury service by saying he was ''not a
fan of homosexuals and most blacks'' and was ''frequently found to be a liar,
In Manhattan, about 33 percent of those summoned show up the day they are called
-- up from 23 percent in the mid-1990s, before widespread reforms were put in
place, including the elimination of all occupational exemptions and the use of
five different lists to pick potential jurors from, including voter
registrations, licensed drivers, taxpayers, unemployment and aid recipients,
said Anthony Manisero, statewide jury manager.
In Boston, about 24 percent of the people called for jury duty in 2006 completed
their service before the end of the year -- an improvement from less than 20
percent in the mid-1990s, before the city began updating its address lists.
Nevertheless, the juror shortage in Boston has become so acute that court
officials are worried they may run out of jurors before the end of the year.
An increase in the number of homicides in Boston and the use of special grand
juries to investigate violent crimes have eaten into the prospective juror list.
The city also has a large number of immigrants, who are exempt from jury duty,
and college students, who move so frequently that their summonses are often sent
back as undeliverable.
The problem appears to be worse in urban courts, where the population is more
transient and address lists can quickly become outdated. But rural and suburban
areas also have problems with reluctant jurors.
In Tulare County, Calif., where the trial of two brothers accused of murdering
five people in a bar had to be delayed a day because not enough prospective
jurors showed up, Superior Court Judge Lloyd Hicks said the warning letters and
visits from the sheriff are making a difference. He said the no-show rate has
declined from about 56 percent to 39 percent since the crackdown began about a
''It had been a common problem because people were aware that nothing would
happen to them,'' Hicks said. Now, people are calling in to schedule their jury
service after watching their neighbors get a visit from the sheriff, he said.
Courts Struggle for Jurors, NYT, 27.7.2007,
Utah man gets six years to life for
Tue Jun 7, 2005
1:33 AM ET
By James Nelson
SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - A Utah man who
confessed to killing his pregnant wife to try and cover up his own lies about
his education and plans to become a doctor was sentenced to six years to life
in prison on Monday.
Mark Hacking, 29, who appeared in court hand-cuffed and wearing a bullet-proof
vest amid tight security, broke down in tears, saying he was "tormented" by the
He pleaded guilty in April to shooting his wife Lori while she slept and then
throwing the body into the garbage.
"She was the greatest thing that ever happened to me, but I killed her and put
her and my unborn child in the garbage. And I can't explain why I did it," he
said in a hearing before the sentence was handed down.
The sentence was the only one that Judge Denise Lindberg could hand down
under state guidelines but she called Hacking "the poster child for
Lindberg said a parole board would determine how long Hacking would serve
but said she would recommend he stay in prison a "very, very long time."
The murder drew international attention when Lori Hacking, 27, was reported
missing July 19 by her husband who told police she had never returned from a
Police quickly focused on Mark Hacking as a suspect.
Shortly before the murder Hacking had told friends and family he had been
accepted to a medical school. Records later showed he had not graduated from
In October police found Lori Hacking's badly decomposed body in a landfill. They
were unable to determine if she was pregnant at the time of her death, a factor
that deterred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty.
Lori's mother, Thelma Soares, told the judge since her daughter's death she had
received correspondence and gifts from concerned people in every state in
America and 63 nations.
"Mark's infamy extends well beyond the borders of Utah," she said. "He killed my
daughter and grandchild and then threw them in the trash with the intent that
they never be found and that I never know what happened to them. Those acts
constitute the very epitome of depraved indifference."
"I can't think of one good reason why Mark should ever walk free again," Soares
told the judge.
Several members of the Hacking family made statements to the judge including
Mark's brother Scott Hacking. "We will continue to love Mark and pray for him,"
man gets six years to life for killing wife, R, Tue Jun 7, 2005 1:33 AM ET,
miscarriage of justice
USA > Constitution /
Supreme Court / law / legislation
USA > justice
USA > police / justice > charges
justice > prosecution
USA > justice > first court appearance
USA > justice
> bond / bail hearing
> justice > indictment
USA > justice
justice > settlement
USA > justice > trial
USA > justice
> evidence, exhibit, testimony, witness
USA > justice
> justice > appeal
justice > death penalty
USA > prison
> military justice