Cheshire Home-Invasion Killer Re-sentenced to Life in Prison

by Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 24, 2017

Criminal Criminal  Felony 

Summary: Article on the re-sentencing of the Cheshire home invasion killer.

For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In a brief court hearing Tuesday that stood in sharp contrast to his emotionally charged 2012 death sentencing, Cheshire home invasion killer Joshua Komisarjevsky was sentenced to life in prison for the 2007 killings of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Hayley and Michaela.

As his three trial attorneys looked on from the courtroom gallery, Komisarjevsky, 35, turned down a chance to speak and faced, for a second time, sentencing by Superior Court Judge Jon C. Blue, who appeared to acknowledge the sparing tone of what was once a sensational moment in the history of criminal trials in Connecticut.

"Mr. Komisarjevsky, as you know, there have been extensive sentencing remarks previously both by members of the Petit family and people associated with you," Blue said. "I think under those circumstances, I don't need to say anymore. Obviously your crimes were the most extraordinary severity imaginable and it seems to me under these circumstances, the most severe sentence allowed by law should be imposed."

That most severe sentence — pushed by the prosecutor, Gary Nicholson — amounted to six consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release. Nicholson told Blue that members of the Petit family, including Hawke-Petit's husband and the girls' father, William Petit Jr., chose not to attend Tuesday's hearing.

Petit also did not attend the June 14 resentencing of Steven Hayes, Komisarjevsky's accomplice in the home invasion. Hayes, convicted of the crime in 2010, was also resentenced to six consecutive life sentences without the chance for release.

Jeremiah Donovan, one of Komisarjevsky's attorneys, said Komisarjevsky's parents, Benedict and Jude Komisarjevsky, who were present at their son's 2011 trial, did not go Tuesday because his father is ill.

After the hearing, Donovan said he was thankful that the Supreme Court decided to take the state's 11 formerly condemned inmates off of death row.

Connecticut legislators abolished the death penalty in April 2012 but made the law prospective, meaning it applied only to new cases and kept in place the death sentences already imposed before the bill was passed. The provision was added after the high-profile trials of Hayes and Komisarjevsky during which horrific details of the crime became public.

Trial testimony showed the men tied up and tortured the family as they ransacked the Petit home for cash and valuables. Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted Michaela, 11, and Hayes raped and strangled Hawke-Petit. The house was doused with gasoline and set on fire. Hayley, 17, and Michaela died of smoke inhalation. Petit survived but was severely wounded.

Still, attorneys for those on death row kept pressing for their clients and challenged the 2012 law, saying it violated the condemned inmates' constitutional rights. Critics of capital punishment also argued that the death penalty laws were impractical and that executions were rarely carried out, noting that Connecticut had only executed two men in more than five decades and only because the men had chosen to end their appeals.

In August 2015, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that capital punishment should be banned for all defendants, saying in the majority decision that Connecticut's death penalty no longer comported with societal values and served no valid purpose as punishment. The justices affirmed their decision with another ruling in May.

On the day the Supreme Court released its decision, Donovan said he and the other members of the defense team, Walter C. Bansley III and Todd Bussert, traveled to death row to visit Komisarjevsky.

"That was one of the more memorable experiences of my life," Donovan said. "It wasn't particularly emotional. None of us broke down crying… it was just knowing that someone that we had come to care for wasn't going to be killed by the state. It was a very strong emotional experience for all three of us and of course for the person who might have been killed."

Donovan said when a defense attorney has a client on death row, it's "a heavy burden on your life," one "you think about it all the time. Boy, does it feel good to have that burden lifted off me."

Both Hayes and Komisarjevsky filed appeals of their convictions. Hayes' appellate attorneys were scheduled to appear before the Supreme Court on July 13 but the hearing was canceled after Hayes withdrew his appeal.

Komisarjevsky is moving ahead with his appeal, which involves questions about Cheshire police calls from the morning of the home invasion that were not turned over to defense attorneys at the time of Komisarjevsky's trial. Attorneys said the calls could have been used as defense evidence challenging the credibility of police witnesses who testified against Komisarjevsky.

Last month, Hawke-Petit's sister, Cindy Renn, testified before Judge Blue that she received an email that contained numerous detailed police dispatch calls from the morning of the slayings. She testified that she deleted the email and did not keep a copy of it.

Renn has criticized the Cheshire police response that day, claiming officers were outside the home for an "ungodly amount of time" while her sister and two nieces were being killed.

Blue, who must decide whether details of the email Renn said she received should be part of Komisarjevsky's appeal, said Tuesday while he still needs to prepare a report on his findings regarding the police calls, after weighing the evidence, he could "not find on the basis of the evidence presented before me that … such a call existed. I think that the most we have here is what they call reasonable suspicion."

Blue said he did not know where the email came from. "I don't know if it was from somebody who made it up or whatever. I just don't know. It's just guesswork," Blue said.

John Holdridge, one of the attorneys handling Komisarjevsky's appeal, disagreed, saying Renn's testimony is sufficient circumstantial evidence that the email existed. He said that the Cheshire police have a history of withholding calls.

"Our position is the state should not get away with suppressing the truth by not turning over this call when we have a witness who has the utmost credibility," Holdridge said.

It was not clear Tuesday when Blue expected to complete the report on his findings.

Komisarjevsky is the third of the formerly condemned to be resentenced. In addition to Hayes, Russell Peeler Jr. was resentenced on June 30 to life in prison without the possibility of release for ordering the January 1999 killings in Bridgeport of Karen Clarke, and her 8-year-old son, B.J. Brown.

B.J. and his mother were slated to testify against Peeler at trial for a 1997 killing.

Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. atJMaya@Mayalaw.com.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- 
Alaine Griffin, Cheshire Killer Komisarjevsky Resentenced To Life Without Release, The Hartford Courant, July 26, 2016, available at http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-joshua-komisarjevsky-cheshire-home-invasion-killer-resentencing-0726-20160726-story.html

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.