The Komisarjevsky Defense used two pre-emptory challenges to ban two jurors that the prosecution had questioned and approved for the upcoming capital murder trial of Joshua Komisarjevsky, now 30, a native of Cheshire Connecticut himself.
Pre-emptory challenges are challenges that defense lawyers don't want to use up, particularly right off the bat, ie at the start of selection process because each side only is allowed so many per the entire jury selection; every state varies, but it is in effect, a court approved way of saying " I don't have to give a reason, I just don't want that juror on our jury, (because I have a sneaking suspicion that they will wind up "identifying with the prosecution et al and therefore probably vote to convict)
Now since conviction is a given here, it will be more about the lawyers sense of whether that potential juror will go on to vote to sentence their client to death during the "penalty phase"and I don't want, nor usually have a valid reason to offer up as they typically do for no pre-emptory challenges, meaning potential jurors that they reject for one legitimate sounding reason or another. An example would be that potential juror was a victim of a violent crime themselves and admit or even don't admit that they cannot be objective in choosing the guilt or fate of this defendant.
Pre-emptory challenges are challenges that defense lawyers don't want to use up, particularly right off the bat, ie at the start of selection process because each side only is allowed so many per the entire jury selection; every state varies, but it is in effect, a court approved way of saying " I don't have to give a reason, I just don't want that juror on our jury, (because I have a sneaking suspicion that they will wind up "identifying with the prosecution et al and therefore probably vote to convict)
Now since conviction is a given here, it will be more about the lawyers sense of whether that potential juror will go on to vote to sentence their client to death during the "penalty phase"and I don't want, nor usually have a valid reason to offer up as they typically do for no pre-emptory challenges, meaning potential jurors that they reject for one legitimate sounding reason or another. An example would be that potential juror was a victim of a violent crime themselves and admit or even don't admit that they cannot be objective in choosing the guilt or fate of this defendant.
That would be a case for a simple voire dire rejection by said defense attorney-and in this example they have a pretty good case, although a good prosecutor could force the defense to use a pre-emptory on this potential juror considering Connecticut uses voire dire and thus the potential jurors are questioned exhaustively in front of both sides and the judge. And thus, if the person who had been a victim answers honestly and adamantly that they can and will be objective, no matter whats happened in their past, that prosecutor could force the hand if he made a good case to the presiding judge and make the lawyer use up" one of his few pre-emptory challenges.
I personally believe that there should be no pre-emptory challenges allowed. You should have to have a reason for saying I don't want that juror. This isn't a board game after all.
The Voire dire process, as it's known, is conducted individually in Connecticut, whereas in some states, defense and prosecution( The State) questions potential jurors in small groups, of 4 - 5 after a long comprehensive explanation to the entire prospective group of jurors, what exactly is expected of them and what will indeed happen within the questioning - IE selection process.
They are told that although they might be asked if they are inherently against the death penalty, are they still capable of sentencing this defendant to it proving the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that indeed he is guilty of at least one capital crime because this is the law in the state of Connecticut for capital offenses. Now komisarjevsky a man who spent his entire life since 14 or earlier, breaking into other peoples homes, usually while they were home.
He is famous for bragging to friends, girlfriends, parole pals and even policemen, that his preference was that the home-owners be there when he broke in, this was needed for him to experience the thrill of crossing into their terrain right under their noses unbenowst to them! This man is charged in fact of a gaggle of capital crimes which he committed one evening/morning at the home of the Petit family.
Although he dragged along an accomplice, Mr Hayes, as a necessity as physical back-up was needed to ensure that he got what he came for,(11 year old Michaela Petit) the crimes originated in Joshua Komisarjevsky's mind: he targeted the 11 year old and bragged about it, even talking about it to some degree, within a book, written during the 3 year wait after the murders. The book we knew and later was verified via hayes trial was half truth half fiction. It written largely via letters from the inmate to the author brian Macdonald, and a few interviews that he managed to sneak in prison. (Remember there was a gag order on the case and this book" was a typical obscene gesture of komisarjevsky to all things akin to rules or regs)
Of course it was self serving and attempted to place the entire capital crime responsibility at the feet of h is accomplice, this is nonsense as he also admits to choosing the target at the stop and shop that night and "liking the way the young Petit girl looked" The writer Macdonald later admitted that Komisarjevsky was the most manipulative person he'd ever met-this after the fact from the Hayes trial showed up much of Komisarjevky's claims esp re criminal cupablity, on Hayes) Forensics Dna and witness testimony proved Komisarjevsky lied to Macdonald again and again, only during the parts that mattered most.
The important parts of the crimes, the murders, sexual assaults, the pre meditation have borne out to prove that komisarjevsky lied when he said he didn't rape Michaela, in the Steven Hayes trial the citizens of Connecticut were made to relive the pain and trauma ten-fold during that trial, as many many details regarding the home invasion, were finally spoken about and revealed via the press, as the Gag order that had been on the case for for three plus years was naturally voided. The truth was what many of us believed and what some of us feared might be the worst.
As the Jury selection for Joshua komisarjevsky continues we the watchful caring public, will have a slight advantage, now knowing some of the worst of the brutality, cruelty and violence that took place in the Petit family home against William, Jennifer Hayley and little Michaela Petit. We have cried for them we have prayed for them and we have demanded Justice for them.
This trial is twice as important to me personally as I have studied the crimes the lives of the victims and the perpetrators, and like many other profilers, both of the professional and armchair variety, I recognize the evil that is one Joshua Komisarjevsky. And I warn all that this trial will likely be an uglier experience, the pre-trial effects already have been and this is largely because the defendant and his attorneys are without a doubt ten times worse as far as the lengths they will go to and their own ability to lie to themselves in the process, no matter how many other souls they try to denigrate in the name of a "vigorous defense. In other words, thier committment to evil. No matter how you try to pretty it up, that is exactly what it is.
May we stand together, all of us, who want for Justice and comfort for the Petit families. We stand with the light of God upon us, therefore there is nothing we cannot do.
