In my last post, I suggested Stephen Hayes's offer to plead guilty to Capital Felony Murder in New Haven Superior Court without the benefit of a plea bargain is not necessarily a bad trial strategy. Let me explain.
In Connecticut, a capital felony death penalty trial proceeds in two phases. Phase 1 deals with whether the defendant committed the murder--referred to as the guilt (or innocence) phase. Phase 2 deals with whether the defendant should be sentenced to death--referred to as the penalty phase. Obviously if the jury decides the defendant did not commit the murders, the case stops at the end of Phase 1. But if the case proceeds to Phase 2, according to General Statute ยง 53a-46a, the same jury that found the defendant guilty, will then decide whether the defendant should get the death penalty.
Because the same jury would decide both guilt and punishment, it might actually be a good trial strategy to plead guilty in Phase 1--if the ultimate goal is to avoid the death penalty. Sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that it would not only be futile to contest guilt but also detrimental. Why?
As I tell the law students in my Trial Advocacy classes at UConn Law School, trials are about morality and credibility. As a criminal defense trial lawyer--indeed as any type of trial lawyer--you always need to be credible, honest, and straight. You need the jury to trust and believe in you.
If the evidence is overwhelming, both the criminal defense trial lawyer and the defendant will lose credibility if they fight too much during Phase 1. And that will hurt in Phase 2 because the defense lawyer will need to literally plead for his or her client's life. And if ever there were a time that a lawyer needs credibility it will be when he or she says--through word and deed--"Believe me, this man's life is worth sparing."
But how will the jury feel about that defense lawyer and the defendant at that point if during Phase 1 they put the victims' family and the jurors through week after week of overwhelming and horrific testimony and images? I believe the jury will be thinking "Wait a minute. You're the same lawyer who said during Phase 1 that your client was not guilty even though the evidence was overwhelming. Why should I believe you now when you say your client's life is worth sparing?"
And what about the defendant? Often, the defendant in a death penalty case will take the stand during the penalty phase and proclaim remorse. But that proclamation will likely fall on deaf ears as the jury will be thinking (and feeling): "If you truly and sincerely felt remorse, you wouldn't have put the victims' family and us through all that evidence and tried to get away with it during Phase 1. So here, have a one-way ticket to hell."
Now I need to make a disclosure here. Even though I have been a Connecticut criminal defense lawyer since 1983 and have handled numerous murder cases, I have never handled a death penalty case. So maybe I am all wrong here in thinking that sometimes it is actually a better strategy to admit guilt in Phase 1 to preserve credibility for Phase 2. But I doubt it. In fact, the death penalty statute even provides for situations where a defendant will do just that: plead guilty during Phase 1 and move right to Phase 2.
