NO. CRO7-241859 SUPERIOR COURT ‘STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. OF NEW HAVEN STEVEN HAYES : OCTOBER 8, 2010 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRODUCE EXPERT TESTIMONY IN PENALTY PHASE Pursuant to Conn, Practice Book section 40-26, Conn. Gen, Stat. §532-46a(d) and the defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights to present a defense, the defendant intends to introduce expert testimony and evidence in regard to the following issues: 1) The cost of imposing and carrying out a death sentence far exceeds the cost of a sentence of life without the possibility of release. The defense is prepared to call Dr. James Austin, Ph.D, in cegard to this issue. ‘The purpose and relevance of this evidence would be threefold a) as a potential mitigating factor. ») the defendant has made a continuous offer to plead guilty to all charges in exchange for a sentence of life without the possibility of release, The economic comparison has been one of the grounds cited in support of such plea. ©) to counter the popular assumption that the cost of executing someone saves the state money in comparing to imposing a life sentence without the possibility of release, a discussion likely to arise during deliberations regarding the appropriate sentence to impose.2) A violence risk assessment of Steven Hayes regarding prison adjustment which will include conditions of confinement, The defense is prepared to call Dr. Mark Cunningham, Ph.D. in regard to this issue. ‘The purpose and retevance of this evidence would be to establish: @) a potential mitigating factor. ) To counter the popular assumption that imprisonment for a violent crime leads to violence during the term of imprisonment. Should the state file a motion in opposition to this notice, counsel will file a memorandum of law in support of admissibility, Respectfully submitted, Thomas Ullmann Public Defender Chief of Capital Défense & Trial ServicesNO. CR7-2417859 : SUPERTOR COURT, PART A STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN v. STEVEN HAYES : OCTOBER 8, 2010 MOTION IN LIMINE ‘The State of Connecticut moves to exclude evidence pertaining to the costs of execution in the pénalty phase of the above matter. Connecticut General Statutes Sections (b) and (4) states that the court shall conduct a separate hearing to determine the existence of any mitigating factor concerning the defendant's character, background and history, or the nature and cizcumstances of the crime, Evidence of the costs of execution is irrelevant and not mitigation evidence and such cost/benefit analysis of the death penalty is a matter of public policy for the legislature State v. Kayer, 984 P. 2d.31,48(1999); State v, Black, 8158. W, 2d 166, 179(1991); State v. Clay, 9758. W, 2d 121,142(1998); Lockett v. Ohio 438 U.S.586,604(1978), stare 5 OF fom, BY, Laces Lo Le CARY NICHOLSON “Senor < SENIOR ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEYThereby certify that 2 copy of the foregoing was served to all counsel of record via hand deliv Asst class mail, and/or facsimile transmission on this 8th day of October, 2010. Tomes Ullmann Public Defender New Haven Judicial District 235 Church Street ‘New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Patrick Culligan Chief of Capital Defense & Trial Services Office of the Public Defender 30 Trinity Street, 4° Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Jeremiah Donovan, Esquire 123 Elm Street P.O, Box 554 Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 06475 Todd A. Bussert A. Esquire Law Office of Todd A. Bussert 103 Whitney Avenue Suite 4 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Walter Bansley Ill, Esquire Bansley Law Offices 237 Orange Street New Haven, Connecticut 06510 ‘NICHOLSO} SENIOR ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY