about 2 years ago - 10 comments
In my post discussing the demise of Miranda, I approvingly quoted the author’s mention of videotaping confessions as a possible solution. Scott writes today and warns us not to get too invested in videotaped confessions and why they may not be the answer. He is correct in that videotaped confessions are not very helpful and
about 2 years ago - 2 comments
Apparently, scientists have developed a new tool to “freeze” crime scene memories. The tool – a self-administered interview applied by witnesses at crime scenes – combats natural memory decay by using the latest research in cognitive psychology techniques. It ‘freezes’ images and details of crime scenes and perpetrators in the minds of witnesses, particularly small
about 2 years ago - No comments
Would you believe it? Two reversals in two weeks! Two! The Appellate Court yesterday reversed a conviction on the grounds that a Motion to Suppress should have been granted on an issue, apparently, of first impression in Connecticut. We conclude that the defendant was unlawfully detained, that his consent to search the vehicle was tainted
about 2 years ago - 1 comment
For a while now, we have heard about exonerations obtained due to DNA testing. The current number from the Innocence Project stands at, I believe, 208. One of the more common refrains you hear from champions of innocence is that there are thousands more in jail that are innocent and have no way of proving
about 2 years ago - No comments
When I got to work this morning and followed my daily routine of checking the judicial branch website to see if there were any opinions being issued today, I was excited. Giddy, even. (Get it? Giddy…) The Supreme Court had decided to release opinions in three very, very interesting cases. As luck would have it,
about 2 years ago - 2 comments
One of the first things I learned (among several hundred others) in the criminal clinic at the law school was seeking a bill of particulars. The State files a short-form information, you ask for the long-form version. You make the State commit to its theory of the case and lay out, specifically, the exact nature
about 2 years ago - No comments
Yesterday, the CT Supreme Court issued State v. Randolph [pdf], reversing a murder conviction. The Court agreed with the defendant that he should not have been tried together for two separate offenses. Here is the standard for severance in Connecticut: The defendant bears a heavy burden of showing that the denial of severance resulted in
about 2 years ago - 3 comments
Update: Scott clarifies (in the comments here and in this post) his definition of “rats”. He says he’s referring to defendant X who is guilty of crime 1, who, in exchange for a light prison sentence, tells the government about defendant Y who committed crime 2. If only it were that simple. Sure that scenario
about 2 years ago - 5 comments
You’d think that this would be an easy one. However, 50% of the judges that looked at this case disagreed. Luckily one of those was the trial judge, so the 3-judge panel of the Appellate Court overturned the conviction. In State v. Browne [pdf], the defendant argued that his conviction should be overturned because the
about 2 years ago - No comments
Stan Simpson has this fine piece in the Courant today, urging legislators to learn from the State’s past and resist the urge to simply expand prisons as a solution to reforming the criminal justice system. The last time the state went on a massive prison expansion escapade, it spent $1 billion to build 12 new
about 3 years ago
My thoughts on some of these, for whatever they’re worth:
NB 5503 – I’m opposed to this type of legislation generally, but specifically, this is poorly drafted. Two problems I’ll mention now. (1)Why does this residency restriction apply to registrants who were not convicted of offenses involving minors? (2)A practical problem I see as coming up (an argument we will probably have to make in the future): John Doe now/at the time of the enactment of the statute resides within 1000 feet of an elementary school. In 2008, he will be charged and convicted with a sex offense requiring registration. Will he be exempt from this restriction by subsection (b)? In other words, does (b) exempt those people who at the time of the enactment of the restriction live within 1000 feet of a school AND are currently required to register? Or can Mr. Doe claim exemption for future registration because he had an established residence within 1000 feet at the time of the enactment? Maybe I am being too literal, but I don’t think this is clear.
HB 7365 – LOVE IT! It’s about time.
SB 0708 – You know, I thought the idea behind the sex offender registry and the winning argument against its opponents was that sex offenders were of a special threat to our children and community. I guess, as a society, we’re willing to allow employers, landlords and members of our communities to treat those convicted of sex offenses as less than human. It’s okay for their neighbors to know their business, for their landlords to evict them and for their bosses to fire them, because we’re just protecting our children from these predators by disseminating the information. And apparently now we’ve slid down the slope far enough to believe “violent offenders” also qualify for this treatment. Awesome.
about 3 years ago
On 0708 – we all know how fluid parole’s definition of “violent offender” is; so how far before they take the stance that the statute doesn’t limit them to the listed offenses.
Edit: Umm, yeah, that made no sense. Sorry.