about 3 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 years ago
Yes, this bill is helpful for those cases where a stranger assaults a victim and isn’t found until years later. But in a case where police investigate an alleged sex assault and the defense is consent? Where it was reported within 5 years and there was DNA evidence, those alleged offenders will live the rest of their lives not knowing when/if an arrest will come. There should be an exception for those circumstances. You should not be made to defend against that offense years after the reported incident.
about 4 years ago
How is that scenario different from your regular sexual assault where consent is a defense?
If the “victim” knows the “accused”, then why would they wait for more than 5 years to arrest him?
I think this bill is specifically for “cold cases”.
about 4 years ago
No doubt that is the intent of the bill. But that won’t stop over zealous prosecutors and police officers from using it for other purposes, as well.
With a statute of limitations, officers and prosecutors must investigate and decide whether to prosecute within a certain amount of time. Now, they don’t have to, so that’s a big difference. Lots of consent cases don’t result in an arrest. They shouldn’t be able to go back and change their minds 10 years later for ANY reason, that’s all I’m saying. It might be a baseless fear on my part, but the bill certainly doesn’t speak to it. We’ll have to fight that battle when/if it happens, I guess…
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="4587"] If the “victim” knows the “accused”, then why would they wait for more than 5 years to arrest him?
I think this bill is specifically for “cold cases”.[/quote]
Imagine a case where the police interviewed the “accused” [who provided his consent explanation] and based on that, the police choose not to arrest. Then time goes by, and the “victim” puts more pressure on the police, or maybe another witness comes forward who claims to have witnessed the encounter. In the mmeantime, the statute has run. I think Miranda is imagining a scenario like this, where consent would have been the defense, an arrest is not made, lots of time goes by, and the police finally made the arrest (after the old SOL would have run). It just wouldn’t be fair.
I take it this bill won’t be retroactive. (Stogner v. California)