Monthly Archives: September 2007

There are other reforms, too

1 Reply

Forgotten in this Cheshire mess is the sentencing commission that started work in May, which was charged with looking at how to change the state’s sentencing laws for the better. Ah, back in May, when Komisarjevsky was still on GPS monitoring and the Petit women were alive.

Glad to hear that someone thought to ask them of their other business. Cheshire has overshadowed the fact that CT has draconian drug laws and there is a racial disparity in sentencing and even charging.

[New Haven Public Defender Tom] Ullmann and several other members suggested the task force may be missing a chance to make long-term changes in the justice system.

Others said the group will continue to discuss issues such as mandatory minimum drug sentences and racial disparity in sentencing even as it deals with parole system gaps exposed by the Cheshire case.

Some of the juicy things on their agenda:

The task force divided into four subcommittees that would discuss alternatives to incarceration, sentencing structure, the racial imbalance in prisons and how to classify some drug offenses and other crimes that carry a broad range of possible sentences.

These are all excellent areas of investigation and reform. Thankfully last year the legislature eliminated the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing (I think…I may be imagining it).

Prison overcrowding is an immense problem and all of these avenues will help to reduce it and hopefully, get to the source of the problem for most drug offenders: addiction.

I wish there was some way to study racial disparities in charging, but it seems too daunting a task.

Of all the groups commenting on Cheshire, this task force has been oddly silent. Not all members agree:

Some members say the task force should lend its voice to the Cheshire debate so the state does not make any rash changes.

“I think it’s incumbent upon us to respond,” said Andrew Clark, a group member and the administrator of the Institute for the Study of Crime & Justice at Central Connecticut State University. “We have to ask tough questions and come up with real solutions.”

But there has been, at least for some members, a shift in focus.

The sentencing task force changed its focus at the same time. It studied tougher burglary laws and looked at the impact a tougher “three strikes and you’re out” law would have on prison overcrowding.

“It’s almost like members are bending over backward to join the throng of punitive measures,” said Jon Schoenhorn, a task force member and president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. “It violates the entire purpose of why this task force was created.”

“Three strikes laws” + prison overcrowding: Not gettin’ better any time soon.

Civility among the brethren

16 Replies

There’s been a blogversation that I’ve missed about civility among lawyers. Matlock the Republican complained about the ego-trip of a prosecutor earlier this week and followed it up with the rudeness of a fellow defense attorney. Bennett the Zen Master responded with calmness while Greenfield the Bulldog replied with a middle finger by thumbing his nose.

So which is it? I agree with Scott that if another attorney acts in a way that interferes with my ability to represent my client or does something to harm my client, “it’s on”. But I also agree with Mark (Bennett) that most of the time, you’re just wasting your own time by giving in to the anger and letting yourself get involved.

I’m not here (in the legal arena) to show off my skills or assert my presence. I’m here to represent my client and represent him effectively and zealously. Everything else is a distant last. I will try my best to do that in as civil a manner as possible, because anything else just isn’t worth my time.

The trial tax or “Life takes Visa”

12 Replies

“If you go to trial, you will get more time” is a common admonition to criminal defendants that are considering plea deals. We are used to it; it’s a part of practice. It is a natural consequence of the bargaining process. In plea bargaining, you’re negotiating a settlement and in that, both parties give a little. The State is spared the expense of a trial, the risk of an acquittal and one less case they have to prosecute. The defendant gets a lighter sentence and gives up his Constitutional rights.

But why the great disparity between rejected plea offers and sentences after trials? If a case was worth 5 years before trial, surely it can’t be worth 35 after? There does seem to be a desire to punish a defendant for going to trial, as opposed to simply including the value of the factors that would have been eliminated. I had a client a few years ago who was charged with 10 counts of a felony. Prior to trial, the offer was a sentence of 20 years, fully suspended. He exercised his right to go to trial, was acquitted on 9 of 10 charges and received a sentence of 20 years suspended after 9.  That’s right, 10 cases were worth zero years, but one – after trial – is worth 9.

As a commenter to imbroglio’s post points out, we’re obsessed with judicial efficiency and so the punishment is punitive. It’s like that Visa commercial where everyone is using the card and the one guy with cash holds up the line and creates problems.

Upon watching that commercial again, it’s scary how similar it is to the criminal justice system. People filing in, one after the other, the deli representing the well-oiled criminal justice system, the repeat offenders whose orders are known to the chefs, people swiping in and being sent on their way, the “now serving” number ticking rapidly and then the protagonist, whipping out his wallet and offering cash, causing a meltdown – food going flying, things not landing in their place, people bumping into each other. I bet he’s not welcome back in that deli and our defendant is not welcome back in the criminal justice system, which is accomplished by locking him away for a long time.

Don’t believe me? Watch it for yourself:

Emergency hearing on parole ban and unconstitutionality of overcrowding

14 Replies

The Judiciary Committee will hold an emergency hearing on Gov. Rell’s parole ban on Monday. Since she refused to testify, they’ve asked DOC commissioner Theresa Lantz to testify instead. Here [pdf] is the letter inviting her. The crux:

In particular, the committee would like to know whether you anticipate there will be a surge in inmate population. We also want to know what the contingency plans the Governor has to protect corrections staff and host communities in the event there is a population surge beyond what can be safely accommodated in Connecticut’s correctional institutions.

The Governor has implied that her ban on parole of violent offenders is temporary. On Friday, she stated: “This policy, which follows the arrest Friday of a Connecticut parolee accused in Hartford carjacking, will remain in place until reforms of the parole process are complete.”

We also need to know what reforms of the parole process the Governor believes must be enacted by legislation and which reforms can be done by the administration through regulations. Once we have the administration’s definitive enumeration of legislative proposals, we can include them on the agenda for the Committee’s upcoming hearing on criminal justice reforms.

A bit too nice for my liking, but this is politics.

I’d like to point to yesterday’s decision by a Federal Judge in California, holding that jail officials violated the prisoners’ constitutional rights when they had them sleep on concrete floors because of chronic overcrowding. The LATimes piece is here. Connecticut’s prisons are already overflowing and if you don’t think that inmates here are sleeping on floors then you’re lying to yourself.

Another thing that irks me is the continued misreporting of the Cheshire accused. During Colin McEnroe’s afternoon show on WTIC, the news included this statement: “Both accused had extensive criminal records”. No, they did not. Hayes did, Komisarjevsky did not. I guess I’ll keep repeating it till people get it right.

Early morning criminal justice roundup

1 Reply

The most interesting story is this one about lawmakers considering a proposal to limit probation to a 2-year term, down from the current 5-years.

The goal is to focus supervision on offenders during their first two years of probation, when most violations occur, said William Carbone, executive director of the state Court Support Services Division.

Nearly 90 percent of probation violations in the state occurred during the first two years, according to statistics presented yesterday during a hearing in Hartford.

The option would give offenders an incentive to turn their lives around and would reduce the number of people who go back to prison, Carbone said.

Now this is sensible legislation, which comes from the sentencing task force, which has studies these issues over time.

Judge Patrick Clifford, chief administrative judge for criminal matters, said judges should have the right to order probation terms longer than two years.

Longer terms might be warranted in cases in which larceny offenders need time to repay victims, Clifford said. But he agreed most people on probation don’t need more than three years.

“If the person hasn’t violated within two or three years, it’s kind of just waiting for them to make a mistake,” Clifford said.

Okay, enough of the good stuff. On to the depressing stuff.

More stories this morning on Gov. Rell’s parole ban, but this time with more substance. First up is the prison population shift. As noted yesterday, more than 1,200 non-violent inmates are being fast-tracked for parole to make room for the violent offenders who have been denied parole.

The next one says simply: Parole Review Affects Hundreds.

Nearly 40 percent of all parolees were serving sentences for drug offenses, which are not classified as violent, according to state records. But there are also hundreds of parolees completing sentences for killings, rapes, robberies and kidnapping. Murderers are no longer eligible for parole, but 60 inmates who committed murders before a 1981 change in the law are on parole.

In recent years, the number of parole violators back in prison at any one time has hovered between 400 and 500, state records show. But that may rise considerably with Rell’s crackdown.

“If we identify anyone in this review who has failed to follow the terms of their release – or if anyone currently on parole fails to do so in the future – we will revoke their parole and return them to prison to serve the balance of their sentence,” Rell said last weeek.

Nutmeggers delinquent in jury duty

5 Replies

We Nutmeggers are a proud lot (I guess), but it seems that one thing we don’t particularly care for is jury duty. To the tune of 77,800 people over the last three years. That’s mind-boggling. 77,800!

Court administrators say it is not known whether jury duty absences are deliberate, the result of somebody simply forgetting or cases where jury duty notices never make it to the person because they are not forwarded to a new address.

The penalty for a no-show is a fine of $121. If CT had collected from all no-shows, the State would have received $9.4 million. Instead, it has received exactly zero. That’s because it’s not really a priority.

Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane agrees that the office has not enforced the law against delinquent jurors.

“There have been other crimes that have taken precedence, such as the three strikes laws and mandatory sentences, Jessica’s Law and issues involving crime against children,” Kane said. “But delinquent jurors are certainly an issue worth pursuing.”

Kane says there was discussion among state’s attorneys several years ago about enforcing the law, but two obstacles remain.

Then there’s this asinine proposal:

Criminal defense attorney Gerald Klein said those who don’t show up for jury duty should have their driver’s licenses suspended.

Yeah, we really want jurors under the threat of license suspension. What’s the connection? What does this even mean? I just….nevermind.

The impact of the parole ban

8 Replies

With much being said of Governor Rell’s ban on parole in the last few days (and most of it favorable), it must be pointed out what the impact of such a ban shall be. Here’s a story on just that. The highlights:

The Board of Pardons and Paroles is reviewing the cases of 400 to 600 inmates who were scheduled for release on parole.

These are inmates who were already granted parole (and some, it is safe to say, in the last few months), so now they have to be housed again and perhaps there is a legal challenge here. While there is no liberty interest in parole, there is a liberty interest in parole revocation. Canceling parole after granting it would be akin to a revocation of parole.

The Department of Correction is reviewing the files of 1,200 level one inmates to identify non-violent offenders to release to halfway houses to open bed space for violent offenders.

So now you have a number of inmates who will be rushed through parole to make room for those who have been granted it, but will not be released. Good for the 1,200, but is it really good for safety?

Rell said that there are no current or expected plans to build new or expand the state’s current prisons.

Ah, of course. Because Connecticut’s prisons are underpopulated and there are plenty of empty beds.

Lawlor said if violent offenders can’t receive parole, the state’s prison population will only grow more.

There are more than 19,000 inmates in Connecticut’s prisons, originally designed to house 17,000. Lawlor said that the federal courts could order a mass release.

Oh wait, so you mean there is a prison overcrowding problem? The best way to solve that is to ban parole for all violent offenders. No, it isn’t? Hmm.

East Haven Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the state’s prison population has grown by 280 inmates since the July 23 Cheshire home invasion, in which a mother and her two daughters were killed.

This number will only continue to grow. Estimates put the projected increase at 1,500 over the next year. I guess I can safely delete these posts.

Of course, there are the “in the trenches” consequences:

Judges are setting higher bond for burglars and other criminals; defendants are receiving longer sentences; and the Board of Pardons and Paroles is more conservative about who gets parole.

In case we’ve all forgotten, here’s a reminder from a previous post, quoting the Office of Policy and Management’s “Comprehensive Plan For the Connecticut Criminal Justice System 2007 [pdf]“:

  • Not shockingly, inmates released from prison with no community supervision were most likely to be reconvicted and resentenced to prison for a new offense.

The Governor, not surprisingly, has declined to appear before the judiciary committee to discuss her “ban”.

While the calls for three-strikes laws and stricter sentences were questionably wrong, this ban on parole is unquestionably knee-jerk and almost certainly illegal.

Serenity now….serenity now.