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 - 7 comments
The big news of the weekend thus far, for me at least, has been the announcement by the NYCLU that it is filing suit in New York, alleging Constitutional violations by the State for its failure to provide adequate resources to public defenders. From the press release: “Every day, in courtrooms throughout the state, New
about 2 years ago - No comments
Veteran’s Day edition! Governor Rell is opposed to the $260million proposal to build new prisons, which was covered here. This NYT piece considers whether suspension of parole is an Ex-Post Facto violation. Norm covers the CT angle, while Scott has the New York perspective. Indignant Indigent has a great post on why it is ineffective
about 2 years ago - 1 comment
Say two thirds of those polled in this latest Quinnipiac University poll. There you go legislators. Only 35 percent of voters support a so-called “third strike” law where a person convicted of three violent felonies automatically is sentenced to life in prison, while 63 percent say sentences should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Oh
about 2 years ago - 2 comments
After being denied a new trial in State court, Michael Skakel is now going straight to federal court. His attorneys filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (not petition for new trial as the Courant first reported), raising essentially the same failed claims from his direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. I’m not
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 - 14 comments
Finally some good news on the criminal justice reform front. Mike Lawlor, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, is also on the State Risk Assessment Board, which is charged with – you guessed it – assessing the risk of the state’s registered sex offenders. Lawlor wants to streamline the registry so as to provide more relevant
about 2 years ago - 1 comment
The Courant has this article today, seeking to make much of the under-utilized persistent felony statutes in Connecticut. All it does, instead, is underline the need for more rehabilitation programs. Meet Richard D. Halapin Jr., a small-time career burglar and thief who earlier this year broke into his sister’s home and stole the family’s jewelry
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 2 years ago - 2 comments
One of the two crim justice stories of the day was the impending release of Alex Kelly, who is finally done serving his time for two 1986 rapes. He was in court today to find out whether he would be released despite the fact that he has not yet paid the $10,000 fine levied along
about 2 years ago
One thing I don’t recall seeing in this debate is the question of whether a police agency is cohesive enough to honor its obligations.
There are some small-time criminals who constantly rat to the police. They do so for good reason: they get favorable treatment and they can practice their “lifestyle” however they want. This seems to be a rather dirty deal: 1) the cops have a snitch that commits some crime but “helps” them; and 2) the criminal practices their crimes but betrays people. This works out “fine” (and by “fine” I mean “brings about the downfall of society”), until a new cop comes on the job.
A new cop might not understand the “relationship.” These relationships are a lot more complex than can usually be conveyed in a short police report or a 1 or 2 page memo. For example, there may be an understanding that the snitch cannot and will not try and inform on certain kinds of people. (But a new cop wouldn’t be privy to this part of the analysis.) Yes, certain written protections are afford some (but not all) snitches, but they usually don’t kick in until after an arrest is made.
So, look at the situation we are in: there are defendants out there whose “snitching” is long term and in return for a virtual license to practice a kind of crime. Granted, these crimes are usually “victimless” crimes (i.e. prostitution, small-time drug manufacturer, unlicensed gambling). is this really helping society?
All in all, it is sad that we are going down this road, and we need to explore the exact means by which people snitch, but I guess we are already on it and we need to seriously think about it.
And, I am with Norm: Representing clients does not mean waging a war against the government. Lawyers must do the best they can for them. But lawyers also must be aware that the government will screw up and might put their clients at serious risk of harm.
about 2 years ago
Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele’s Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic – tailored specifically for CT. It’s at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.
about 2 years ago
[quote comment="7887"]Even better than the article on the NACDL website is Lisa Steele’s Quinnipiac Law Review article on the topic – tailored specifically for CT. It’s at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll have to check it out tomorrow!
about 2 years ago
Looks like Lisa wrote this one too, but the Law Review article should definitely be more helpful to those practicing here.