Archive for September, 2009

After years of hearing cases in panels, the CT Supreme Court announced today that it would start acting like a Supreme Court and have all 7 justices decide each case. Instead of only a panel of 5 hearing oral argument, all 7 will be present during argument and vote on cases.

The policy, authorized as an internal court policy, keeps a purely Supreme Court panel without substitutions, even when one or two justices have to disqualify themselves. When one justice is recused, the high court said in its Sept. 2 announcement, “the Court will sit as a panel of six. If there are two disqualifications, the Court will sit as a panel of five.”

The court announcement on its web site stated that the change is designed to “strengthen the precedential value of each opinion.”

The legal community and the public will not be left to wonder whether the case would have turned out differently if the full Supreme Court had considered the matter. [Connecticut's most famous appellate lawyer Wesley] Horton said one or two justices can make all the difference in how the argument proceeds and how the case is ultimately decided. “It seems to me that if you’re a justice on the top court, you want to be involved in all the cases in which you’re qualified to sit,” he said.

I agree with this policy change: I’ve long wondered why we use panels. If there are 7 members, they should all hear the case and decide it on its merits (or not).

The court is required to sit en banc by statute in death penalty cases, with a provision for adding a member of the Appellate Court if one of the 7 has to be recused. This policy was continue to remain in effect, but it seems curious to me that the court decided not to extend this policy to all cases. They seem ready to go ahead and hear cases with only 6 and only if the bench is split 3-3, will they add a member from the Appellate Court and then rehear the case. What’s the point there? Doesn’t that create additional, unnecessary pressure on the justices not to split?

The easier route seems to be adding an Appellate Court justice in advance on cases where they know one of the Justices has to be recused. That way, a bench of 7 hears the case and there’s no possibility of a split. But that’s just me and that’s why I’m an anonymous blogger and not a Justice of the CT Supreme Court (yet. heh. heh. heh.).