Archive for March 28, 2011
Significant CT Supreme Court cases
Mar 28th
Justice Old White Dude 1, Justice Old White Dude 2...
The Connecticut Judicial Branch, in keeping with its image of being speedy and up-to-date with news and technology, just posted a new link on its website. The link is to the celebrations held in honor of the 100th Anniversary of the Connecticut State Library and Supreme Court building, which was November 10, 2010. So, you know, only 5 months late.
There actually is interesting information on that site, including really old photographs of really old dudes with names like Samuel Prentice and Silas Robinson and Elisha Carpenter, who, apparently sat on wooden chairs at floor level. No wonder it was called the Supreme Court of Errors. Now there’s an appropriate name, if there ever was one.
There’s also this lovely link to a list of all Connecticut Supreme Court (I’m just going to call it that, okay? Let the Court of Errors thing go. Act your age.) Justices, dating back to the ubiquitous and inimitable Tapping Reeve. [And if someone can explain to me just what the hell is going on with the layout of this page, I'll buy you a drink.]
But – and what I’m getting to – is this nifty little list created by world-renowned Connecticut Appellate Lawyer Wesley Horton, of some “significant” CT Supreme Court decisions.
Being someone who once went to treatment for list-addiction, I cannot but permit myself a sip o’ the ole vice and present a list of my own and invite you to do the same. So, finally, here’s a list of the most significant Connecticut Supreme Court cases, in my opinion. Obviously, since no one really gives a shit about civil cases, there are few on this list.
1. State v. Golding – holding that unpreserved errors of Constitutional magnitude can and should be reviewed by appellate courts
1a. State v. Kitchens – effectively reversing State v. Golding above and making it near impossible to get any review of any sort of unpreserved claim of Constitutional magnitude.
2. Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Public Health – gay marriage is a-okay!
3. State v. Geisler – delineating a 6-part test to evaluate claims under the State Constitution.
4. State v. Stoddard – Police are required to timely inform suspects in custody of legal counsel’s attempts to contact them and render legal assistance.
5. State v. Oquendo – declining to adopt the restricted meaning of seizure under Hodari D. and holding that Connecticut’s Constitution provides greater protection.
6. State v. Randolph – reinstating the old common law rule of favoring a strict preclusion of “propensity evidence” in non-sexual assault cases.
6a. State v. DeJesus – actually putting ink on paper to say that, in sex assault cases, once a sex offender, always a sex offender.
7. State v. Marsala – under the State Constitution, there is no such thing as a “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule.
8. Sheff v. O’Neill – something about racial segregation and schools and who the hell knows. They’re still fighting over this one, nearly 20 years later. (No, I’m kidding. This case is very big deal.)
9. State v. Courchesne I – a death penalty reversal based on statutory construction and “plain meaning” of words written on paper, which led the legislature to pass CGS 1-2z, which essentially says mean what they mean.
10. Lozada v. Warden – that whenever the right to counsel attaches (in this case in post-conviction hearings), that right is the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel. Prosecutors hate this one.
11. Kelo v. New London – something about eminent domain and taking and – seriously, all I remember about this is that after SCOTUS’ opinion, some justice had almost had his house taken by eminent domain or something?
12. State v. Nelson, State v. Griswold – the name should give you a hint.
13. State v. Littlejohn – proving the old adage that a criminal defendant can waive whatever the hell she wants, including the statute of limitations.
14. Kohlfuss v. Warden – there is a double jeopardy provision in the State Constitution. It’s right there, umm, taking the shape of the Due Process Clause.
15. State v. Carpenter – holding, somehow, that recklessness (as required for manslaughter) is a subcategory of specific intent (required for murder).
16. State v. Morales – entitles the defendant to a jury instruction when the police fail to preserve potentially useful evidence.
17. State v. Ledbetter; State v. Marquez; State v. Outing – slowly but surely coming in line with the modern scientific thinking on the uselessness of eyewitness identification.
I’m sure there are others you find significant. Let’s hear them in the comments.
[PS: I was really, really tempted to add another: She Who Must Not Be Named v. DiNardo, for my good friend Ryan. But I give him enough crap about it already.So I leave it to you, mischievous reader, to suggest it in the comments.]
Wrong time, wrong battle
Mar 28th
There are several “rules” of practice that all criminal defense lawyers would be well served knowing and understanding. One of them is that we must and should engage in battles with the prosecutors and courts for the sake of our general clientele. But one that is even more paramount, one that goes to the core of our mission to represent each and every client individually, is that you must never fight a battle to the detriment of a specific client.
And I get that this is even more of an issue with public defenders offices across the country, where the ever-increasing pressure of funding cuts leads to the inevitability of “taking a stand” and showing the clueless politicians in the state legislature just how devastating the impact of their poorly thought out budget reductions will go. I get that, even in the relative nirvana of Connecticut, we are severely understaffed in most of our public defender offices. And I get that it’s worse in places like Georgia and Florida and South Carolina.
But just like you’d never forgo a misdemeanor with a suspended sentence in favor of testing out your latest brilliant challenge to the constitutionality of a serious felony statute, there’s a place and a time to fight these fights. And that time isn’t at a critical stage of a criminal proceeding. So it irked me to read Bobby G.’s post today, about a seemingly office wide policy of the public defender’s office in Horry County, SC, to automatically waive all preliminary hearings for clients who are entitled to them.
South Carolina is an odd place to people from the Northeast, like me. They use terms like “general sessions courts” and “solicitors”. They still utilize a grand jury, and – although he doesn’t use it in his post – I bet they have something mechanism whereby cases are “bound over” to some other place.
But the commonality in the language we use this:
recent comments