ct legal news
Rowland state sentencing – CLARIFICATION
Mar 24th
In response to my post yesterday about comments on talk radio regarding possibly prosecuting Gov. Rowland for violations of Connecticut Law, I received an e-mail from one of the hosts of the show that Chris Morano appeared on. He was kind enough to clarify the content of the conversation with Atty. Morano.
He told me that he was pressing Morano specifically on things mentioned in (Asst. US Attorney) Dannehy’s sentencing memorandum [pdf]. Parts of that sentencing memorandum point to possible illegal actions taken by Rowland after getting caught and after resigning and while awaiting disposition of his Federal case. He also asked Morano (and State Rep. Mike Lawlor), that if in fact Rowland violated other laws after the "house came crashing down", what was going to be done about it and who was going to do it.
This helps to ease the fit I was having yesterday to some extent. Ofcourse no one would be foolish enough to argue that Rowland should not be prosecuted further if the basis for that prosecution was illegal acts committed after he had been caught.
In his e-mail to me, he also pointed out that Morano considering going after Rowland is essentially the same as what might happen to former Waterbury mayor Philip Giordano.
Giordano was sentenced in 2003 to 37 years on Federal charges. At the time of the Federal prosecution, the State’s Attorney for Waterbury, John Connolly, backed off to give the feds room. Now, Giordano might be prosecuted on state charges.
I still disagree, however, with those who think that Rowland’s Federal sentence is "just punishment" and whoever wants the state to go after him are just bloodhounds.
Seriously, I have clients who’d love to have you on their side.
State prosecution for Rowland?
Mar 23rd
So here’s the deal: Driving to a jail this morning, en route to meet with a client, I tuned in to a morning talk show – Mornings with Ray & Diane on WTIC 1080AM – that I normally enjoy. I don’t always agree with what Ray (more toward the conservative side) has to say. Diane (more liberal) usually doesn’t say that much.
This morning the hot topic surrounded the sentencing of fmr. Gov. Rowland. Apparently yesterday afternoon, Chief State’s Attorney Chris Morano said on a talk show on the same station that he might consider pursuing state charges against Gov. Rowland. As everyone so vividly remembers and has been extensively covered elsewhere, Gov. Rowland was sentenced to one year and a day plus four months of Martha-style home release and then three years probation. The state backed off earlier to let the Feds do their job and to stay out of the way. Now they are reconsidering whether to pursue any charges against him.
This, ofcourse, has provoked hearty comments from some quarters. Ray said on the morning show "What has Rowland done to you?". There was some mention of bloodthirst, or something of that nature, too. In an online poll on the home page of WTIC 1080, 79% of people don’t think the state should charge Gov. Rowland with anything.
Rubbish, I say. Book him, I say. Why?, you naturally ask. Because if you’re doing it to my client, then you do it to Rowland too. If the State and the Feds charge my client with a larceny and a gun charge stemming from the same incident, then darn it, Rowland should be charged too. Why single him out for special treatment? Just because he was the former Governor who happened to do something illegal?
Look, if you want to adopt the black and white, criminals are bad and not really people tact, then it has to apply across the board. But if the majority of people feel that Rowland "is suffering enough" or that one year in jail is "punishment enough", then I have 300 clients I’d like you to sign petitions for.
So, if Morano decides to charge Rowland, I’m all for it.
When will I get parole?
Mar 23rd
Being busy all day yesterday, I did not have the time to post anything. However, Kirby’s Reports has a guest post, authored by me on parole eligibility and the 85% law. You can leave your comments here or there.
Ross rumblings
Mar 21st
With the execution date of May 11 approaching, Michael Ross news starts surfacing again. The Courant reports that Thomas Groark is preparing his case for challenging the competency of Michael Ross. One psychiatrist, Dr. Eric Goldsmith has met with Ross and Dr. Stuart Grassian is scheduled to meet with him. As April nears and the hearing takes place, there will be lots more news.
Anti-death penalty bill text
Mar 18th
On the House calendar for today is House Bill No. 6012 entitled "An Act Concerning Murder with Special Circumstances". This is the anti-death penalty legislation that received a 25-15 vote in the Judiciary Committee last week. The text of the bill is available here. The proposed bill itself is long and has many amendments, which I will explain briefly. The most important provisions of this bill are Sections 1 through 6. Section 1 provides
Notwithstanding any other provision of law including, but not limited to, subsections (t) and (u) of section 1-1, section 54-130a and section 54-194 of the general statutes, (1) the sentence of any person convicted of a capital felony and sentenced prior to the effective date of this section to a sentence of death in accordance with section 53a-46a of the general statutes in effect prior to the effective date of this section is commuted to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, on the effective date of this section, and (2) the punishment or penalty for any person who (A) is convicted prior to, on or after the effective date of this section of a capital felony committed prior to the effective date of this section, and (B) is sentenced or resentenced on or after the effective date of this section, shall be a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if such offense was committed on or after October 1, 1985, and a sentence of life imprisonment, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if such offense was committed prior to October 1, 1985. For the purposes of this section, "capital felony" means a violation of section 53a-54b of the general statutes in effect prior to the effective date of this section.
What this section essentially states is that all sentences of death, imposed before, on or after the effective date of this statute shall be changed to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
Section 2 replaces the term capital felony with murder with special circumstances in CGS 53a-54b, which enumerates the crimes for which the death penalty is available. [Murder of a police officer and the like, murder during kidnapping, murder for hire, second murder by someone already convicted of murder, murder of two or more persons in the same act or same time, murder during sexual assault 1st and murder of someone under the age of 16].
Section 3 makes changes to CGS 53a-35a, which deals with terms of imprisonment and makes murder with special circumstances a Class A felony. It does not change general "murder", which is also a Class A felony with a term of 25-life.
Section 4 defines the term of imprisonment for someone convicted of murder with special circumstances.
Sec. 4. Section 53a-35b of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
[A] For the purposes of this title and titles 51 and 54, (1) a sentence of [imprisonment for life shall mean] life imprisonment means a definite sentence of sixty years, [unless the] and (2) a sentence [is] of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, imposed pursuant to [subsection (g) of section 53a-46a, in which case the sentence shall be] subdivision (1) of section 53a-35a, as amended by this act, means imprisonment for the remainder of the defendant’s natural life without the possibility of parole, sentence reduction, temporary leave, furlough or any other kind of post-conviction conditional or absolute release.
The proposed legislation changes little except the term for felony murder and the penalty for such a crime.
This bill has 22 co-sponsors.
Please post your comments on this legislation below.
[Ed Note: The text in [] is deleted and the underlined text is added. Section 1 above is a brand new section to be added to the CGS.]
God in the courtroom – sort of
Mar 15th
In the sad, but funny news item of the day, a CT PD’s motion for competency evaluation was denied. Judge Carroll ruled that the robbery suspect’s religious beliefs don’t require a competency evaluation. Fair enough.
The problem, however, is that the man believes God is in the courtroom talking to him and "will be standing beside him in the courtroom when he faces trial, and will arrange for his acquittal."
The PD says that this interferes with his ability to assist his client. I might be inclined to agree with that.
Judiciary Committee passes ban on CT death penalty
Mar 10th
There you have it. As expected, CT’s judiciary committee has approved a ban on death penalty. This, however, by no means is the end of the debate. From the Judiciary committee, the bill will move on to the House and the Senate, where there is expected to be staunch opposition.
At the heart of the debate a bill that abolishes the death penalty. Anyone found guilty of capital murder including those currently sitting on death row would instead get…
"Life imprisonment without the possibility of release," says Rep. Mike Lawlor, (D) 99th District.
While some argued the death penalty could take the life of a mistakenly convicted person, others argued Connecticut’s law makes it tough to execute someone, pointing out that no one has been executed in 45 years.
"I believe that the law we have before us is fair. It is just. It is workable. It is constitutional and it should remain the law of the state of Connecticut," says Rep. Lawrence Cafero, Jr., (R) 142nd District.
This debate has been raging for a long time, ever since we deemed ourselves "civilized nations". The issue at heart is a surprisingly simple one: vengeance or forgiveness. Do we exact the same punishment from death row inmates that they imposed on their victims. Or do we, as a society – a collective conciousness – say that is beneath us. Honestly, I don’t believe in an eye for an eye. I also believe that life imprisonment is a far more severe punishment than death.
Should the state (acting for all of us) deem the life of an individual unworthy. Well, you might say, this individual deemed the lives of his/her victim unworthy. Absolutely, I would respond. But that one individual is not the whole state of Connecticut. If we are punishing someone for taking a life, it hardly is appropriate to drive home that message by taking one ourselves. It is nothing short of barbaric and quite frankly, stupid.
Vote on death penalty bill
Mar 9th
The Judiciary committee will vote today on a bill to abolish the death penalty in CT.
But even if the Judiciary Committee Governor Jodi Rell has said she will veto any bill that would end Connecticut’s death penalty law.
passes the bill, supporters said they still don’t have enough votes in
the General Assembly to pass an abolition bill that could be veto-proof.
Gauge before you enact
Mar 9th
In what might be a smart move, Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca (R) is proposing a referendum on same-sex marriage in the state. The judiciary committee has already voted favorably on a civil unions bill.
As I’ve already state on numerous ocassions, I have no problems with civil unions and/or same-sex marriages. It does not affect my life in any way and therefore I have no stake/say in it.
If CT does indeed enact a civil union or same-sex marriage bill, it will be only the second state in the country to do so. Then I will have one more reason to stay here. Call me a liberal.
Ex-prosecutor charged with DUI, marijuana possession
Mar 4th
In some wonderful news (I’m kidding, I’m kidding), a former prosecutor was charged with DUI and marijuana possession after he was arrested for speeding. Where was he coming from? Why, a party at the Chief State’s Attorney’s home!
[Chief State's Attorney] Morano said Soulsby and his wife were among 50 guests at Morano’s surprise 50th birthday party Saturday night. Morano said he did not know whether, or how much, Soulsby drank at the party.
Hey, I have an idea! Let’s take away Morano’s license!
What the title of the story doesn’t tell you is that the police found a pipe and a loaded handgun in Soulsby’s possession.
Soulsby was charged with driving under the influence, possessing less than four ounces of marijuana, possessing drug paraphernalia and possessing a loaded firearm while intoxicated.
Now, if Soulsby doesn’t have a permit for that weapon, I hope the feds come pick him up. Hard Time for Gun Crime, indeed.
Seriously, though, I’m kidding. I don’t really want to see him picked up by the feds.
Effort to abolish death penalty grows
Mar 4th
WTNH reports a growing effort to abolish the death penalty in CT.
At the capitol, it’s being predicted that a majority of the 42 member Judiciary Committee will pass a bill to abolish the death penalty next week.
Behind this is freshman Senator Ed Meyer of Guilford. He has actually done this before, when he served in the New York state legislature.
"I am preparing a major talk to my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee in which I’m going to try to persuade and win votes to abolish the death penalty in Connecticut." he says.
It’s still doubtful whether there are enough votes in the legislature to abolish the death penalty and there is no doubt that this is a process that will not come to fruition over the next few months. Undoubtedly, there will be lengthy, contentious public hearings on the subject. In what would seem a sensible move, "[t]here is some talk at the capitol about the possibility of amending a death penalty abolition bill into a death penalty moratorium bill to give people more time to study the issue."
The outcome remains to be seen, but it cannot be doubted that the Michael Ross execution saga last month has fueled interest and debate in the death penalty arena.
side note: Groark has now said that he will seek a mid-April date for a competency hearing for Ross.
alex kelly reviewed for parole
Mar 3rd
The Hartford Courant has a pretty lengthy article today on the parole hearing of Alex Kelly, convicted rapist, absconder and former rich town champion wrestler.
Kelly was 18 when he raped two girls aged 16 and 17.
Kelly failed to appear in court when his case was scheduled to go to trial in February 1987. Instead, he fled the country and remained a fugitive – traveling, working and skiing throughout Europe, Asia and Africa – until he surrendered in Switzerland in January 1995. He did so after federal authorities searched his parents’ Darien home and seized letters and postcards that not only revealed his whereabouts, but also exposed his parents to criminal liability for concealing his whereabouts.
I heard he was working in some vineyards over in Europe.
Now, after serving 50% of his sentence he is up for parole…. like every other inmate in the state not covered by the 85% classification. The article is good for one thing though: it does explain fairly well “statutory good time”, which was repealed in 1994. Inmates serving crimes for offenses pre-1994 still get SGT, though.
Convicts who committed crimes involving the use or threat of violence after July 1, 1996, must serve 85 percent of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole; Kelly is eligible under the old requirements that he serve 50 percent of his sentence before applying for parole.Kelly also gets substantial time taken off his sentence for good behavior – 10 days for every 30 served. The General Assembly did away with this “good time credit” in October 1994, but Kelly is eligible for it because his crimes predated that legislation by more than eight years.
Kelly has written a five page letter [requires pdf] to the Board of Parole in support of his release.
WTNH reports that Kelly has been denied parole.
In a unanimous decision, the state parole board has rejected rapist Alex Kelly’s request for early release.The decision late this morning came after Kelly and the two women he was convicted of raping in the mid 1980s testified before the state parole board.
The board said that it opted against paroling Kelly because of the brutal nature of the crimes.
Not yet clear whether he’s been given a denny or an outright denial. Either way, his max discharge date is sometime in 2008.
Officials discuss group home controversy
Mar 1st
Last week I posted this story, where a resident of a "group home" escaped. The problem was that the resident was a sex offender. Area residents appeared unnaturally shocked that a sex offender was living at a half-way house. Now, the mayor is demanding an investigation and wants to check and evaluate security at the two houses run by the same company.
Mayor Ron San Angelo, (R) Naugatuck, says,I’ve asked them to re evaluate these people and if they should be placed in residential group homes and if they shouldn’t be here and if there isn’t the level of security to protect our residents then they should immediately pull these residents out of these two facilities."
Sure, let’s do that and put them…. in another community with residents and other real live people who will…. have the same concerns. And so on and so on.
Oh, oh I know! Let’s just keep them in jail forever! That should solve everything, right?
Tighten security. Don’t be surprised that "they" live in the neighborhood.
ps: anyone have an apartment for rent in a state where it snows… never?
Lawmaker targets adults in underage drinking bill
Feb 28th
A CT lawmaker is proposing a bill that would increase the penalty on adults providing alcohol to minors from fines to a suspension of their driving license. While the idea itself is rather noble, and one that undoubtedly should be tackled – viz, parental responsibility – I do think that the punishment here is rather disproportionate to the alleged crime.
Under CT general statute section 30-86, Sales to minors, intoxicated persons and drunkards:
(b) Any permittee or any servant or agent of a permittee who sells or delivers alcoholic liquor to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, or to any habitual drunkard, knowing the person to be such an habitual drunkard, shall be subject to the penalties of section 30-113.
Section 30-113 provides
Sec. 30-113. Penalties. Any person convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter for which a specified penalty is not imposed, shall, for each offense, be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both. The problem with this statute and any amendment to it, seems to be enforcement. One can easily envision a scenario in which parents have alcohol in the house and a minor child has access to the bar. The minor child then drinks the alcohol and goes about driving drunk. A loss of the parents’ driver’s license seems disproportionate to the "crime" of making alcohol available. Furthermore, Criminal intent is not an essential element in a sale to a minor. State v. Lougiotis, 130 Conn. 372. Let’s apply this proposed law to the other part of Sec. 30-86, sale to an intoxicated person. Using this logic, it would then follow that the owner of a bar that sells alcohol to a person who is "wasted" would stand to lose his/her license. Or would it be the bartender? I fully understand that underage drinking is a significant problem. I also understand that drunk driving is as big, if not bigger, a problem. But punishing adults with a loss of their driver’s license is a severe restriction on most people’s livelihood. We all know that in a small state like CT, public transportation isn’t worth talking about. Almost everybody relies on cars to get to and from work. To take away a license is to effectively prevent someone from going to work. In this scenario, the ends might be better served by pinching people where it hurts the most: the wallet. If parents are providing minors with alcohol, fine the parents larger amounts of money. But to make this a per se crime and punish parents for it is untenable. If I have a child of 18 and want to share a beer with him in my own home (him not going anywhere, ofcourse), then I should be able to do that.
It seems to me that the penalty is harsh enough. Upto one year imprisonment is a Class A misdemeanor. To further compound that with the loss of the adult’s driver’s license seems unecessary.
A proposed bill in CT
Feb 25th
A proposed bill in CT would allow defendants to pay bail in installments
The upside? More indigent defendants would be able to post bail. The
downside? Judges might raise bail higher than ever before, thereby
making it almost impossible for anyone to post bail. Also, as any
criminal defense attorney who allows installment payments knows, it is
quite the chore to collect. This will probably just lead to more failure
to appear charges, although it might help the level of prison population.
recent comments