a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

It's okay, you can eat crow

It happened. I’m just surprised that it was this quick. After yesterday’s frantic call by the Governor for David Pollitt to be reincarcerated, it is fitting that today the prosecutor withdrew the warrant and dropped charges.

New London States Attorney Michael Regan told Judge Susan B. Handy that GPS records probation officials relied on when drafting the warrant for Pollitt’s arrest were incorrect.

“The GPS system was not functioning properly at the time the reading was taken,” Regan said. The disclosure left egg on the faces of judicial officials and government leaders, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who had demanded that Pollitt be returned to prison. On the way out of court, Pollitt, who had denied he left his sister’s yard, quipped to a probation official, “Kind of embarrassing, isn’t it?”

Heh. He’s funny. That’s exactly what the family said happened. A malfunctioning GPS. No case. Welcome back home, Mr. Pollitt.

This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Governor to atone for yesterday’s rush to judgment. But we in Connecticut have come to not expect anything. Instead of apologizing to Mr. Pollitt and the citizens of Connecticut for her embarassing rush to judgment, she focused on the problems with the GPS system:

“It is disappointing and frankly maddening to learn that the GPS technology used to monitor Mr. Pollitt was not working properly. We use GPS tracking for a reason,” Rell said. “In fact, we pay quite a bit of money for it ? but it’s not about the money, it’s about safety. There is no excuse for the failure to track an offender.

“This incident raises a number of troubling questions: Is the GPS system we are using reliable? Can we be sure this will not happen again?” Rell continued. “And what safeguards are in place to let us know when a problem arises? The reliability of this technology is absolutely essential. Both the Judicial Branch and the Board of Pardons and Paroles need to address these questions and ensure the accurate tracking of all offenders wearing monitoring systems.

“Frankly”, I find this “maddening”. Instead of ackowledging her mistake, she’s placing blame elsewhere and asking for others to be held accountable. When will you be held accountable, Mme Gov.? When will you apologize to the rest of the citizens of the State and show that you care about more than just the rich white folk that live in Southbury. I may not have voted for you, but you’re still the Governor of Connecticut, not white suburbia.

Oh, but there’s more. It’s not like she’s learned anything from this:

At the first violation of his probation conditions ? no matter how minor ? he should be remanded to prison.”

Yes, continue to show the citizens of this State that you care nothing about due process or the judicial system.

This was an opportunity to make amends. Unfortunately, I think she’s underestimating the anger this will foster in the non-suburbian communities in CT.

This was a time to eat crow, Governor, not dig your head further in the sand. Tsk, tsk.

What has happened is that David Pollitt has been re-arrested, because he allegedly went outside the monitoring area of his GPS device.

So, now, the political football has been inflated again and the Governor speaks out, urging his incarceration.

I realize that this would be a violation of probation, but it really, really, really bothers me that there doesn’t seem to be any concern about the rule of law and the process.

Who needs a hearing, a determination by a judge, actual evidence, facts, witnesses. I know we have a phrase for that in the law. Due….do…due…something or the other.

No, this is the Constitution State. Let’s say that one more time. Lather, rinse, repeat. We’re good. Carry-over goodwill or something.

This is a man that the Governor sought to have illegally confined beyond the length of his prison sentence. She was unsuccessful. So now that this technical violation has been charged, it seems that she has felt it appropriate to assume the role of judge, jury and sentencer (Yeah, I made up that word).

It’s not like there’s another side to the story:

His family said he was in his back yard, and the whole issue comes from a faulty GPS reading.

Family members said they don’t understand why the governor is getting involved without knowing all of the facts. They said Rell should wait until all of the details come out.

Of course, in this rush-to-judgment and “tough on crime” State, who cares what these criminals have to say.

I’m sorry if this is a harsh rant, but. I feel rather disgusted. Disgusted that there is no regard for the process; for the justice system.

She wrote to the Chief State’s Attorney, urging his incarceration (putting aside the ethical problems for Atty. Kane with any such request):

In a letter to Kane dated today, Rell wrote: “As you know, I vigorously opposed Mr. Pollitt’s release into the community last year. However, the court freed him, causing widespread and justifiable concern among the residents of the Southbury neighborhood.

“Given Mr. Pollitt’s record of violence and his apparent inability — or unwillingness — to live within the terms of his release, the safety of the community demands nothing less than his return to prison,” Rell wrote.

No, Madam Governor, WADR, the Court did not free him. His sentence expired. You know, that part of any incarceration, where the time for which he has to be confined runs out. You know, that part of the rule of law that says you cannot hold him any longer. It is absolutely appalling that a Court had to waste its resources to intervene to remind some that we don’t incarcerate people when there is no legal basis to do so.

I guess she’s able to discern between an allegation and a conviction, because she uses the word “apparently”. So then why act as if it is a done deal? Is this what the leader of a State is supposed to do? To pass judgment on a citizen before the process has been completed? To make snap judgments without any evidence or facts or without all the information? She wields a position of power - I hope she doesn’t make all her decisions in this cursory manner.

Look - he very well may have violated his probation. I don’t know. But neither do you and neither does the Governor. Let’s withhold judgment until there’s a hearing.

Why do I get sucked in like this……sigh.

(I will note that the Governor sent no such letter to anyone after the shootings in Hartford or the resulting curfew. A tale of two cities indeed.)

(Also, who here is actually surprised that he was picked up for something. I’m surprised that it took this long.)

This is a post that has been in the making for a long time. It is incomplete and at times will be incoherent. These are questions, however, that I think are worth exploring and attempting to answer. So bear with me on this Sunday as I ramble.

Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year will no doubt be aware of several high profile criminal justice stories in CT: the Cheshire incident, the David Pollitt incident and the more recent New Britain incident. Starting with Cheshire, reform of the criminal justice system has been on the minds of many residents of this State, mostly pushed forward by our esteemed legislature and Governor. We were once on the path to reducing our prison population and now we are growing and bursting at the seams with no relief in sight.

Prison sentences have been beefed up to unimaginable levels in the name of public safety, rehabilitation programs have been abandoned and common sense no longer prevails.

Yet there are people who do not feel this is enough. Read the comments to any Courant article on criminal justice and you will see that there are people who feel that any sentence short of life is inappropriate.

This State, fueled by the vote-seeking legislators, has become gripped in what might be the biggest “tough on crime” wave in the country.

The paradox, however, is something that I have long suspected.

Alternative title: “Our standards are so low”.

Remember David Pollitt? [Previous posts here, here, here and here] Yeah, he’s the guy whose release from prison after maxing out from his sentence had his rich neighbors in an uproar. They didn’t want him living in their cul-de-sac, so they staged protests and feverishly dialed into “Idol Governor”, simultaneously pressing 0 for the operator (I guess 1 for complete abrogation of the rule of law and 2 for abandonment of common sense weren’t enough. They went straight for the operator Governor).

So the Governor, as any good Governor would do, stepped in and asked the chief prosecutor attorney general to intervene to see “if we could have this here guy locked up longer than his sentence”, because well, “I’m the Guv’nor dammit and I should be able to”^.

Thankfully, the only person who could actually make Mr. Pollitt go back to jail remembered that there’s something called the law, which is written in these things called books, to which we do something called follow.

Judge Susan Handy was rather skeptical of the legal basis for this “request” from the Governor and reached back into obscure legalese to pull out a rarely heard term called “Illegal”. Never heard of it.

Anyway, whatever this “illegal” action was, it was coupled with some other bizarre phrase known as “standing”. I guess if you aren’t standing, you can’t do something illegal. My head is spinning.

[insert deafening silence, followed by sound of crickets chirping]

So. The point of this nonsense post is that this past Thursday was the 50th Anniversary of Law Day. Judge Handy received an award from the New London County Bar Association. In keeping with the tradition that lawyers are the most uncreative people on Earth, who have an affinity for campy, cheesy names, the award was called the Liberty Bell Award. Because, I guess, someone rang Liberty’s bell.

“I am both humbled and, I have to say, completely overwhelmed, to receive an award for simply doing the job you entrusted me to do,” said Handy, who was appointed to the bench 15 years ago and serves as presiding judge for criminal matters in the New London judicial district.

Let’s be clear: this post is not about Judge Handy at all. She obviously did the right thing. What disturbs me is that doing the right thing now leads to awards and needs to be recognized. How skewed has our notion of justice become that a judge who follows the law and does the most obvious thing has be to feted.

“Let’s imagine if Judge Handy had not ruled as she did,” [Chief Court Administrator Judge Barbara] Quinn said. “A man who had completed his prison sentence would have been unjustly held. The neighbors and some politicians would have rejoiced, along with many members of the public. I would submit to you, however, that the damage to the constitutional rights of every member of the public would have been shaken to the core.”

Why must we imagine? It should be unthinkable that she would rule any other way. This should have passed silently in the night - yet now we have to beat it over people’s heads that she did the right thing.

Congratulations, Judge Handy and I hope this keeps giving you the courage to do the right thing. What worries is me is now I don’t know how many judges would have done the opposite.

^Obviously she did not say that. I don’t know what she said. That was an attempt at humor.

Remember David Pollitt? (Previous posts here, here, here and here.) After trying to block his move into their neighborhood, and failing, residents are now trying to get their money back. Literally. They’ve asked the town to reduce the property tax assessment of their homes by as much as 17%.

Carolyn Nadeau, president of the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers, said the request may be the first of its kind in the state.

“I’ve never had an instance like this,” she said. “Any number of times there are distractions that people feel negatively impact their property values, such as unsightly blight, but we haven’t seen this.”

The company that revalued all properties in Southbury last fall rejected the residents’ plea for help. The new values took effect Oct. 1 and Pollitt didn’t move to the neighborhood until Oct. 12.

It’s tough. My initial reaction is to roll my eyes, but only because I was quite disgusted with the nonsense that went on the first time around. I can understand that their property values probably have taken a bit of a hit, and they’re trying to do something, anything about it. But they’re not the only ones. Residents throughout the state have to deal with this as sex offenders (and other offenders) move into their neighborhoods. What about your friendly neighborhood DUI repeat offender? I’d be worried about that kind of offender weaving around my street, drunk, knocking pedestrians off.

What will happen when other registries go online? Will it just suppress the housing market as a whole? While prices go down across the board? Or will people remember that ex-convicts have always lived amongst us and move on? What else can be done?

As Southbury gears for David Pollitt’s release today [previous post here], the Courant has this fine piece about the impact of the neighborhood’s uproar on his sister.

“I really shouldn’t come out and talk with you because we’ve received so many hate letters and calls already, and you might say what I look like,” Rosengren said Thursday. She spoke by phone to a reporter standing at the end of her driveway, but refused to come to the door. “I just think the public should hear someone with the courage to say: `I love my brother dearly. He’s family.’”

Connecticut was fast becoming a scary place to live. As yesterday’s post shows, residents of a small section of Southbury, a suburban town in Connecticut, were becoming increasingly concerned and paranoid with the news that one of their own was about to take in her brother - a convicted sexual offender - upon his release from prison. Mr. David Pollitt is scheduled to be released tomorrow after serving the full length of his sentence and will embark on a torturous journey of five years’ probation.

Residents of that nook of Southbury, rightly concerned and wrongly outraged, embarked on a full-press lobbying of the Governor to keep this from happening. Scarily, she bit. This morning, she wrote a letter to Attorney General Blumenthal asking him if Mr. Pollitt could be confined beyond his legal discharge date.

While recognizing that Mr. Pollitt has served his sentence and that his release and probation are statutorily governed, we also have a duty to ensure that we have left no stone unturned in safeguarding the safety and welfare of the Southbury residents. Numerous children and elderly residents reside in the Fox Run Drive neighborhood. I am asking that you explore immediately the possibility of filing a motion in Superior Court seeking the delay of Mr. Pollitt’s release. This additional time will allow all interested parties to carefully review all possible safety measures that may be implemented to protect the Southbury residents.

There are several, several problems with this request that I intended to outline in full detail, but in light of recent happenings, will only mention briefly:

First, this exhibits a blatant disregard for law in the State of Connecticut and flouts the Constitutions of both the Constitution State and the United States of America. I cannot imagine that Gov. Rell is not adequately advised as to the illegality of her request.

Second, assuming that she is advised as to the illegality of her request, this can be nothing but blatant political pandering. Which is abhorrable abhorrent. You do not play with people’s liberty to further your political goal.

Third, she makes this request of Attorney General Blumenthal, who has zero standing to request changes in the conditions of probation. An appropriate request would have been one made to Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, who I suspect might not have indulged her to the extent the AG did by filing this motion.

Fourth, her request indicates that the State agencies have not had time to evaluate the impact of his release into the community and make adequate preparations to safeguard the community. What, 24 years wasn’t enough to get their act together? [By all accounts, let it be noted, probation has done an excellent job of going out to the community and spending a significant amount of time attempting to assuage the fears of the residents. Paranoia, however, cannot be easily reassured.]

Finally, a half-way house or an in-patient facility is not an alternative form of probation, but an alternative form of incarceration. Mr. Pollitt has fully satisfied his period of incarceration and any such admission to a half-way house or in-patient facility would be the equivalent of keeping him in a correctional facility.

So, as you might know by now, AG Blumenthal did file a motion in New London Superior Court this afternoon, which was, by all accounts, summarily dismissed by Judge Susan Handy. She may not realize it (she probably does), but she has single-handedly saved the rule of law in the “Constitution” state.

Judge Susan Handy told Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that he has no standing to intervene in the case. Blumenthal said he was acting on behalf of Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

[She] said 54-year-old David Pollitt has served his sentence and is entitled to his freedom.

If this motion were granted (or if it is granted on appeal - if they appeal), it will mark the end of the rule of law in Connecticut. What it will signal is that the State has the power to confine individuals beyond their legal sentences for specious reasons.

Gov. Rell has just issued a statement in light of Judge Handy’s ruling:

“I am very disappointed that this reasonable and prudent request was rejected,” she said. “Public safety is our top priority — I empathize completely with the residents of the Fox Run Drive community [in Southbury], and despite this decision I want them to know that everything possible is being done to safeguard their homes and families.

Forgive me if I scoff. I’m sure every community in the State has received such assurances when sex offenders are released to them on a weekly basis.

Apparently. Last week, the CT media reported that David Pollitt, convicted in the late 70’s of sexual assault was finally being released from prison after serving out his sentence. Justice done, you say.

I piss my pants, say neighbors. They don’t want him in their community. Unfortunately for them, his sister lives in their neighborhood and she was the only member of his family kind enough to take him in after his release.

Neighborhood groups have been gathering at a house across the street from the one where Pollitt will live. They have called town officials, the governor’s office, and state agencies like the Department of Adult Probation and Department of Correction. Some have signed an online petition to keep Pollitt in prison, and many have told the media of their fears.

I wish I had a smiley face that puked. I’d use it now. Mr. Pollitt has served his sentence. Day for day, actually. No parole. He did get “good time” per the statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing, but so did everyone else.

Here’s the really sucky part:

The family’s attorney said Tuesday that neighbors put up a sign in Rosengren’s yard Monday and accosted her when she went to her mailbox. He said Pollitt, preparing to leave the Osborn Correctional Center in Somers on Friday, has heard of some of the controversy and has had second thoughts.

Here’s an idea: Move out.

Idiocy.

Yes, my tone is informal and I’ll probably regret being so rude tomorrow, but you know what… f*** it. This is ludicrous. I don’t know Mr. Pollitt personally, but I do know that after serving 24 years for his crimes, he deserves to go home.