Posts tagged connecticut
CT legal roundup
Mar 29th
As usual, Kirby’s Reports provides the most extensive CT legal news roundup on the web. Today’s edition can be accessed here.
Ross execution battle back in court
Mar 29th
A Hartford Superior Court judge heard
arguments yesterday dealing with the issues of parole and pardon reviews for those about to be put to death. In a suit brought by the Missionary Society of Connecticut, the religious group claims there are no rules concerning the commutation or setting aside of death sentences. Connecticut’s Attorney General claims there are rules and this group has no right to interfere.
"This group has no basis to be in court and has no legal foundation for claims that very simply seek to block or delay the execution when Michael Ross himself has waived the right that this group is seeking to claim on his behalf,"says Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
"I suppose if a procedure were created that did not require testimony or input from victim’s family members then maybe he might have an interest, I don’t know," says Paulding.
For those who remember, the Missionary Society had brought a similar suit back in January, which was dismissed by the CT Supreme Court [pdf]. More on the Missionary Society’s suit and positions can be found here.
Ross’ competency hearings are scheduled to be held mid-April.
New Legislation – equal sentences for crack and cocaine
Mar 28th
CT lawmakers are debating a bill that would equalize sentences for selling crack and cocaine. Currently, the sentences for selling 1/2 gram of crack and 28 ounces of cocaine are the same: minimum of five and maximum of twenty. I remember from working at the Federal Defenders in San Diego and my criminal clinic class that the Federal Sentencing guidelines were similarly disproportionate in this area.
Hartford State Representative Marie
Kirkley-Bey says the current law is unfair because it targets
minorities living in Connecticut’s urban areas. Across the country,
84.2 percent of people sentenced to prison on crack cocaine-related
charges are black, according to federal statistics.
What remains to be seen is how they "equalize" the sentences. Will they become harsher? Will the sentence for selling 1/2 gram of crack be halved or vice-versa? I’ll find the proposed bill and post more on it after I’ve read the text.
Connecticut jurors dismissed out of fear
Mar 27th
A Federal judge in Connecticut dismissed jurors in a trial involving a suspected prison snitch and a reputed gang member after members said they feared for their safety.
Senior U.S. District Judge Warren W. Eginton discharged the six men and two women Tuesday and declared a mistrial in the case of Joseph Gibson III.
Gibson alleged in a lawsuit that prison officials failed to protect him from a reputed gang member who slashed his throat at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers on Sept. 16, 1999.
Gibson said he was attacked because he was suspected of being an informer and a friend owed a gang drug money.
Joseph Merly, one of Gibson’s lawyers, had Gibson show the scar to the jury this week.
"Something really spooked the jury," Merly said. "You know sometimes we forget how this must sound to lay people."
Thanks to CrimProf for the link.
Monstrous divorce settlement
Mar 27th
I just wanted to point out this story, although it is a few days old, simply for the staggering sums of money involved. In Bridgeport, CT, a judge awarded more than $40 million to the wife of a businessman in their divorce. Just look at these sums she gets:
- $24 million payment,
- $3.6 million Manhattan apartment,
- $2 million Utah ski house,
- $800,000 home in New York state,
- $6 million in brokerage accounts,
- $2.9 million in jewelry and
- Eight cars.
But she has to vacate the couple’s two mansions in
Connecticut and three desert properties in Arizona.
He keeps $89 million in
bank accounts, 10 of the couple’s 18 cars, $960,000 worth of
private club memberships and $22 million in fine art.
If I had a million dollars….
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.
Another Habeas granted! The fun just continues
Mar 17th
In severely shocking news yesterday, the Appellate Court issued an opinion reversing the Habeas court’s dismissal of a petition, and thereby granting the Habeas! Gadzooks! Are we in bizzaro-world?
In Clark v. Commissioner [pdf], the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that, because he is not a fugitive from justice, the respondent, the
commissioner of correction, is illegally retaining the petitioner in his custody. Petitioner claimed he was not a fugitive from justice because he was involuntarily extradited from Texas.
In pursuit of his request for extradition in the present case, the governor of Texas sent to [CT's] governor a written demand, dated April 17, 2003, for the extradition of the petitioner. See General Statutes § 54-157 et seq. In accordance with General Statutes § 54-159, the extradition demand stated that the petitioner had been charged with the commission of a crime in the state of Texas, "was present in [Texas] at the time of the commission of said crime," "thereafter fled from the justice of [Texas]," and had taken refuge in Connecticut. The extradition demand consistently referred to the petitioner as a "fugitive." In response, on April 29, 2003, our governor exercised his power, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-163, to issue a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on May 2, 2003.
The issue in this case boiled down to whether Petitioner was a fugitive from justice. Both parties agreed that if Petitioner were a fugitive from justice, then the extradition would be legal and vice-versa. The rest of the decision is rather technical and deals with whether C.G.S 54-161 (return to this state of person imprisoned or held in another state) overruled Moulthrope v. Matus, 139 Conn. 272 (holding that a person extradited involuntarily could be considered a fugitive under common law). Needless to say, the Court holds that the extradition, being involuntary, does not make him a fugitive and therefore the extradition demand was invalid.
For those trying to get a good grasp on the extradition statutes of CT, I’d recommend reading this case because it goes into depth, exploring the statutes and similar statutes in other states.
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.
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.
Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee is going
Feb 23rd
Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee is going to vote
either same-sex marriages or civil unions. Sorry for the minimal posting
today, I have a bit of a cold.
Judiciary Committee to consider same-sex marriage, civil unions
Feb 23rd
Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee is going to vote on whether to support either same-sex marriages or civil unions.
Sorry for the minimal posting today, I have a bit of a cold.
Ross and the death penalty litigation
Feb 17th
When the Ross drama was in full swing a few weeks ago, one of the arguments raised for issuing a stay was the pending legislation in CT regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty. In one of my posts then, I briefly mentioned the pending consolidated litigation. The Day of New London does a wonderful job of explaining the litigation in much depth.
Four death row inmates have challenged the state’s death penalty, arguing that it is racially biased and therefore unconstitutional.
Sedrick Cobb, Robert Breton Sr., Daniel Webb and Richard Reynolds are alleging that the race of the victim is a key factor in whether or not his or her killer gets the death penalty. They also are alleging that a disproportionate number of black defendants are convicted of capital felonies.
Instead of hearing each of those claims as separate cases, the state Supreme Court in December 2002 appointed former Chief Justice Robert Callahan to serve as a special master to consolidate and manage the litigation of that question.
Callahan said this week that the five cases are in various stages of appeal and probably will not be brought together for at least another six months.
A legislative panel raised the issue in December 2002, pointing out that six of the seven inmates then on death row were there for killing white people. The seventh inmate’s victim was Hispanic.
In filings with the court, Cobb introduced data showing that since 1973, only 11 of the 74 capital felony cases prosecuted in the state involved the murder of a black victim. Capital felony is the only charge that can lead to the death penalty. Life in prison is an alternative sentence for a conviction.
Also:
• Of the 18 capital prosecutions of murder committed during the course of a kidnapping, none involved a black victim.
• Of the 12 capital prosecutions for murder committed in the course of a sexual assault, only one involved a black victim.
• Of the 28 cases in which the defendant was convicted of a capital felony, only four involved black victims.
Dan Ross argued last month in his petition that the state should not execute anyone until that question has been resolved.
The state Supreme Court dismissed that argument, along with arguments that Michael Ross is not competent to choose to drop any further appeals.
But three of the seven justices dissented, asking how an execution could occur if the very constitutionality of Connecticut’s death penalty had been challenged.
You can read the dissent here and Justice Norcott’s lengthy dissent here. (Both require pdf.)
The question here isn’t whether Michael Ross can withdraw or exclude himself from this pending litigation. The key question, really the only question, is whether the State can permit Michael Ross to withdraw or exclude himself. For if he is allowed to opt out and is executed as per his wishes and then Justice Callahan rules the death penalty unconstitutional, there is no remedy, no reparation to Michael Ross. So while this litigation is ongoing, should he not be permitted to opt out and volunteer to die?
Thoughts anyone?
recent comments