Posts tagged connecticut
Monday morning jumpstart
Oct 15th
Another Monday, another weekend full of interesting reads.
- Think that person you e-mail is real? Think again.
- CTLP writes about David Pollitt and highlights the use of fear.
- The National Institute of Justice’s latest journal includes this article entitled “Police Lineups: Making Eyewitness Identification More Reliable”. [H/T: CDW]
- Bennett informs us that there still are lawyers who use the barter system.
- Grits is conducting an informal poll on what, if any, sanction Texas CCA judge Keller should receive [backgrounder here].
- Sui Generis is holding a “Best of NY Blawgs” contest.
- Infinity Ranch is grappling with whether felony murder is applicable when the decedent is one of the participants.
- Blonde Justice is frustrated over dealing with a new client in private practice.
- Ruth loves Law and Order. Do you?
- Where the hell is 123txpublicdefender123?
- Sanchovilla puts his MySpace investigatorial skills to use.
- Stephen Gustitis talks about reciprocity with juries.
As usual, if I missed anything, leave a link in the comments.
The day the law almost died: the David Pollitt story
Oct 11th
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.
Why I hate statutory rape laws
Oct 5th
Update: aTypical Joe nicely ties this story in with William Saletan’s piece in Slate last week about “the age of consent” and emotional development of teenagers in which he offered some concrete proposals to revamp sex laws. Read ‘em both. Saletan concludes with:
I’d draw the object line at 12, the cognitive line at 16, and the self-regulatory line at 25. I’d lock up anyone who went after a 5-year-old. I’d come down hard on a 38-year-old who married a 15-year-old. And if I ran a college, I’d discipline professors for sleeping with freshmen. When you’re 35, “she’s legal” isn’t good enough.
What I wouldn’t do is slap a mandatory sentence on a 17-year-old, even if his nominal girlfriend were 12. I know the idea of sex at that age is hard to stomach. I wish our sexual, cognitive, and emotional maturation converged in a magic moment we could call the age of consent. But they don’t.
Original: It’s because of stories like this. There are several things about this that really piss me off. First, the accused is the 18-year old boyfriend of a 15-year old girl. However, the story refers to him as a “man” and the “victim” as a girl. Second, the sex was consensual. Third, the people with whom the 18-year old boy was living make it seem like he stabbed them in the back.
Police Chief James Strillacci says he’s upset that a young man he and his wife tried to help allegedly took advantage of their generosity.
The Strillaccis had taken Keith Armstrong into their home this past summer to give him temporary shelter from a broken home, according to the chief.
Taken advantage of their generosity? By having sex with his girlfriend? Huh? He’s an 18-year old boy with a girlfriend. What did you expect?
To those of you who might remember that Connecticut recently changed its “Romeo and Juliet” law to exempt from prosecution those teens who were within three years of each other, the story is quick to point out that the boy is 3 years and fifteen days older than the girl. Clearly those fifteen days make the difference between a predator and just kids having sex.
Perhaps the prosecutor will be sensible enough to nolle the charges; otherwise this kid is looking at jail time and lifetime registration as a sex offender.
How did the cops find out? The girl’s step-father. Parenting by prosecution.
These laws are just plain stupid. I’m pretty sure this is exactly what the legislature intend to preclude from prosecution and yet here we are.
Breaking point: Koppel on overcrowding
Oct 3rd
This Sunday, Ted Koppel presents Breaking Point, a documentary on California’s prison overcrowding problem. It will air on the Discovery Channel at 9pm. From the highlights:
What does the California prison system have in common with Harvard University? It costs precisely as much to house, feed and guard one prisoner for one year in a California state prison as tuition, meals and housing cost for a student enrolled for one academic year at Harvard. As far as California taxpayers are concerned, it gets even worse. Their prison system is so overcrowded that it’s reached a breaking point. Either the state finds a long-term solution or the federal courts have warned they’ll begin ordering the release of inmates, just to ease the crush.
In this two-hour broadcast, Ted Koppel examines how California got to this point and presents an inside view of the crisis through in-depth interviews with inmates, guards and prison officials at California State Prison Solano in Vacaville.
Designed to accommodate no more than 100,000 inmates, California’s prisons now hold 173,000, each at an annual cost of $43,000. How did things get so out of control? Mandatory sentencing is a big part of the answer. When California voters threw their support behind a get-tough-on-crime bill that came to be known as “Three Strikes and You’re Out,” the state prison system filled up and is now overflowing.
You can get the quick facts, view prison portraits, explore CSP – Solano or watch a video from inside the prison.
Prison overcrowding presents several problems aside from safety and security of staff and inmates. More often than not, overcrowding leads to inmates being forced to sleep in gyms, halls, classrooms and day-rooms. This occupies space reserved for rehabilitative programs. I’m not sure these programs continue or that inmates have recreation areas where they can blow off steam or learn a trade or get an education. It truly is counterproductive.
Hopefully the legislators on Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee will watch this 2-hour program on Sunday.
Prison overcrowding? No problem.
Oct 1st
Very little has been reported thus far on today’s emergency judiciary committee meeting on the parole ban. The only thing out there is this meager story by Channel 3.
From what I can gather, Commissioner Lantz doesn’t seem to think there’s a problem.
The state’s prisons commissioner said she doesn’t need more staff or new prisons to handle any influx of inmates from the temporary ban of parole for violent offenders.
Lantz said an additional 228 beds are being added. Also, she said the corrections officers are trained to handle fluctuating prison populations. Currently, there are about 300 portable beds set up on gym floors and in function rooms.
There are currently 19,000 inmates in Connecticut’s prisons — 2,000 more than what the system was designed for.
Nope, nothing to see. Move along.
I guess I’m still surprised that the legislature has no problem with the Governor effectively overriding a statute.
Monday Morning Jumpstart
Oct 1st
It’s just another Manic Monday.
- CT seems to be a bad place to be a teacher. Karoli has all the details about a teacher forced to resign because a girl’s parents didn’t like his choice of summer reading.
- More than 20% of CT inmates have moderate to severe mental illnesses. More on this later.
- Matlock the Republican creates a taxonomy of lawyers using baseball terms.
- S.cotus took the new naturalization test last week and followed it up with a test of his own.
- The Saucy Vixen gave us a glimpse into dealing with her clients (and the post spawned some interesting comments).
- Anne Reed’s Deliberations took a look at the idea of a national jury pool.
- Of Counsel has been all over the AJC’s coverage of the death penalty.
- Speaking of which, CDW’s weekly roundup is here.
- Grits brings the good news that the Dallas PD will participate in a study of lineup procedures.
If I missed anything, leave a link in the comments!
There are other reforms, too
Sep 30th
Forgotten in this Cheshire mess is the sentencing commission that started work in May, which was charged with looking at how to change the state’s sentencing laws for the better. Ah, back in May, when Komisarjevsky was still on GPS monitoring and the Petit women were alive.
Glad to hear that someone thought to ask them of their other business. Cheshire has overshadowed the fact that CT has draconian drug laws and there is a racial disparity in sentencing and even charging.
[New Haven Public Defender Tom] Ullmann and several other members suggested the task force may be missing a chance to make long-term changes in the justice system.
Others said the group will continue to discuss issues such as mandatory minimum drug sentences and racial disparity in sentencing even as it deals with parole system gaps exposed by the Cheshire case.
Some of the juicy things on their agenda:
The task force divided into four subcommittees that would discuss alternatives to incarceration, sentencing structure, the racial imbalance in prisons and how to classify some drug offenses and other crimes that carry a broad range of possible sentences.
These are all excellent areas of investigation and reform. Thankfully last year the legislature eliminated the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing (I think…I may be imagining it).
Prison overcrowding is an immense problem and all of these avenues will help to reduce it and hopefully, get to the source of the problem for most drug offenders: addiction.
I wish there was some way to study racial disparities in charging, but it seems too daunting a task.
Of all the groups commenting on Cheshire, this task force has been oddly silent. Not all members agree:
Some members say the task force should lend its voice to the Cheshire debate so the state does not make any rash changes.
“I think it’s incumbent upon us to respond,” said Andrew Clark, a group member and the administrator of the Institute for the Study of Crime & Justice at Central Connecticut State University. “We have to ask tough questions and come up with real solutions.”
But there has been, at least for some members, a shift in focus.
The sentencing task force changed its focus at the same time. It studied tougher burglary laws and looked at the impact a tougher “three strikes and you’re out” law would have on prison overcrowding.
“It’s almost like members are bending over backward to join the throng of punitive measures,” said Jon Schoenhorn, a task force member and president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. “It violates the entire purpose of why this task force was created.”
“Three strikes laws” + prison overcrowding: Not gettin’ better any time soon.
Emergency hearing on parole ban and unconstitutionality of overcrowding
Sep 25th
The Judiciary Committee will hold an emergency hearing on Gov. Rell’s parole ban on Monday. Since she refused to testify, they’ve asked DOC commissioner Theresa Lantz to testify instead. Here [pdf] is the letter inviting her. The crux:
In particular, the committee would like to know whether you anticipate there will be a surge in inmate population. We also want to know what the contingency plans the Governor has to protect corrections staff and host communities in the event there is a population surge beyond what can be safely accommodated in Connecticut’s correctional institutions.
The Governor has implied that her ban on parole of violent offenders is temporary. On Friday, she stated: “This policy, which follows the arrest Friday of a Connecticut parolee accused in Hartford carjacking, will remain in place until reforms of the parole process are complete.”
We also need to know what reforms of the parole process the Governor believes must be enacted by legislation and which reforms can be done by the administration through regulations. Once we have the administration’s definitive enumeration of legislative proposals, we can include them on the agenda for the Committee’s upcoming hearing on criminal justice reforms.
A bit too nice for my liking, but this is politics.
I’d like to point to yesterday’s decision by a Federal Judge in California, holding that jail officials violated the prisoners’ constitutional rights when they had them sleep on concrete floors because of chronic overcrowding. The LATimes piece is here. Connecticut’s prisons are already overflowing and if you don’t think that inmates here are sleeping on floors then you’re lying to yourself.
Another thing that irks me is the continued misreporting of the Cheshire accused. During Colin McEnroe’s afternoon show on WTIC, the news included this statement: “Both accused had extensive criminal records”. No, they did not. Hayes did, Komisarjevsky did not. I guess I’ll keep repeating it till people get it right.
The impact of the parole ban
Sep 24th
With much being said of Governor Rell’s ban on parole in the last few days (and most of it favorable), it must be pointed out what the impact of such a ban shall be. Here’s a story on just that. The highlights:
The Board of Pardons and Paroles is reviewing the cases of 400 to 600 inmates who were scheduled for release on parole.
These are inmates who were already granted parole (and some, it is safe to say, in the last few months), so now they have to be housed again and perhaps there is a legal challenge here. While there is no liberty interest in parole, there is a liberty interest in parole revocation. Canceling parole after granting it would be akin to a revocation of parole.
The Department of Correction is reviewing the files of 1,200 level one inmates to identify non-violent offenders to release to halfway houses to open bed space for violent offenders.
So now you have a number of inmates who will be rushed through parole to make room for those who have been granted it, but will not be released. Good for the 1,200, but is it really good for safety?
Rell said that there are no current or expected plans to build new or expand the state’s current prisons.
Ah, of course. Because Connecticut’s prisons are underpopulated and there are plenty of empty beds.
Lawlor said if violent offenders can’t receive parole, the state’s prison population will only grow more.
There are more than 19,000 inmates in Connecticut’s prisons, originally designed to house 17,000. Lawlor said that the federal courts could order a mass release.
Oh wait, so you mean there is a prison overcrowding problem? The best way to solve that is to ban parole for all violent offenders. No, it isn’t? Hmm.
East Haven Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the state’s prison population has grown by 280 inmates since the July 23 Cheshire home invasion, in which a mother and her two daughters were killed.
This number will only continue to grow. Estimates put the projected increase at 1,500 over the next year. I guess I can safely delete these posts.
Of course, there are the “in the trenches” consequences:
Judges are setting higher bond for burglars and other criminals; defendants are receiving longer sentences; and the Board of Pardons and Paroles is more conservative about who gets parole.
In case we’ve all forgotten, here’s a reminder from a previous post, quoting the Office of Policy and Management’s “Comprehensive Plan For the Connecticut Criminal Justice System 2007 [pdf]“:
- Not shockingly, inmates released from prison with no community supervision were most likely to be reconvicted and resentenced to prison for a new offense.
The Governor, not surprisingly, has declined to appear before the judiciary committee to discuss her “ban”.
While the calls for three-strikes laws and stricter sentences were questionably wrong, this ban on parole is unquestionably knee-jerk and almost certainly illegal.
Serenity now….serenity now.
New CT blog
Sep 14th
There’s a new CT blog on the scene and for those of you in employment law, it is your lucky day. The Connecticut Employment Law Blog is written by Daniel Schwartz of Epstein, Becker & Green. It looks pretty darn snazzy. I’ve added it to the CT blogroll.
Hearing on criminal justice reforms today
Sep 11th
Today, the legislature will hold its first hearing on the criminal justice system and any reforms in the wake of the Cheshire killings and the media is having a field day. I was going to write about the one lone story in the Courant last night, but upon awaking this morning, I see that the Courant now has 5 – count ‘em – 5 more stories. So I’ll just highlight each.
First, here comes the classic conundrum: We want to be tougher on crime, but if that involves building a prison and you choose to do it in our town, we’ll fight you tooth and nail. Meriden is apparently, the “only” viable site for a new prison and the residents are not happy and ready to fight.
Second, there’s this lengthy piece on Bob Farr and how he had no idea his job would become this difficult. However, if some people are to be believed, he should have had every indication that this nightmare would occur, because, you know, this was predictable.
Third, this story highlights the differences between both sides of the aisle in their proposals and details the Office of Fiscal Analysis’ report on the cost of these proposals: Prison population increases by 1000 a year and the new prison costs $10 100 million. GPS monitoring costs $212,000 for every 30 inmates.
Fourth, this piece analyzes whether Hayes should have been allowed to remain free after being released on parole, because he had to reschedule two meetings. Buried in the story is the fact that he had two jobs and a place to live.
Finally, the media takes this story of a death in Hartford and ties it in to the Cheshire hearings. It also misrepresents in the title: “Parole violator at scene of death”. What it doesn’t tell you (or does so ineptly – whether intentionally or otherwise) is that he was charged with violation of parole because he was at the scene. Stupid sensationalism.
I’ll be looking to the news for updates on the hearings and to Undercurrents, which I suspect will have a detailed report. There is a press conference prior to the hearings, held by, among others, A Better Way Foundation. Details here. It sure is going to be a fun day.
Penalty phase hearing in Bridgeport case starts
Sep 11th
Yesterday the penalty phase hearing in the capital trial of Russell Peeler got underway in Bridgeport Superior Court. This is his second penalty phase hearing after the first one ended with a hung jury. Already there’s some drama. Two jurors asked to be dismissed after the Connecticut Post mentioned their names in a story over the weekend.
Defense attorney Erskine McIntosh moved for a mistrial, saying he was concerned about the possibility of future problems with jurors. “I just don’t think it’s worth that type of risk, particularly when this man’s life is on the line,” McIntosh said.
Judge Robert Devlin Jr. denied the request. “I detected no hesitation in their ability to be up to the task,” he said of the remaining jurors.
Peeler’s hearing is one of two set for this month. Lazale Ashby’s hearing in Hartford is also scheduled for this month.
Lawmakers try to outdo each other with ridiculous proposals
Sep 7th
In anticipation of next week’s Judiciary Committee hearing on public safety in Connecticut, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are trying to outdo each other with, in my opinion, increasingly unrealistic proposals.
Republican lawmakers called Thursday for a special session of the legislature this fall to pass tougher criminal laws in response to the triple slaying in Cheshire in July. Meanwhile, the Democratic president of the state Senate said the entire Board of Pardons and Paroles should be dismantled and replaced with criminal justice professionals.
Williams, the president of the Senate, said probably the funniest thing I’m going to hear all day:
“It looks like a rubber-stamp, perfunctory process instead of a deliberative process,” Williams said. “It’s an ancient process. It’s a per diem, part-time basis that does not provide the protections our communities need.”
Rubber-stamp? Perfunctory? With all due respect sir, have you had any dealings with the Board? I have. I can tell you it is anything but. The reporting by the press seems to indicate that the parole board meets with all its members in Hawaiian shirts, sipping mojitos, sitting on lounge chairs while they throw parole applications in the air and grant parole to those applications that fall on the ground and deny parole to those that fall on the table. My experience has been that it has taken a lot to be granted parole. Parole packages are put together by full-time employees of the Board and forwarded to the panel members. They look at transcripts, disciplinary history, criminal records (heck, they go back 10 years to see if an inmate had a violent offense conviction), programs completed, type of offense, facts surrounding the offense, police reports…
They do seem to agree on making “home invasions” a violent offense. My thoughts on that have been well documented and I will just say that I disagree with the proposal and the same result can be achieved through existing laws.
Some are also still pushing for “three strikes” laws and I can only hope that the legislators do a quick Google search, like I did, for studies on the effectiveness of three strikes laws and realize that they don’t work. They also want to shore up the “persistent offender” statute, part of which was struck down this week.
I’m also disappointed by the lack of any speakers from the other side of the courtroom at this judiciary committee hearing. But that’s to be expected. It’s understandable that the defense bar wants to lay low on this one, but that does not serve the interests of our clients and of the community at large. When everyone who has the power to change legislation in Connecticut or influence that change is chomping at the bit to go medieval, someone needs to be the voice of reason and urge people to take a step back and think before they act.
How many times can one repeat that knee-jerk legislation makes the worst legislation? I’ll give it another shot.
Re-entry problems
Sep 6th
Grits writes today of the counterproductive nature of policies that bar felons from gaining employment upon release. He points to this press release by the CEO of a security camera surveillance company lamenting the foolishness of such policies. I agree with both of them, but I don’t think any shift in policy will happen any time soon. Rehabilitation and re-integration into society have long been abandoned as goals of the correctional institutions and the penal system in this country (and many others).
Think about it. What is the last thing you want a just released inmate to be doing? Nothing. That’s right. You don’t want him to be sitting around on street corners wondering where the next meal is going to come from or where he’s going to sleep. That is not a good formula for re-integration. More often than not, he will resort to the only thing he knows: How to make quick money. More often than not, that will not involve legitimate means. Crime will continue to occur.
If we are to make our streets safer and to reduce the burden on taxpayers, then we need to focus on re-entry programs and in assisting recently released inmates obtain lawful employment. The money we spend on these programs will be quickly offset by the savings from reduced incarceration costs, law enforcement costs and will only help local economies.
So what is standing in the way? Are we that invested in the idea that “criminals” are “monsters” and “evil” and cannot be salvaged? Are we that invested in our moral highground that we cannot see beyond our own nose?
No one is better off with these policies. Which is why I was extremely glad when Connecticut introduced a proposal to provide gate pay to inmates earlier this year. We need more steps like these to ensure that when inmates are released, they aren’t forced back into a life of crime.
Yeah, there’s no bias in the media
Sep 5th
Kerri at Undercurrents has this great post today about the Connecticut media’s continuing disparate treatment of reporting crimes in Hartford. You’ve all heard of the Petits, but do you know who Kirk Taylor is?
recent comments