June 14, 2010

Arraignment of an Arrested Person Who is Hospitalized

According to Connecticut General Statutes §54-1g, a person should essentially be arraigned at the earliest regular sitting of the Superior Court following a hospitalization and arrest. Further, according to a recent Appellate Court case, Bewry v. Commissioner of Correction, Docket No. AC 30505 (2010), our statutes do not mandate in-hospital arraignments. Thus, when a person who has recently been arrested, then hospitalized, he or she must then be presented to the court at the first regular sitting of the Superior Court after the discharge from the hospital stay.

March 17, 2010

FORGERY REQUIRES AN INTENT TO DECEIVE

The Appellate Court has recently held that our forgery statute, C.G.S. 53a-140, does not address the behavior of a victim of forgery. In addition, neither the attempt to deceive nor the success of the attempt is at issue either. Instead, the state must prove, generally, that with the intent to defraud, deceive or injury another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument, or issues or possesses any written instrument which he knows to be forged. See also State v. Yurch, 37 Conn.App. 72 (Conn. 1995).

October 15, 2009

Consistency of Verdicts

The general rule in Connecticut is that factual consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it were a seperate indictment. State v. Stevens, 178 Conn. 649, 653 (Conn. 1979). Where the verdict could have been the result of compromise or mistake, the court will not probe into the logic or reasoning of the jury's deliberations or open the door to interminable speculation. United States v. Zane, 495 F.2d 683, 690 (2d Cir.).

Our courts will employ a less limited approach, however, whey they are confronted with an argument that the verdicts are inconsistent as a matter of law or when the verdicts are based on a legal impossibility. See State v. Robinson, 213 Conn. 243, 250-251 (Conn. 1989).

In response to such a claim, the courts look carefully to determine whether the existence of the essential elements for one offense negates the existence of the essential elements for another offense of which the Defendant also stands convicted. If that is the case, the verdicts are legally inconsistent and cannot withstand challenge. State v. Hinton, 227 Conn. 301, 314 (Conn. 1993). As always, consult with an attorney who can assess your case on an individual basis.

June 29, 2009

Termination of Pre-Trial Probation

General Statutes Sec. 54-56e, Accelerated Rehabilitation, establishes a discretionary pretrial diversionary program in certain criminal cases. It suspends criminal prosecution for a stated period of time subject to such conditions as the court shall order. If the defendant satisfactorily completes the probationary period he may then apply to the court for dismissal of the charges lodged against him. State v. Fanning, 98 Conn.App. 111, 115 (2006).

However, an arrest during the probationary period, without more, is insufficient to terminate participation in the program. Id. Specifically, the fact of an arrest, without more, is an insufficient basis for the court to determine by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had "violated any criminal law", General Statutes Sec. 53a-30(a)(7); in order to terminate the probation. Id. at 122. As always, you should consult with an attorney in order to assess your specific case.

June 11, 2009

Restraining Order v. Protective Order

Generally, restraining orders are different than protective orders in that they are civil as opposed to criminal. In other words, normally one applies for a restraining order at the civil clerk's office. Thereafter, the civil court, upon sufficient evidence, then orders the restraining order. The penalties for a violation of the restraining order are civil penalties, as opposed to criminal consequences.

On the other hand, criminal protective orders typically apply in a family violence situation and are usually issued after an accused has been arrested for committing a family violence crime.
The penalty for violating the protective order is a criminal violation, as opposed to a civil penalty. Both essentially accomplish the same purpose, protecting a particular individual. However, the methods for obtaining either order and the consequences for violating the orders are different. As always, consult an attorney for further advice.


April 13, 2009

Jail Credits Stop Once Sentences Begins

All jail credit stops once a person begins serving a sentence. This rule applies except when: the person is re-imprisoned for a violation of special parole and held in lieu of bond on new charges and the accused will get pre-sentence jail credit on the new file, unlike confinement for a violation of discretionary parole.
Also, jail credits do not stop if the accused is serving a sentence in another jurisdiction and brought to Connecticut pursuant to an Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The accused will get pre-sentence credit on the Connecticut file so long as there is an unposted bond.

February 10, 2009

Jail Credit When Charged With a New Crime

If you are in the scenario whereby you are charged and arrrested with a crime, bail is set, you post the bond and are then charged with a new crime, bail is set and you cannot post the new amount of the bail, make sure you do the following. In essence, you are charged with two crimes, one of which you have posted bond on and the other you are sitting in jail for because you cannot post the bond. The problem is that while you are in prison, your credit will only be applied to the new charge (for which you cannot post bond on) but not the other charge, for which you have posted the bond. This means that the jail credits are not being applied toward the first charge, if you are sentenced on that charge to a term of imprisonment.

A way to remedy this situation so that you are getting jail credits towards both charges is to raise the bond on the first charge. Usually, a court will raise the bond amount by a nominal amount. Once the bond on the first charge is raised, you are now gaining credit towards both charges to be applied by the Department of Corrections when you are sentenced. This may seem confusing but at a minimum be aware of the consequences and seek the opinion of an attorney or lawyer.

January 28, 2009

Hartford Mayor Faces Bribe Charge

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Eddie Perez, a one-time gang leader who turned his life around to become Hartford's most powerful mayor, surrendered to police Tuesday to face a bribery charge for having a city contractor renovate his home and not paying for it until after being confronted by investigators.

Perez, Hartford's first Hispanic mayor, pushed through changes to the city charter that gave him unprecedented control, which he used to consolidate power, appoint department heads and take control of the school board. But for two years he has operated under a cloud of suspicion, and the charges threaten to add his name to a steadily growing list of crooked politicians that has given this state the nickname "Corrupticut."

Surrounded at a City Hall news conference by family, city workers and allies Tuesday, the three-term Democrat admitted that he should never have used a city contractor, but said he did not commit a crime. He pledged to remain in the office he's held since 2001.

"It was inappropriate and inexcusable," Perez said. "I should never have allowed the perception of impropriety to color my administration."

The contractor, Carlos Costa, told investigators he believed he would be shut out of lucrative city contracts had he not done the work for free, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Costa's attorney, William Gerace, would not say if his client is cooperating with prosecutors.

"Mr. Costa was asked to do a job at the mayor's house and he did it," Gerace said. "He's not a crook. He's not dishonest. He's a hardworking contractor."

Costa, who was awarded a $5 million city streetscape contract in 2003, did $40,000 in kitchen and bathroom renovations at Perez's home in 2005. Perez paid $20,000 for the work, but only after being questioned in 2007 by a grand jury probing possible corruption in city government, prosecutors said. Neither Costa nor Perez obtained building permits for the work, prosecutors said.

According to warrants, Perez repeatedly intervened in matters to help Costa, such as by pressing city workers to pay Costa's bills faster than other municipal contractors.

Perez's attorney, Hubert Santos, said that pushing the city to pay legitimate bills is not a crime. He insisted that Perez always planned to pay for the renovation work, but was distracted when his wife collapsed in 2005 and underwent months of treatment for brain aneurysms.

"At least if you are going to destroy an administration, particularly one run by one of the few minority mayors in the state of Connecticut, the least we can ask of the prosecutor's office is to allege a crime," said Santos, who counts Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel among his clients.

Perez, 51, is charged with receiving a bribe, fabricating physical evidence and conspiracy to fabricate evidence. Each of the felonies brings a maximum sentence of five to 10 years in prison if convicted.

Costa was charged Monday with two counts of bribery, fabricating evidence and conspiracy to fabricate evidence.

Another city hall employee, Edward Lazu, was charged Tuesday with one count of receiving a bribe, fabricating evidence and three counts of forgery. Costa did free driveway and sidewalk work for Lazu, who certifies contractors for city work, prosecutors said.

Lazu's attorney, Richard Brown, said his client did nothing wrong and has no information about any wrongdoing involving the mayor.

Perez grew up on Hartford's gritty North End and founded a street gang before turning away from the life in the 1970s and forming a neighborhood civic group.

Though technically powerless in the city's weak-mayor form of government, Perez upended Hartford politics by aligning himself with a Republican and a Green Party member to seize control of the City Council. In 2002, voters approved a charter change that shifted the power from the council to the mayor's office and made Perez the most powerful mayor in Hartford history. In 2005, he took over the city's school system.

Authorities searched Perez's home in August 2007, and two months later the state put together an investigatory grand jury to look into possible wrongdoing in his administration. Although the investigation was revealed before the 2007 mayoral election in November, Perez easily won another term.

Other prominent Connecticut politicians have been the subject of corruption investigations in recent years, including former Gov. John G. Rowland, who resigned in 2004 and later served 10 months in federal prison after admitting that he traded political access for vacations and repairs to his cottage.

Among the others are former Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim, who is serving a nine-year federal prison sentence for steering more than $2 million in city contracts, and former Waterbury Mayor Philip Giordano, who is serving a 37-year prison sentence for sexually abusing two girls, crimes that came to light during a federal corruption investigation.

---

Associated Press writer Dave Collins contributed to this report.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

January 27, 2009

A Homecoming For O’Connor

By DOUGLAS S. MALAN
Connecticut Law Tribune

Former Connecticut U.S. Attorney Kevin J. O’Connor kept his family in mind even as his career took him from his native Connecticut to government posts in Washington, D.C.

For nearly two years, as he held high-ranking posts in the U.S. Department of Justice, he committed to a weekly commute from his West Hartford home to Washington rather than uproot his wife, Kathleen, and their four young children.

Now, as a new administration takes over in Washington, O’Connor is returning to private practice with the Hartford office of Texas-based Bracewell & Giuliani, and his decision largely hinged on the quality of life his family enjoys in West Hartford.

O’Connor, a 41-year-old Republican, had been serving as associate U.S. attorney general, but that position ended when the administration of President George W. Bush left office last Tuesday. O’Connor will join Bracewell & Giuliani on Feb. 2.

His practice will focus on multi-jurisdictional commercial litigation, including matters related to corporate restructuring, along with white-collar defense cases. Bracewell & Giuliani is a 450-lawyer firm with offices in the United States, Dubai, Kazakhstan and London, and includes New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as its name partner.

Attorney Evan D. Flaschen, who heads the Hartford office, which has about a dozen attorneys, said O’Connor will add cachet to the firm because of his considerable network of professional contacts. “He knows everyone in the community and will be out there renewing acquaintances,” Flaschen said.

Alex V. Hernandez, chair of Pullman & Comley’s white-collar defense and investigations section, was an assistant U.S. attorney under O’Connor. “Adding someone like Kevin is going to raise that firm’s presence and exposure in the state of Connecticut,” Hernandez said.

After several months of discussions, O’Connor formally accepted the Bracewell & Giuliani job in late December. O’Connor said he had been familiar with the firm ever since it opened its Connecticut office in March 2007 because of long-standing friendships he has with people connected to the firm.

“Bracewell & Giuliani has a significant Washington, D.C. presence, which I thought would be helpful for me,” O’Connor said from Florida, where he was vacationing with his family last week. “They have an international footprint and a large national footprint. At this point in my career, Bracewell & Giuliani was a better fit, but it was a very difficult decision.”

Many Suitors

Several law firms had asked O’Connor to contact them when he was ready to go back into private practice. He said he had promised his wife, Kathleen, that he would leave Washington regardless of who won the election.

O’Connor said he began considering about a dozen law firms and ultimately narrowed his list to about five. He was looking at New York-based firms, Connecticut-based firms and national firms with Hartford offices whose practices included large white-collar and complex litigation practices.

“It became clear to me at some point that we were going to eliminate New York-based firms,” said O’Connor, who didn’t want to move his family to Fairfield County. “We wanted to stay in West Hartford, and I wanted to work in Hartford.”

Interest was so strong that some firms offered to open a Hartford office for him, O’Connor said, but he was more interested in joining an established practice than creating one. He also said that the idea of returning to a previous employer, Day Pitney, was “absolutely” a consideration. But in the end, he chose Bracewell & Giuliani for its overall size, range of practice areas and compensation offer.

O’Connor’s extensive regulatory and trial experience, as well as his knowledge of corporate and capital markets, made him an attractive addition, Flaschen said. “He has litigated from all sides of the table,” Flaschen noted. “He’s not a one-trick pony.”

O’Connor graduated from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1992, and early jobs included positions as staff attorney and senior counsel in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement in Washington, D.C. He later served as a partner in Day, Berry & Howard’s Hartford office.

O’Connor served as U.S. Attorney from 2002 until last spring when the U.S. Senate confirmed his appointment as associate attorney general, which is the number three position at the Justice Department. Before that, O’Connor served for several months in 2007 as chief of staff to then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

“Bracewell & Giuliani is very fortunate to have Kevin,” said Day Pitney partner Stanley A. Twardy Jr., another former U.S. Attorney who hired O’Connor to work at the firm in the late 1990s. “He has distinguished himself every step of the way. He has an intimate knowledge of the government and how it works.”

In a prepared statement, Rudy Giuliani praised O’Connors’ “dedication to public service and his extraordinary accomplishments.” Giuliani also noted that he, too, had served as associate attorney general, under President Ronald Reagan.

“I am well aware of the challenges Kevin has faced in the same position, and I am extremely pleased that he brings that experience with him to Bracewell,” Giuliani stated.

Crisis Management

During the months that O’Connor served as chief of staff to Gonzales as well as U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, he regularly logged 15-hour days that began at 6 a.m. “The AG was an early riser,” O’Connor said.

Justice Department work ended around 7 p.m., and then O’Connor switched gears and handled U.S. Attorney duties for another few hours. While O’Connor praised assistant U.S. attorneys John Durham and Nora Dannehy for taking on added responsibilities, there were certain duties that only O’Connor could fulfill per federal regulations.

O’Connor was known to carry two BlackBerrys and two cell phones for his dual roles.

“It was not an easy time professionally or personally,” he said. “But I felt an obligation to be as involved as I could.”

During O’Connor’s tenure as chief of staff, Gonzales’s office came under pointed scrutiny and investigation for his antiterrorism policies and his removal of of nine U.S. attorneys for political differences. O’Connor was the point man for the congressional investigations, and he proved his value, said Hernandez, the former assistant U.S. attorney who now practices at Pullman & Comley.

“His tour of duty with the Department of Justice is a testament to who Kevin O’Connor is and what he’s all about,” Hernandez said. “A lot of people would’ve run from that mess, but Kevin stepped right into the middle of it and took charge of the situation. The work he did was important to beginning to restore the reputation of the DOJ.”

Dealing with that pressure provided O’Connor with insight into how his future corporate clients might react to governmental probes.

“I learned about crisis management in ways you couldn’t in law school,” O’Connor said. “That experience put me in a unique position to understand the challenges faced by any large organization that is under intense government investigation.”

O’Connor and others suspect that will happen more frequently as federal agencies crack down on alleged white-collar criminal activity. That’s especially true for the SEC, O’Connor said, which has been criticized for not discovering financier Bernard Madoff’s infamous Ponzi scheme and other problems that led to the Wall Street crisis.

“When you go through this type of economic turmoil, one of the consequences is a demand for greater regulation,” O’Connor said. “I would expect when the new SEC commissioner (Mary Schapiro) is sworn in, she will really ramp up activities.”

Working close to home not only affords O’Connor more time with his family, but also gives rise to questions about his future involvement in politics.

“The bottom line is one of the benefits of staying in Connecticut is I’m able to have some time to devote to community service,” said O’Connor, who ran an unsuccessful race for the House of Representatives in 1998. “In the long term, whether community service involves politics, only time will tell. Right now, all of my time is devoted to my practice. I want to litigate and get back into court.”•

December 3, 2008

Police Stop the Wrong Explorer

A court granted Defendant's motion to suppress, because the police were pursuing a silver Explorer with a license plate of 187NNK, and Defendant was driving another Ford Explorer when the police stopped him. At 1 a.m. in January 2007, a private citizen called police and said he was following a Ford Explorer, with a license plate number of 187NNK. Allegedly the Ford Explorer was being driven erratically and had hit some signs and cones.

A police officer arrived and attempted to follow the silver Ford Explorer with a license plate number of 187 NNK, but the driver, who was wearing a baseball cap, picked up speed and made some turns. The police officer lost sight of the Ford Explorer he had been pursuing, and he pulled over another Ford Explorer that he observed in front of him at a stop sign. The driver was wearing a baseball cap and his eyes were bloodshot. The defendant driver, Michael Bothwell, allegedly failed a field sobriety test and was arrested. After Defendant was arrested, police realized that he was driving a Ford Explorer with a license plate number of 290 UNJ.

Defendant maintained the police did not observe any traffic misdemeanors and lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct at the time of the motor-vehicle stop. A police officer is permitted in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the indvidual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. " State v. Colon. The court granted Defendant's motion to suppress, because the defendant was not driving a silver Ford Explorer with a license plate number of 187NNK when the police stopped him.

State v.Bothwell
MV-07-003703
CT Law Tribune

October 29, 2008

Alford Plea v. Nolo Contendere Plea v. Guilty Plea

Is there a difference between an Alford Plea, a nolo contendere plea and a guilty plea. To begin, a plea of guilty is, in effect, "a conviction, the equivalent of a guilty verdict by a jury. In choosing to plead guilty, the defendant is waiving several constitutional rights, including his privilege against self- incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers." State v. Andrews, 253 Conn. 497, 502-503 (2000).

Under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a criminal defendant is not required to admit his guilt, but consents to being punished as if he were guilty to avoid the risk of proceeding to trial. . . . A guilty plea under the Alford doctrine is a judicial oxymoron in that the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that the state's evidence against him is so strong that he is prepared to accept the entry of a guilty plea nevertheless." (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daniels, 248 Conn. 64, 66-67 n.2 (1999). The entry of a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine carries the same consequences as a standard plea of guilty. By entering such a plea, a defendant may be able to avoid formally admitting guilt at the time of sentencing, but he nonetheless consents to being treated as if he were guilty with no assurances to the contrary. State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 204-205 (Conn. 2004).

Finally, a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine is . . . the functional equivalent [to an unconditional] plea of nolo contendere". State v. Palmer, 196 Conn. 157, 169 n.3 (1985); which itself "has the same legal effect as a plea of guilty on all further proceedings within the indictment. . . . The only practical difference is that the plea of nolo contendere may not be used against the defendant as an admission in a subsequent criminal or civil case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Town of Groton v. USW, 254 Conn. 35, 49 (2000). It is clear, however, that a nolo contendere plea also constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects in the same manner as a guilty plea. State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92, 97 n.5 (1985); cf. Lott v. United States, 367 U.S. 421 (1961). See also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-94a.


October 7, 2008

AR Proper for Multiple Crimes

Accelerated rehabilitation was properly granted to an individual accused of multiple crimes in connection with two seperate and unrelated incidents occurring approximatley one month apart. The state argued that the charges our of two unrelated incidents of shoplifting that occurred at two seperate retailers. The trial court granted the application.

Upon the successful completion of the program, the court dismissed the charges. The state appealed arguing that the court abused its discretion in granting accelerated rehabilitation because C.G.S. 54-56e could not properly be applied to the Defendant who allegedly committed the crimes during two seperate and unrelated incidents occurring approximately one month apart. The Appellate Court affirmed.

The language in the current version of C.G.S. 54-56e refers to "accellerate rehabilitation of persons accused of a crime or crimes..." The legislature's use of the singular "crime" and plural "crimes" unambigously reflects the legislature's intent that the statute may in the court's discretion be invoked with respect to a Defendant accused of either one or multiple crimes regardless of whether those crimes were temporally or otherwise related.

State v. Rios
Connecticut Appellate Court
Doc. No.: AC29109