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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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.
]]>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.
---
]]>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.”•
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
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.
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
T yelled at Montoya who smelled of alcohol and pushed him out the door. She awoke at about 5:45 a.m. and noticed Montoya was asleep in the other bed in the room. She went back to sleep. She later awoke and saw a man standing over her bed. She thought it was her father and pulled the covers over her again. She felt the comforter move and a tingling sensation on her thigh. She felt her vagina being rubbed from behind. T realized that Montoya was touching her. She ran to her father and stepmother's room yelling about it. T's father ordered Montoya out of the house. T became suicidal, was hospitalized and was still taking antidepressants at trial. She had no prior history of such episodes. Montoya was convicted following a jury trial of sexual asault in the fourth degree. The Appellate Court affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported the conviction. The state met its burden of establishing that T was sexually assaulted.
Montoya's claim was rejected that because T did not actually see him touching her, the state failed to prove that he was the perpetrator. The jury was free to draw the reasonable inference from the evidence, in light of the Defendant's earlier conduct toward T, that it was he who had sexually assaulted her. The prosecutor improperly appealed to the emotions of the jury during closing argument regarding the victim losing trust, happiness, innocence, peace and "all to this man". Even though the prosecutor's statements were grounded in the evidence, her language invoked overly sympathetic images of the victim. However, the Defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial. Defense counsel did not object to the remarks when made, the comments were not central to a critical issue and the court's general instructions minimized harm.
State v. Montoya
Connecticut Appellate Court
AC 28164
Mounds refused to get out of the van and began flailing his arms as the officers arrested him for interfering with an officer and criminal trespass in the third degree. The officers found ten small bags filled with a white rock like substance in his waistband and $605 in small bills. He moved to suppress the items seized asserting that the evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest and that the subsquent warrantless search of his person and automobile lacked probable cause.
The trial court denied the motion and Mounds was convicted. The appellate court affirmed. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. The defendant's challenge to a factual determination lacked merit. The trial court was free to credit the officer's testimony that he could see the building's signs. Under the facts, the trial court properly determined that the officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant was trespassing when they blocked the driveway.
They were justified in proceeding with an investigatory stop of the vehicle. Because there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for interfering with an officer, the search incident to the arrest was valid. The defendant waived his claim that the state used peremptory challenges to strike two African-American venire persons in a discriminatory manner in violation of the 1986 United States Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky by failing to contest the trial court's acceptance of the prosecutor's explanations.
State v. Mounds
Connecticut Appellate Court
AC 28126
The Supreme Court ruled that whether a Defendant already in custody has been subjected to interrogation presents a mixed question of law and fact over which the court's review is plenary, tempered by a scrupulous examination of the record to ascertain whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The state conceded that the Defendant was in custody and the Supreme Court concluded that the facts as found did not constitute interrogation.
The Defendant did not properly preserve the issue of whether his statements were the product of police coercion or the claim that the state failed to assert the privelege to keep the identity of the informant confidential.
Defendant's constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated as the charge for possession of narcotics with intent to sell and possession of narcotics arose from the same act or transaction and it is not possible to commit possession with intent to sell without first committing the offense of possession. The matter was remanded with direction to merge the convictions and to vacate the sentence on the conviction of possession of narcotics.
State v. Mullins
Connecticut Supreme Court
AC 18097
On November 21, 2006, counsel filed a motion for recusal asserting, inter alia, that the court participated in plea negotiations, demonstrated an appearance of bias and made incorrect representations of fact on the record. The court denied the motion. Tunick was convicted following a jury trial of one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree and appealed claiming that the court improperly refused to disqualify itself.
The Appellate Court affirmed. A thorough review of the record lead the court to conclude that there was no factual basis for Defendant's claim of bias. Nowhere in the record did it appear that the court participated in any plea negotiations or that the court in any way expressed an opinion that the case was a strong one for the state. The claim was meritless.
State v. Tunick
Connecticut Appellate Court
(AC 28461)
“I was miserable,” she said. “I put pen to paper and wrote out my life’s story.”
She put it in the mail, and shortly thereafter received a letter back from then-Gov. John G. Rowland.
“He wrote and said I should ask for a pardon.”
McQueen, 36, received her pardon in June after a nearly two-year process. And she has begun speaking out on behalf of the Connecticut Pardon Team, a Norwich-based organization run by former Norwich Alderman Jacqueline Caron. It has helped guide thousands of people through the first steps of the application process.
“When you have a criminal record, you have no hope, no future,” said McQueen, a native of Jamaica and a mother of eight. “I’m going public with this because I want to reach out to other people, to let them know where they can turn for help. The difference now is that I have my life back. I can apply for a better job for my children. I don’t have to go on welfare.”
Caron is up front about her own pardon in 2001, stemming from incidents connected with a drinking problem. She and her husband, Richard Caron, founded the Connecticut Pardon Team in 2004 to help people with the application process.
Invisible bars
“You might make one mistake,” she said. “But once you’ve served your sentence, you keep serving. The bars are just invisible. Having a criminal record is like wearing a scarlet letter. It’s hard to get a job, because each time you fill out an application they ask, ‘Have you ever been convicted of a crime?’ If you say yes, they don’t ask you for the circumstances. They reach for a different pile of applications.”
“And these days it’s not just employment opportunities,” Richard Caron said. “It’s things like housing, insurance, education opportunities. They’re all asking these questions.”
Caron said her defense attorney knew about the process and encouraged her to pursue it. She said the pardon team is there specifically to assist with the long and detailed application process.
Richard Caron said the initial application is 17 detailed pages, and it can grow to 40 or more if an applicant is accepted in the initial screening process.
Erase the past
Now, when asked that question on an application, McQueen and others who have received a pardon may legally answer no, as if their past never happened.
“It’s a second chance,” Jacqueline Caron said.
“I knew Jackie, and she encouraged me to try,” McQueen said. “You have to get all your paperwork. You have to review your whole life. You have to answer a lot of embarrassing and unpleasant questions. They can ask you anything. And if you get a hearing, you have to answer them again in front of the Board of Pardons and Paroles and 200 other people who are there getting hearings.”
“The joke is that they end up knowing you better than your doctor,” Jacqueline Caron said.
The Carons said the pardon process is not a rubber stamp.
“Nor should it be,” Jacqueline Caron said. “You have the burden of proof. You really have to prove to them that you have turned your life around.”
“And just telling them, ‘I want a better job’ ain’t gonna cut it,” Richard Caron said.
He said the process has become more available in recent years.
“A few years ago, 58 percent of the applicants were turned down in the initial screening stage without a hearing,” he said. “The last numbers we have, from 2007, that is down to 21 percent. So the process is more accessible, though I don’t want to deceive anyone into believing that this is easy. It isn’t.”
McQueen’s husband, Alexander, said his wife’s criminal record was not as devastating as it might have been for other families,but it still was not easy to deal with.
New opportunities
Norraine McQueen said even in the short time since receiving her letter of acceptance in June, new horizons have begun to appear.
“I did not receive jail time; I got probation,” she said. “But, at the time, they wanted to deport me for that. I was seven months pregnant and had to get a waiver. But that also meant I could not travel out of the country. I went 10 years without seeing my mother. Now I can travel.”
Two weeks after getting her pardon, she finally received her green card, which is necessary for many kinds of employment for foreign nationals living in the United States.
She also hopes to obtain her state license as a hairdresser in the future.
“And now I can apply to become a United States citizen.”
By MICHAEL GANNON
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 18, 2008 @ 03:00 AM