The Skakel Opinion
Posted: October 24, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: habeas, skakel Leave a commentJudge Trial Referee Thomas Bishop yesterday issued his highly anticipated decision in the Michael Skakel habeas case, finding that Skakel’s former attorney, Mickey Sherman, failed to provide a constitutionally adequate defense at Skakel’s 2002 trial for the murder of Martha Moxley in 1975.
The State has indicated that it will appeal Judge Bishop’s decision, and Skakel’s attorneys have filed a motion seeking his release on bail pending a new trial in the case.
Appellate Judges: Umpires Or Gods?
Posted: October 24, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: Golding, plain error, sua sponte, unpreserved issues Leave a commentOK, now that I have your attention with the admittedly over-the-top title of this post, I wanted to alert readers to a pending appeal (which I argued last March), the decision in which will reveal a great deal about how the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court view their roles as appellate jurists. In particular, it will tell us whether a majority of the Court believes that the proper role of an appellate court is to decide the issues that the parties have raised and argued–and only those issues–or, alternatively, whether the Court believes that it is appropriate to decide cases based on issues that appellate judges raise on their own initiative. In short, can and should appellate courts raise and decide unpreserved issues sua sponte?
Mr. President, Release The Senate Torture Report!
Posted: October 18, 2013 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: open government, Sandy Hook, torture Leave a commentConnecticut is not the only place dealing with open government problems these days. While the State continues to wait (and wait and wait) for State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky to release his report on the Sandy Hook massacre, the nation, indeed the world, continues to wait for the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to release its 6000+ page report on the torture program administered by the CIA during the Bush-Cheney administration. But as Andrew Sullivan explains on his blog, The Dish, resistance to the disclosure of the report appears to coming mainly from the Obama administration.
Why The Danbury State’s Attorney May Never Release The Sandy Hook Investigative Report
Posted: October 2, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: Sandy Hook 4 CommentsThe media, on behalf of the citizens of Connecticut, should ask Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III the following two questions: 1) Do you believe that the children Adam Lanza murdered were, by virtue of his actions, victims of “child abuse,” as that term is defined under Connecticut law, and 2) do you believe that the contents of the Sandy Hook investigation report that you are preparing with the State Police contains information “relative to a child abuse investigation,” as that phrase is defined under state law?
If the answer to both questions is “yes,” and there is good reason to believe it may be, the public may never see the full Sandy Hook investigation report. At best, it will see a highly redacted document or a brief summary of its contents.
“Who” Decides? The Paul Vallas Case.
Posted: September 23, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentNearly 25 years ago, Pnina Lahav, my constitutional law professor at BU School of Law, taught me one of the most important lessons I would ever learn about the law and about judging: “Who” should decide a legal issue is often much more important than “how” the legal issue should be resolved.
Contempt For Freedom Of Information (And For The Freedom Of Information Commission)
Posted: September 6, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: foia, foic, freedom of information, open government 1 CommentConnecticut, we have a problem.
The media and commentators have consumed much digital ink over the past year discussing the General Assembly’s repeated efforts to undermine and curtail the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). But that is not the problem of which I speak, although that is a big problem. The even bigger problem is that too many state and municipal agencies have nothing but contempt for the FOIA and the body that enforces it, the Freedom of Information Commission (“FOIC”). Even when the law regarding the disclosure of certain types of documents is clear, unambiguous and long-settled, too many state and local agencies simply refuse to produce documents that they are bound by law to disclose.
Legal Health Break
Posted: August 31, 2013 Filed under: Legal Health Break | Tags: la law Leave a commentMore than 20 years after first seeing this, I still don’t know whether to laugh or be horrified:
On Lawyers Criticizing Judges Before Whom They Appear
Posted: August 29, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, General Law 1 CommentIn my immediately preceding post I gently, and I think respectfully, challenged the legal reasoning of an aspect of a decision in a recent appeal that I lost. Several colleagues, friends and family members, whose opinions I value, called me to ask whether I should have refrained from publishing that post. Their concern was that openly challenging the reasoning of a tribunal before which I regularly appear could hurt me professionally.
I have given considerable thought to their concerns. On reflection, however, I think they are misplaced. Read the rest of this entry »
Final Judgments–Arggghhhh!!
Posted: August 21, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: final judgment Leave a commentI have the utmost respect for our judges and courts, particularly the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts in which I frequently argue. But my good feelings for the courts are tested when they publish decisions that suggest I filed an appeal either too early or too late. I’m an appellate advocate after all; my pride and reputation are both at stake. 🙂
On Monday, the Appellate Court issued a decision that said I filed an appeal prematurely. Ouch. So, allow me to push back, with respect of course.
“Stop And Frisk” Policy Stopped and Frisked
Posted: August 13, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: fourth amendment, stop and frisk Leave a commentNew York Federal District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin yesterday issued her highly anticipated ruling concerning the constitutionality of the NYPD’s “stop and frisk” program. Her conclusion:
I find that the City is liable for violating plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The City acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD’s practice of making unconstitutional stops and conducting unconstitutional frisks. Read the rest of this entry »
Appealingly Brief! 