The Arbitrariness Of Inherent Supervisory Authority
Posted: October 1, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: carrion, elson, inherent supervisory powers, zarella Leave a commentAs I noted in my immediately preceding post, several justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court are concerned that the court has been invoking its “inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice” too frequently and, in so doing, may be undermining the integrity of the judicial system. Justice Zarella expressed the need for the court to adopt a single, consistent standard governing the court’s use of that authority in order to avoid “the appearance of arbitrary decisionmaking.”
I share Justice Zarella’s concerns and offer the following comparison of two cases to illustrate why they are justified.
Some Signs Of Judicial Restraint On The Horizon
Posted: September 29, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: blumberg, elson, inherent supervisory powers 1 CommentIn the wake of our state Supreme Court’s decisions in Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown and State v. Elson, I expressed a fairly strong opinion on this blog that those decisions reflected a growing–and troubling–trend in which the Court was increasingly invoking its “inherent supervisory powers over the administration of justice” to justify its decisions.
When I posted my opinions on this blog, I knew a number of members of the bar shared my concerns. I also suspected some members of the bench did so as well. As of last week, those suspicions are, well, no longer suspicions. It appears that at least three members of the Supreme Court–Justices Zarella and Espinosa, and Senior Justice Vertefuille–are thinking harder about just when and how the Court should invoke its inherent supervisory powers.
Rights v. Utility And The Fourth Amendment Ctd.
Posted: September 6, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: dworkin, fourth amendment, gideon, simple justice, stop and frisk, terry stop, utilitarian Leave a commentNew York criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield, who blogs at Simple Justice, has a terrific follow-up on his blog to my immediately preceding post. His post is well worth reading. (He also has some very kind words to say about my post, for which I thank him.)
Rights v. Utility And The Fourth Amendment
Posted: September 5, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: dworkin, fourth amendment, gideon, state v. kelly, utilitarianism 1 CommentConnecticut public defender and blogger Gideon and I had a spirited exchange the other week about the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Kelly, which concerned the legality of a warrantless Terry stop (and resultant arrest) of a person whom the police had no reason to suspect of having done anything wrong, must less anything criminal. So why did the Court hold that the detention and subsequent arrest of this person was constitutional? Because he happened to be walking down the street with someone the police reasonably suspected of a crime. A clearer case of “guilt by association” would be hard to find.
Offensive Speech Is Not A “True Threat”
Posted: August 25, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentI’ve criticized the Connecticut Supreme Court for several of its decisions over the past year, so I’m pleased to take this opportunity to say this of the Court’s pro-First Amendment decision today in State v. Krijger: “Great job!”
A Conversation With Gideon About Searches And Seizures
Posted: August 22, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law, Uncategorized Leave a commentThe following is the first in what I hope will become a series of conversations about pressing legal issues with the anonymous blogger and columnist known as “Gideon.” Gideon is a public defender who blogs at A Public Defender. He also writes a column for the Connecticut Law Tribune. Our topic today: the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Kelly concerning the legality of certain types of “stop and frisks” under the state constitution.
State Files Opening Brief In Skakel Habeas Appeal
Posted: August 11, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: bishop, habeas, michael skakel, skakel 1 CommentLast week prosecutors filed their opening appellate brief in an effort to persuade the Connecticut Supreme Court to reverse a trial court’s judgment that Michael Skakel’s former attorney, Michael “Mickey” Sherman, did not provide a constitutionally adequate defense at Skakel’s murder trial. Not surprisingly, the gist of the state’s argument is that the trial judge improperly “second guessed” Sherman’s defense tactics.
According to the Supreme Court’s electronic docket, Skakel’s opposition brief is due on September 8, 2014, although I wouldn’t be surprised if his attorneys’ ask for an extension of time; the state’s opening brief is 247 pages long!
Can A Judicial Decision Be Both Right And Wrong At The Same Time?
Posted: July 9, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: 1-210(b)(3), 1-215, foia, freedom of information, Gifford Leave a commentOn Monday the Connecticut Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in an important Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Comm’r of Public Safety v. FOIC, which involved a 2008 request for arrest records by the New Haven Register. The media and open government advocates, myself included, have expressed considerable disappointment with the decision, which holds that the police (both local and state) need only disclose the barest minimum of information about an arrest. (Disclosure: I supervised several students from the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which wrote a fantastic amicus brief in the case on behalf of a multitude of media and open government organizations.) Read the rest of this entry »
Hobby Lobby Flowcharts!
Posted: July 3, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: hobby lobby 1 CommentClick here for my first stab at trying to make the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision a little bit more understandable. I’ll be adding more information to the flowcharts in the coming days. Read the rest of this entry »
Two Points Make A Line (And Suggest A Troubling Trend)
Posted: July 1, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law 2 CommentsOn June 3, the Connecticut Supreme Court officially released its decision in State v. Elson, one of less than a handful of cases in Connecticut history in which the Supreme Court reversed a trial judge after concluding that he had not committed an error of law or fact. (State v. Ubaldi and State v. Santiago are the only other cases of which I’m aware.) No trial judge likes to get reversed, but all trial judges understand that the potential for reversal comes with the job. However, for an appellate court to reverse a trial judge after concluding that he or she did not commit a legal error must really hurt.
Appealingly Brief! 