Discussing The Sandy Hook Report With Colin McEnroe
Posted: November 25, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: colin mcenroe, freedom of information, Sandy Hook Leave a commentColin McEnroe kindly invited me to speak with him this morning on his show on WNPR about the Danbury State’s Attorney’s highly anticipated summary report of the Sandy Hook investigation. Click here to listen to a podcast of our conversation, which begins at approximately 21:10 minutes into the program.
Discussing The Long-Delayed Sandy Hook Report On WNPR’s “Where We Live”
Posted: November 20, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: Sandy Hook, sedensky Leave a commentI had the honor and pleasure of appearing this morning as a guest on WNPR’s “Where We Live,” with host John Dankosky and regular guests Colin McEnroe, Mark Pazniokas and Matt Sturdevant. The topic: The long-delayed release by Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky of the Sandy Hook investigation report.
Click here for the podcast of this morning’s discussion, which starts at 24:21 minutes into the program. Or watch the program on CT-N, starting at 23:41.
To Whom Is State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky Accountable?
Posted: November 16, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: Sandy Hook, sedensky Leave a commentIn recent days Governor Malloy has expressed his extreme impatience and displeasure with the length of time it is taking Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III to release his own final report of the tragic events of December 14, 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. (I say “his own final report” because the State Police are preparing their own investigative report, as is customary. It needs to be released as well. A highly redacted “executive summary” by Mr. Sedensky is not sufficient.)
Governor Malloy has stated of the prosecutors in the Danbury State’s Attorney’s office, “They don’t work for me. If they did, this report would have been out already.”
Governor Malloy is not passing the buck. He is absolutely accurate in stating that he does not control Connecticut’s State’s Attorneys. But if the governor is not in charge of them, who is? Read the rest of this entry »
The Empirical Basis For Transparent Government
Posted: November 5, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: open government, sunlight, transparency Leave a comment“Trust but verify,” Ronald Reagan liked to say. He used the phrase in connection with nuclear disarmament negotiations with the former Soviet Union. I think the sentiment also describes the attitude we should hold towards our own governments–federal, state and local.
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?
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.
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.
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 »
“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! 