DOCSLIB.ORG

JUD Committee Hearing Transcript for 03/10/2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JUD Committee Hearing Transcript for 03/10/2021 1 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Gary Winfield, Representative Steve Stafstrom SENATORS: Kasser, Anwar, Champagne, Flexer, Haskell, Lesser, Sampson REPRESENTATIVES: Blumenthal, Fishbein, Callahan, Conley, Currey, Dillon, Doucette, Dubitsky, Fiorello, Fox, Gilchrest, Godfrey, Harding, Howard, Labriola, Luxenberg, O'Dea, Palm, Pavalock‐D'Amato, Porter, Quinn, Rebimbas, Riley, Simms, Veach, Young REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Alright, good morning everyone, I would like to call to order the Judiciary Committee Public Hearing for March 10 2021. By way of introduction, we have an aggressive agenda today. And we have a lot of interest in it. We have a hundred people signed up to testify today. So, I will again ask for Members to be as concise with the questioning as it's practicable, so that we can get to all the members of the public who want to testify at some reasonable hour of the evening. With that, any remarks from my Co-Chair or Ranking Members? SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, good morning. REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right. If not, then we will start with Chief State's Attorney Colangelo. Richard Colangelo, good to see you. RICHARD COLANGELO: Thank you, sir. Good to see you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Representative Fishbein and the 2 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me to address you this morning. The Division of Criminal Justice submitted testimony on House Bill 6594, Senate Bill 978, Senate Bill 1018 and Senate Bill 1019. I'd like to focus my testimony today on House Bill 6594 and Senate Bill 1018. But I can answer any questions you may have on the other pieces of legislation. House Bill 6594 is a result of cooperation and collaboration by the Division of Criminal Justice and the Office of Chief Public Defender. I'd like to thank them for their willingness to listen to our issues and the things that we discussed with them, and as we did with them on the issues that they brought to the table. The Judicial Department, Sentencing Commission, the Attorney General's office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles were also involved in those discussions. So, I urge the Division of Criminal Justice supports all the Sections of this Bill and urges a Joint Favorable Report from this Committee. Senate Bill 1018, AN ACT CONCERNING PROSECUTORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY. That's where I'd like to focus the majority of my testimony. I had the opportunity to discuss this proposal with the advocates that supported the Bill and asked them one question that still has not been answered. What is the issue or issues that we're looking to fix with this type of legislation? As you all know, in 2019, this Body unanimously passed the Prosecutorial Transparency Bill, which the Division supported. We moved heaven and earth to get our case management system up and running, and everyone trained by January 1st. And I'm happy to report that as of January 1st, for the first time in the history of the Division, we are capturing data of what 3 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. prosecutors do live throughout the cases that we're handling day-to–day in the system. This data can be used to inform us what issues need to be addressed. But as I said, we just started capturing it at the beginning of this year. I think a lot of the portions of this Bill might be premature and those are the things that I would like to talk about today. Senate Bill 1018 as Sections addressing policies, training, performance, appraisals in the terms of state's attorneys. All of these sections are going to change the criminal justice system as we know it. Policies, it seems to be that they're looking to legislate prosecutors out of our discretion. There's really no one size fits all criminal justice system. Someone committing an offense in Tolland might be treated differently than the same person committing that same type of offense in Stamford or Norwalk based on the needs of the community. The issues that state's attorney particularly is trying to address are the particular facts about that particular case. When you look at the training portion of the Bill, I'm happy to report that Division of Criminal Justice wasn't standing by when we were looking at implicit bias training. We had two years ago, probably three years ago now, Chief Justice, Robinson, and Justice Kahn present implicit bias training to all of our prosecutors. And we have training set up to do implicit bias training for every jurisdiction as soon as we are safely able to get there. Performance appraisals, it looks like they're looking to hold state's attorneys accountable for things that we have no control over. Like the number of diversionary programs that are granted on our jurisdiction and the number of people that successfully complete those programs. 4 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. Lastly, as far as terms go, as you know the Division was set up by constitutional amendment and to insulate prosecutors from politics. Eight year terms were there to outlast the sitting Governor, so that the Governor couldn't stack the Commission to maybe not reappoint a prosecutor, and we need that time to be able to address the needs and assess what our jurisdictions would like us to do. Lastly, I just like to highlight some of the things that Division has been doing -- Yes sir. REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Chief State's Attorney, Colangelo, we're past the three minutes. I gave you a little bit of leeway, but I know there's going to be some questions for you, and I know -- RICHARD COLANGELO: Absolutely. REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You submitted written testimony as well. Representative Fishbein. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Attorney Colangelo. Were there any other points in your introductory remarks that you wanted to make that are not addressed in your written testimony? because we do all have that and I just wanted to get that out. RICHARD COLANGELO: No, sir. The last thing that I wanted to highlight was just the policies and procedures that we put in place. We're not sitting idly by ESI. We're looking to expand that. I know that you, all of the Members know what that is. The fact that we are proposing a conviction integrity unit. And lastly, you know, we heard loud and clear the advocates and the legislature with respect to state's attorneys not being evaluated. But for that, you know, during that eight year term, so the state's attorneys, we established a policy to allow for a 360 degree evaluation process of each state's attorney every two years. It'll be done by a panel, 5 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. including the Chief State's Attorney, the Deputy Chief for Administration and another sitting of state's attorney, and include contact their conversations with employees, judicial branch members, law enforcement advocates, defense attorneys, public defenders and like. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for that. I want to bring you into 1018 and specifically -- Do you have the Bill in front of you? RICHARD COLANGELO: Yes, sir. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Thank you. Lines 174 through 175 and that says uniform prosecutorial ethics standards in addition to the ethical standards pertaining to all attorneys. Now, what does that propose within the context of this Bill? To have a new set of rules? RICHARD COLANGELO: I think so, sir. We do have -- the practice book does have particular sections that are applicable to prosecutors. We do have ethics -- ethics policy and ethical guidelines that we established in the Division that are also in place. I don't know if it's in addition to those or trying to establish a new set of rules, I'm not sure. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, because all lawyers have a set of ethics that they're supposed to abide by. My takeaway, please correct me if I'm wrong, from this is that there would be different or additional ethics standards that would fall upon prosecutors. Is that what this contemplates? RICHARD COLANGELO: It seems to me, yes sir. And there're already standards for us along those lines in the practice book on top of the rules that lawyers have to follow. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And is there any part of this Bill or anything that's before us that would have 6 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. the same sort of standards for defense attorneys or public defenders? RICHARD COLANGELO: No, sir. Not that I've seen. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Now in line 176, it has to do with employing a grand jury system in Connecticut, which is my understanding we don't have for state cases. RICHARD COLANGELO: We do in a limited access. It's -- if we want to impanel a grand jury in Connecticut, we have to apply to a three judge panel. We have to show that we've exhausted all of our investigative means that we have, and that there are individuals out there that have information, but they're not forthcoming with it. We do have the ability to do that, but it is very limited and it's strictly controlled.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PS Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/26/2019
    1 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING CHAIRPERSON: Representative Joe Verrengia SENATORS: Bradley, Champagne, Hwang, Osten, Winfield REPRESENTATIVES: Allie-Brennan, Barry, Camillo, Dauphinais, Fishbein, Fusco, Genga, Hall, Hayes, Morin, Orange, Simmons, Sredzinski, Vail REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Good morning everyone, and welcome to today’s public hearing of the Public Safety and Security Committee. Before we get started, I am going to refer to the assistant clerk to go over some safety rules. CLERK: All right. In the interest of safety, I would ask you to note the location of access to the exits in this hearing room. The two doors through which you entered the room are the emergency exits and are marked with exit signs. In an emergency, the door behind the legislators can also be used. In the event of an emergency, please walk quickly to the nearest exit. After exiting the room, go to your left and exit the building by the main entrance or follow the exit signs to one of the other exits. Please quickly exit the building and follow any instructions from the Capital police. Do not delay and do not return unless and until you are advised that it is safe to do so. In the event of a lockdown announcement, please remain in the hearing room and stay away from the exit doors until an all clear announcement is heard. 2 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Thank you. And, can I ask that we shut the doors because it’s difficult for us to hear? We are working on an overflow room to accommodate everyone, so the -- the way it’s gonna work today is we are going to reserve the first hour of this hearing for legislators and other public officials, and then after that we will go to the public list, and then we will go back and forth.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court District of Connecticut
    Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., : : Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH Plaintiffs, : : v. : : NED LAMONT, et al., : : Defendants. : June 2, 2020 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO FIRST CLAIM (BALLOT ACCESS) “We have indeed acknowledged an individual’s associational right to vote in a party primary without undue state-imposed impediment.” N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 204 (2008). “The State’s power cannot be used, for example, to create barriers that unduly burden a person’s right to participate in a state-mandated . primary.” Yang v. Kosinski, No. 20-1494-CV, 2020 WL 2820179, at *7 (2d Cir. June 1, 2020). “[V]oter-plaintiffs have an associational right to vote in political party elections,” Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Lopez-Torres & Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57-58 (1973)). The State Defendants (Governor Lamont and Secretary of the State Merrill) and the Democratic State Central Committee mistakenly rely almost entirely on Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S. at 202, a case in which the plaintiffs “sought a declaration that New York’s convention system for selecting Supreme Court Justices violates their First Amendment rights, and an injunction mandating the establishment of a direct primary election to select party nominees for Supreme Court Justice.” Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut General Assembly Members As Of
    CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AS OF APRIL 6, 2021 Compiled by Barbara Richards – [email protected] This is the first part of a project to gather information about Connecticut’s legislators and make it available to people across the state. Sources: CGA website (also has much more information – contact information, bills sponsored, etc. - https://www.cga.ct.gov/ CBIA (Connecticut Business and Industry Association) - https://www2.cbia.com/ga/? U.S. Census – Quick Facts - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 Vote Smart - https://justfacts.votesmart.org/ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Catherine F. Abercrombie PARTY Democrat DISTRICT 083 TOWN(S) - MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FROM 2015-19 CENSUS DATA Meriden - $58,843 Berlin - $101,127 INFORMATION FROM CGA WEBSITE February 26, 2021 – “During her tenure in the General Assembly, Rep. Abercrombie has been a strong supporter and advocate of social service programs, children and family welfare, services for the disabled and educational issues. Cathy has also collaborated with several groups and organizations to help raise awareness about Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), a condition that affects as many as one in every 69 children in the United States… Rep. Abercrombie is a board member of "Beat the Street" in Meriden, the Meriden-New Britain-Berlin YMCA, Child Guidance of Meriden, and the Berlin Education Council.” INFORMATION FROM VOTE SMART WEBSITE TENDS TO VOTE WITH DEMOCRATS RATING FROM BARBARA RICHARDS IN 2007, BASED ON THE VOTES BELOW: 100% 1 SB 2103 – 2005 - Campaign Finance
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court District of Connecticut
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT THOMAS C. AUSTIN Plaintiff, No. 3:17-cv-01306 (MPS) v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Defendant. RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Thomas C. Austin (“Austin”) filed suit against the City of Bridgeport (“Bridgeport”). He alleges that Bridgeport terminated his employment in violation of his right to free speech under the First Amendment (count one); his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (count two); his right to free speech under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q (count three); and his rights under the Bridgeport City Charter (count four). Bridgeport filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts. For the reasons set forth below, Bridgeport’s motion is DENIED. I. FACTS The following facts, which are taken from the parties’ Local Rule 56(a) statements and supporting exhibits, are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. A. Austin’s Hiring & Bridgeport’s Civil Service System During Mayor Finch’s term in office, Deputy Director of Labor Relations Tom McCarthy asked Austin if he would be interested in working for Bridgeport as a Senior Labor Relations Officer. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶¶ 24, 27; ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 24, 27. Austin submitted a cover letter and resume, and interviewed for the position with Director of Labor Relations Larry Osborne. ECF 1 No. 32-1 at ¶ 31; ECF No. 38 at ¶ 31. He did not go through a competitive civil service process or take a written test. ECF No. 32-1 at ¶¶ 35-36; ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 35-36. He was hired and began serving in the position on July 3, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • ALABAMA: GOVERNOR DON SIEGELMAN (D) Vs
    ALABAMA: GOVERNOR DON SIEGELMAN (D) vs. REP. BOB RILEY (R) DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN Gov. Don Siegelman Rep. Bob Riley www.siegelman.com www.bobrileyforgovernor.com CM: Josh Hayes CM: Sam Daniels Press: Jim Andrews Press: Leland Whaley Media: Shorr & Assoc. Media: Alfano Productions Saul Shorr Kim Alfano Polls: Hickman Brown Polls: Market Research Institute Harrison Hickman Vern Kennedy Money Raised: $4.2 million (as of 9/30) Money Raised: $3.4 million (as of 9/30) Last Race (1998) Pop. Vote Vote % Don Siegelman (D) 760,155 58% Fob James (R) 554,746 42% Race Outlook: TOSS-UP Thanks to budget problems, an ethics investigation and charges that he’s funneled state contracts to friends and campaign donors, Gov. Don Siegelman is fighting to keep his job against Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Riley. Recent polls have consistently shown the two in a statistical dead heat, however, as recently as May, Siegelman was down 8 points to Riley. Clearly, this is not good for a first-term governor who won his last election by 16 points. A mid-September University of Alabama-Birmingham poll had Riley up 45-43% while an early September University of Southern Alabama poll showed Riley ahead 44-41%. Riley has hammered away at Siegelman’s ethics problems which include fees he’d received from his law firm while running the state (after an investigation, he was cleared) and giving state contracts to political cronies without bids from others. One of Riley’s ads boasts that he wants to “end corruption,” he’s “an honest leader,” and he kept his term-limits promise; another features an endorsement from his wife - Siegelman has stayed afloat by attacking his challenger on a variety of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Guns & Governance Notes
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2016 Guns & Governance Notes Denis J. O'Malley, III Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation O'Malley, III, Denis J., "Guns & Governance Notes" (2016). Connecticut Law Review. 330. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/330 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 48 MAY 2016 NUMBER4 Note Guns & Governance DENIS J. O'MALLEY III Every felon in Connecticut-violent and non-violent alike-loses the right to bear arms upon conviction. But felons convicted of public corruption offenses in Connecticut and fifteen other states have nothing between them and the ballot once their sentences expire. Why is that? Why do these states limit a black-letter right so broadly but leave unregulated the implied "right" to hold office? Additionally, why is it that in thirteen of these states lifetime disqualificationfrom office follows impeachment but not conviction? This Note would have Connecticut and the fifteen similarly situated states foreclose these questions with laws prohibiting corrupt politiciansfrom holding office. 1347 NOTE CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1349 II. CANDIDATE DISENFRANCHISEMENT ACROSS THE COUNTRY .................................................... 1352 A. CONNECTICUT'S APPROACH............................................................... 1352 B. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.............................................1353 C. RECENT
    [Show full text]