DOCSLIB.ORG

Mobile-Friendly Code of Evidence, 2018 Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mobile-Friendly Code of Evidence, 2018 Edition OFFICIAL 2000 CONNECTICUT CODE OF EVIDENCE (2018 Edition) The Official Connecticut Code of Evi- dence is copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut. The fore- word and index may not be reproduced in any form or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of the Official Connecticut Code of Evidence and the print version pub- lished and distributed by the Office of Pro- duction and Distribution of the Commission on Official Legal Publications of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, the print ver- sion will be considered authoritative. Published by The Commission on Official Legal Publications 2018 by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut Foreword The Connecticut Code of Evidence was adopted by the judges of the Superior Court on June 28, 1999, to be effective January 1, 2000. The adoption of the Code signified the culmination of work that had been in progress since 1993 when Supreme Court Justice David M. Borden was asked to chair a com- mittee of the Connecticut Law Revision Com- mission charged with drafting a proposed code of evidence for Connecticut. The mem- bers of this drafting committee included: Pro- fessor Colin C. Tait of the University of Connecticut School of Law; Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz; Appellate Court Judge Paul M. Foti; Superior Court Judges Julia L. Aurigemma, Samuel Freed and Joseph Q. Koletsky; Attorneys Robert B. Adelman, Jef- frey Apuzzo, Joseph G. Bruckmann, William Dow III, David Elliot, Susann E. Gill, Donald R. Holtman, Houston Putnam Lowry, Jane S. Scholl, and Eric W. Wiechmann; Law Revi- sion Commission members Jon P. FitzGer- ald, Representative Arthur J. O’Neill, Superior Court Judge Elliot N. Solomon, and Senator Thomas F. Upson; and Law Revision Commission Senior Attorney Jo A. Roberts and Staff Attorney Eric M. Levine. The drafting committee completed its work in September, 1997. After receiving public comment, the drafting committee submitted its work product to the full Law Revision Com- mission, which voted to adopt the proposed code and commentary in December, 1997. Thereafter, the proposed code and commen- tary were submitted to the Judiciary Commit- tee of the General Assembly for consideration during the 1998 legislative session. Before commencement of the session, however, cer- tain members of the General Assembly had suggested that, for various reasons, a code of evidence should be adopted, if at all, by the judges of the Superior Court pursuant to their rule-making authority rather than by legislation. Thus, the Judiciary Committee urged then Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert J. Callahan to have the judges of the Superior Court consider adopting the pro- posed code as rules of court. In response, Chief Justice Callahan appointed a committee to consider and review the proposed code and its commen- tary for adoption by the judges of the Superior Court. This committee was chaired by Justice Katz and included Appellate Court Judge Barry R. Schaller, Superior Court Judges Aur- igemma, Thomas A. Bishop, Thomas J. Corradino, Freed, John F. Kavanewsky, Jr., Koletsky, and William B. Rush, Professor Tait, and Attorneys Roberts and Levine. This committee reviewed the proposed code and commentary from June, 1998, until Septem- ber, 1998, made changes to various parts thereof and then submitted its final work prod- uct to the Rules Committee for approval. The Rules Committee unanimously approved the proposed code and commentary. Thereafter, the proposed code and commentary were subject to a public hearing in June, 1999, and finally were adopted by the judges on June 28, 1999. An oversight committee was created by the judges of the Superior Court when they adopted the Code, for the purpose of monitor- ing the development of the Code and making recommendations for future revision and clar- ification. The membership of the committee included: Justice Katz (chair), Superior Court Judges Bishop, Corradino, Beverly J. Hodg- son, Kavanewsky, Koletsky, and Michael R. Sheldon, Attorneys Adelman, Bruckmann, Gill, Jack G. Steigelfest, Wiechmann, and Levine (liaison, Office of the Reporter of Judi- cial Decisions), and Professor Tait. The over- sight committee convened in October, 1999, and recommended minor changes to the Code and commentary based primarily on recent developments in the law. Those rec- ommended changes were approved by the Rules Committee, then by the judges of the Superior Court, and were reflected in periodic amendments to the Code and commentary. In 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 953 A.2d 45 (2008), in which the court asserted its common-law supervisory authority to fashion a rule of evidence con- trary to an applicable provision of the Code. In DeJesus, the court also clarified that the judges of the Superior Court, in their rule- making authority over the Code, do not have the ability to enact rules contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Following DeJesus, and Justice Katz’ resignation from the oversight committee, Judge Bishop, then of the Appel- late Court, was appointed to chair the commit- tee. Pursuant to the holding of DeJesus, the committee recommended changes to Section 4-5, regarding the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. The committee also recommended an addition to Section 8- 10, regarding hearsay, to harmonize the Code with legislation enacted by the General Assembly, permitting certain evidence from an alleged victim, twelve years or younger, of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct. Both of these recommendations were approved by the Rules Committee and the judges of the Superior Court and became part of the Code. In 2014, pursuant to a proposal from the Judicial Branch, the General Assembly enacted No. 14-120 of the 2014 Public Acts (P.A. 14-120), which authorized the Supreme Court to adopt the Code. This legislation, cod- ified at General Statutes § 51-14a, also pro- vides that, if the Supreme Court does, in fact, adopt the Code, the Chief Justice shall appoint a standing advisory committee of judges and lawyers to study the field of evi- dence law and periodically make recommen- dations to the Supreme Court regarding any proposed amendments. Additionally, the leg- islation includes a provision requiring the advisory committee to make periodic reports on its activities to the Judiciary Committee. Finally, the legislation contains a provision making it clear that, notwithstanding this evi- dence rule-making authority, the Supreme Court retains its common-law authority over the law of evidence, and the General Assem- bly retains its legislative authority, as well. Following the passage of P.A. 14-120, the Supreme Court adopted the Code on June 18, 2014, and, shortly thereafter, the following judges and lawyers were appointed to its Code of Evidence Oversight Committee: Judge Bishop, Chair; Appellate Court Judges Eliot D. Prescott and Sheldon; Superior Court Judges Thomas D. Colin, Steven D. Ecker, Barbara B. Jongbloed, and Angela C. Rob- inson; and Attorneys Adelman, Leonard C. Boyle, Brian S. Carlow, John R. Gulash, Kimberly P. Massicotte, Steigelfest, Law- rence J. Tytla, and Wiechmann. Additionally, Professor Julia Simon-Kerr agreed to serve as academic advisor to the committee in place of Professor Tait, who had retired, Attorney Levine served as liaison to the Office of the Reporter of Judicial Decisions, and Attorney Lori Petruzzelli of the Legal Services Division of the Judicial Branch was appointed to serve as counsel to the committee. During the fall and winter of 2014–2015, the committee studied whether to recom- mend amendments to the Code and its com- mentary regarding computer related evidence. Following the committee’s recom- mendations to the Supreme Court and a period for public comment, the Supreme Court adopted the committee’s recommenda- tions on May 20, 2015. As an ongoing func- tion, the committee continues to study the Code and the field of evidence to determine whether to make recommendations to the Supreme Court for any changes or additions to the Code. Hon. Chase T. Rogers Chief Justice, Supreme Court December 14, 2017 CONNECTICUT CODE OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 1-1. Short Title; Application 1-2. Purposes and Construction 1-3. Preliminary Questions 1-4. Limited Admissibility 1-5. Remainder of Statements Sec. 1-1. Short Title; Application (a) Short title. These rules shall be known and may be cited as the Code of Evidence. The Code of Evidence is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Code.’’ (b) Application of the Code. The Code and the commentary apply to all proceedings in the Superior Court in which facts in dispute are found, except as otherwise provided by the Code, the General Statutes or any Practice Book rule adopted before June 18, 2014, the date on which the Supreme Court adopted the Code. (c) Rules of privilege. Privileges shall apply at all stages of all proceedings in the court. (d) The Code inapplicable. The Code, other than with respect to privileges, does not apply in proceedings such as, but not limited to, the fol- lowing: (1) Proceedings before investigatory grand juries, as provided for in General Statutes §§ 54- 47b through 54-47f. (2) Proceedings involving questions of fact pre- liminary to admissibility of evidence pursuant to Section 1-3 of the Code. (3) Proceedings involving sentencing. (4) Proceedings involving probation. (5) Proceedings involving small claims matters. (6) Proceedings involving summary contempt. (7) Certain pretrial criminal proceedings in which it has been determined as a matter of stat- ute or decisional law that the rules of evidence do not apply. (Amended Dec. 14, 2017, to take effect Feb. 1, 2018.) COMMENTARY: (b) Application of the Code. When the Code was initially adopted by the judges of the Superior Court in 1999 and then readopted by the Supreme Court in 2014, the adoption included both the rules and the commentary, thereby making both equally applicable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Biosketch [Pdf]
    Philip Rubin: Biographical Sketch Philip Rubin, Ph.D. is the Chief Executive Officer emeritus and former Senior Scientist at Haskins Laboratories. Haskins is a private, non-profit research institute affiliated with Yale University and the University of Connecticut that has a primary focus on the science of the spoken and written word, including speech, language, and reading. Dr. Rubin is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Surgery, Otolaryngology, at the Yale University School of Medicine, a Research Affiliate in the Department of Psychology at Yale, and a Fellow at Yale’s Trumbull College. In Dec. 2017, he was appointed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to serve as a member of the UConn Board of Trustees, the governing body for the University of Connecticut. From 2012 through February 2015, Rubin was the Principal Assistant Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President of the United States, where he also served as Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, led the White House neuroscience initiative, and was a senior advisor on national policy. During that period of time he was also a Senior Advisor in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF). He is the former co-chair of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science, with the Directors of the NIH and NSF, and co-chair of the interagency Common Rule Modernization Working Group. Dr. Rubin’s research spans a number of disciplines, combining computational, engineering, linguistic, physiological, and psychological approaches to study embodied cognition, most particularly the biological bases of speech and language.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Bar Association Virtual Awards Celebration
    2020 Connecticut Bar Association Virtual Awards Celebration Wednesday, July 22 Zoom Video Conference Congratulations to all of this year’s award recipients from Kronholm Insurance Services, proud Headline Sponsor of “Celebrate with the Stars.” A division of Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. A division of Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. 55 Capital Boulevard • Suite 102 • Rocky Hill, CT 06067 55 Capital Boulevard • Suite 102 • Rocky Hill, CT 06067 (860) 665-8463 (860) 665-8463 Leading Attorneys and Consumers to Insurance Solutions for Over 30 Years Thank You for Supporting Our Stars! Headline Sponsor Gold Sponsor Silver Sponsor Supporter Agenda Presiding Amy Lin Meyerson, President Cecil J. Thomas, President-elect Ndidi N. Moses, Immediate Past President Daniel J. Horgan, Vice President Welcome Keith J. Soressi, Executive Director Recognition Officers of the Connecticut Bar Association Board of Governors and House of Delegates members of the Connecticut Bar Association Past Presidents of the Connecticut Bar Association Past Award Recipients Headline Sponsor Comments John Kronholm, Kronholm Insurance Services Recognition of the October 2019 Pro Bono Clinic Volunteers Recognition of 50-Year Honorees Signature Awards Henry J. Naruk Judiciary Award Hon. Alvin W. Thompson, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut Edward F. Hennessey Professionalism Award Hon. Kenneth L. Shluger, New London District Superior Court Tapping Reeve Legal Educator Award Jennifer G. Brown, Interim Executive Vice President and Provost, Quinnipiac University John Eldred Shields Distinguished Professional Service Award John Rose, Jr. Charles J. Parker Legal Services Award Erin E. Kemple, Connecticut Fair Housing Center Citizen of the Law Award Audrey B. Blondin, Blondin Law Office LLC Citizen for the Law Award Judith Altmann, Holocaust Survivor and Educator Young Lawyers Section Vanguard Award Austin Berescik-Johns, Law Office of Austin B.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
    Case 3:15-cv-01528-CSH Document Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT GEORGE S. HARASZ, and DOUGLAS A. WIRTH, Plaintiffs, v. 3:15-cv-1528 JOETTE KATZ, ELIZABETH FERREIRA, TOWN OF GLASTONBURY, JAMES A. KENNEDY, and MARCH 3, 2017 WILLIAM TRANTALIS, Defendants. RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs commenced this civil rights action in Connecticut Superior Court. Defendants removed the case to this Court. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 stems from Plaintiffs' claims that their rights conferred by the United States Constitution were violated by Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants acted under color of state law, giving rise to this Court's original subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs also allege state law claims, which fall within this Court's pendent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. An Amended Complaint [Doc. 33] (sometimes hereinafter "AC") is the operative pleading. All Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs resist those motions. This Ruling resolves them. 1 Case 3:15-cv-01528-CSH Document Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 75 I. INTRODUCTION During the pertinent times, Plaintiffs George S. Harasz and Douglas Wirth were citizens of the United States and the State of Connecticut. They resided together in the Town of Glastonbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs advised the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF") that they were willing to take in foster children for adoption, providing that none had past sex abuse issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Gov. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Wyman Statements on Decision by Congresswoman Esty to Not Seek Re-Election
    04/02/2018 Gov. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Wyman Statements on Decision by Congresswoman Esty to Not Seek Re-Election (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman released the following statements regarding the announcement made this afternoon by Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty that she will not seek re-election this fall: Governor Malloy said, “Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty’s decision not to run for another term is the right one. She has done important work on behalf of her constituents on gun safety, economic development, and much more. I spoke with the Congresswoman multiple times over the weekend and as recently as today, encouraging full transparency with the press and public, and also urging her to do what is in best interest of her constituents and her family. I believe she is now doing that. The truth is, too many facts about how this incident was handled fall short of appropriate standards for responsible and responsive leadership. Fostering a safe and supportive workplace culture for staff must be a guiding principle for all managers, and especially all elected officials, from local office all the way up to the President.” Lt. Governor Wyman said, “I think this is the right decision and I thank Congresswoman Esty for her many years of service to the residents of the fifth district and the State of Connecticut.” Twitter: @GovMalloyOffice Facebook: Office of Governor Dannel P. Malloy 04/02/2018 Gov. Malloy and Commissioner Klee Blast Trump Administration Decision to Weaken Tailpipe Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Commissioner Rob Klee are criticizing a decision announced today by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing up for Children in Need, January 2013
    standing up for children in need or more than 35 years, attorney Ernie including disabled and mentally challenged Teitell has practiced both criminal and children, who are without resources and who civil trial law. Throughout his career, are deprived of essential educational services he has worked hard to give back to his and other support services.” communityF and state – primarily by assisting those who lack the money or resources to get He explained that Connecticut is home legal help when they need it. to many such children, and federal and state laws require school districts to provide Now, in collaboration with the Connecticut the services these kids need in order to get Department of Children and Families (DCF), an education. he is furthering his passion for assisting others by co-founding the Connecticut Child For example, a physically challenged Justice Foundation (CCJF). student may require an aide to navigate the school, or an academically challenged student might need help to manage is “dedicated to serving Connecticut children, the schoolwork. Teitell said the CCJF, a nonprofit foundation, Connecticut Child Justice Foundation | January 2013 | 1 Photos: iStockphoto.com Because of the additional costs involved, school districts often won’t provide these train the attorneys to deal with these cases, services unless a parent forces their hand by somethingThe first mission that took of the place foundation over the wassummer. to taking the case to court, he said. Sadly, many Now, they are ready to take on the school districts that are not complying with the law. resources to hire a lawyer to represent them.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Before the Joint Committee on Judiciary – March 24, 2021
    Testimony before the Joint Committee on Judiciary – March 24, 2021 Presented by the Connecticut Coalition to End FGM/C Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, ranking & other distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee: We are a newly formed survivor-led Coalition working to end the practice of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the State of Connecticut. We comprise a broad group of survivors, stakeholders and advocates. Brief descriptions of our members are attached. We formed in late summer 2020, just after our neighboring state, Massachusetts, became the 39th state in the nation to enact a law - Session Law - Acts of 2020 Chapter 149 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter149 - to ban the practice of FGM/C on minors. Some among us worked on the passage of that legislation. Connecticut has yet to address this important human rights issue in any manner. This proposed legislation SB 1069 under review today may be a good first step, provided it does not serve to unnecessarily delay passage of a comprehensive law that seeks to prevent the practice and support survivors. FGM/C is a practice that impacts Connecticut residents. The Population Reference Bureau estimates 2,658 women and girls in the state are at risk of or have undergone FGM/C - https://www.prb.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/us-fgmc-all-states-table.pdf. We already know that in 2021, one high school girl in Connecticut had to seek sanctuary in New York State to avoid family pressure to undergo FGM/C. FGM/C is the cutting, partial or total removal of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons to control a girl’s sexuality and make her acceptable for marriage and to the community in which she lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Law School 2020–2021
    BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY BULLETIN OF YALE BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Periodicals postage paid New Haven ct 06520-8227 New Haven, Connecticut Yale Law School 2020–2021 Yale Law School Yale 2020–2021 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 116 Number 11 August 10, 2020 BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY Series 116 Number 11 August 10, 2020 (USPS 078-500) The University is committed to basing judgments concerning the admission, education, is published seventeen times a year (one time in October; three times in September; four and employment of individuals upon their qualifications and abilities and a∞rmatively times in June and July; five times in August) by Yale University, 2 Whitney Avenue, New seeks to attract to its faculty, sta≠, and student body qualified persons of diverse Haven CT 0651o. Periodicals postage paid at New Haven, Connecticut. backgrounds. In accordance with this policy and as delineated by federal and Connecticut law, Yale does not discriminate in admissions, educational programs, or employment Postmaster: Send address changes to Bulletin of Yale University, against any individual on account of that individual’s sex, race, color, religion, age, PO Box 208227, New Haven CT 06520-8227 disability, status as a protected veteran, or national or ethnic origin; nor does Yale discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Managing Editor: Kimberly M. Go≠-Crews University policy is committed to a∞rmative action under law in employment of Editor: Lesley K. Baier women, minority group members, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans. PO Box 208230, New Haven CT 06520-8230 Inquiries concerning these policies may be referred to Valarie Stanley, Senior Direc- tor of the O∞ce of Institutional Equity and Access, 221 Whitney Avenue, 4th Floor, The closing date for material in this bulletin was July 31, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Family Stability Pay for Success Project FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
    Connecticut Family Stability Pay for Success Project FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Ensuring Family Stability is a priority for Governor Dannel Malloy, Department of Children and Families Commissioner Joette Katz, and the State of Connecticut. The Family Stability Pay for Success project is an innovative strategy to better serve families struggling with substance use by expanding an intensive, in-home treatment program to families presently involved with the Department of Children and Families. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF), Family-Based Recovery Services at the Yale Child Study Center, and Social Finance are launching a Pay for Success (PFS) project to promote family stability and reduce parental substance use for DCF-involved families throughout Connecticut (the “Connecticut Family Stability Project”). The project will allow Family-Based Recovery (FBR) to serve approximately 500 families throughout Connecticut over four and a half years. Once a family enrolls with FBR, they receive services focused on understanding and responding to the child’s developmental needs and treating substance use for an average of six months. Substance use is a pervasive challenge for families involved with DCF and it has persistent consequences for the State of Connecticut. DCF spends more than $600 million each year to address child abuse and neglect. In 2013, more than 50 percent of all cases investigated by DCF had an indication of parental substance use (18,118 out of 36,131). In addition, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that the lifetime cost associated with one incident of child maltreatment is more than $210,000 in healthcare, child welfare, criminal justice, and special education costs and productivity losses.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenneth V. Hardy, Ph.D. Is a Professor at Drexel University In
    Kenneth V. Hardy, Ph.D. is a Professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and is the Director of the Eikenberg Institute for Relationships in New York City. He is an internationally recognized clinician, author, educator, and consultant. Dr. Hardy has provided Diversity and Racial Sensitivity training and consultations to an extensive list of Health and Human Services agencies as well as a host of educational institutions. He is a frequent workshop presenter, trainer, and consultant on the topics of cultural and racial diversity, trauma and oppression. He has published prolifically and is the author of numerous articles and book chapters. He has co‐authored the following books: Culturally Sensitive Supervision: Diverse Perspectives and Practical Applications; Minorities and Family Therapy; Teens Who Hurt: Clinical Interventions for Breaking the Cycle of Violence; Revisioning Family Therapy: Race, Class, and Culture; and Promoting Culturally Sensitive Supervision: A Manual for Practitioners. He is also featured in several therapy videotapes as well as a documentary devoted to slavery. His videotape “The Psychological Residuals of Slavery” has been well received by both the professional and lay communities for serving as a catalyst to promote conversations about race relationships. Dr. Hardy has received considerable acclaim for the contributions that his publications and videotapes have made toward challenging our field to think critically about issues of diversity, trauma and oppression. He has been a frequent contributor to the popular media and has been featured on Dateline NBC, 20/20, the Discovery Health Channel, and the Oprah Winfrey Show. Dr. Hardy maintains a practice in New York, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Appealingly Brief _____
    APPEALINGLY BRIEF _____ THE LITTLE BOOK OF BIG APPELLATE TIPS * * * How to Write Persuasive Briefs and Excel at Oral Argument Daniel J. Klau of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP DJK/34446/2/1237164v9 12/10/15-HRT/DJK Copyright © 2015 by Daniel J. Klau All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems without permission in writing from the publisher. This book is not intended to constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by virtue of its purchase or use. Always consult an attorney for current legal advice. ISBN: 978-0-692-55276-6 DJK/34446/2/1237164v9 12/10/15-HRT/DJK For The Honorable Joseph E. Klau (1902-1988) Beloved Grandfather Judge of the Connecticut Superior Court DJK/34446/2/1237164v9 12/10/15-HRT/DJK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dan Klau is one of New England‘s leading appellate lawyers. A graduate of Boston University School of Law, summa cum laude, he has successfully represented private and public sector clients in appeals in the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate courts, the United States Courts of Appeal for the First and Second Circuits and the United States Supreme Court. Dan is the founding co-chair of the Appellate Advocacy section of the Connecticut Bar Association, a former columnist for the Connecticut Law Tribune (an American Lawyer Media publication) on appellate practice and procedure, and a frequent writer, commentator and lecturer on appellate, First Amendment and open government issues. He is the author of the legal blog Appealingly Brief!, and has been an adjunct professor at UConn School of Law since 2003, where he teaches privacy law.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 FFKA Program.Pub
    Honoring voices who have made a difference for Connecticut’s children, youth and families. 2013 First for Kids Celebration November 6, 2013 Pond House Café 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 1555 Asylum Avenue West Hartford, Connecticut About Connecticut Voices for Children Connecticut Voices for Children believes that advocacy at the Capitol, we work with every child should have the opportunity to policymakers to advance specific legislative reach his or her full potential: to grow up in a and regulatory initiatives. Through ongoing healthy environment, to enter school ready to assessment and analysis, we track policy learn, and to reach adulthood prepared to changes to ensure that public investments succeed. Through quality research, strategic yield the intended results. communications, community engagement and Leadership Development fiscal analysis, we identify and advance strategic public investments to make our Connecticut Voices actively fosters the next vision a reality. generation of policy leadership by offering two-year policy fellowships to exceptional Research and Policy Analysis recent college graduates with a strong interest Connecticut Voices takes an interdisciplinary in advancing public policy to benefit children approach to our work, integrating research and youth. Some of our policy fellows have and best practice policies across issue areas become Truman and Rhodes Scholars; including early care and child development, attended law, business, medical, public health, elementary and secondary education, health and other graduate schools; run for public care, foster care, juvenile justice, family office; worked for state and federal economic security, and tax and budget. We governments; and become executive directors share our research and recommendations of nonprofit organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Debating the Statute of Limitations in Child Sexual Abuse Cases; Current Limit of Age 48 Would Be Li…
    1/3/13 Debating The Statute of Limitations In Child Sexual Abuse Cases; Current Limit Of Age 48 Would Be Li… HOME | ABOUT | CT POLITICS | EMAIL | RSS FEED BY COURANT STAFF Try FREE Breaking News Mobile Text Alerts: Mobile Phone # SUBSCRIBE More Info ‹‹ Education Committee Hears Test... | Main | Democrats In Canton Thursday N... ›› ABOUT Debating The Statute of Limitations In Child Sexual Abuse Jon Lender, Christopher Keating and Daniela Cases; Current Limit Of Age 48 Would Be Lifted Under Bill Altimari provide insightful and in­depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more By Christopher Keating on March 17, 2010 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) Email | CT Politics on Courant.com | About Attorneys and advocates called Wednesday for Connecticut to become the fourth state in the nation to eliminate the civil statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases. The current age of 48 was established by the legislature in 2002 when lawmakers said that a victim should have 30 years to make a claim upon reaching the age of 18. As such, the age of 48 was written into the law. Follow @capitolwatch Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Stamford Democrat who co­chairs the judiciary committee, said that many of the witnesses Wednesday were talking about the Roman Catholic Church and Search the allegations of sexual abuse against the late Dr. George Reardon at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford. But he said the bill doesn't mention any particular entity. Archives Select a Month... "This legislation doesn't speak about anybody in particular,'' McDonald said. "It could be family members suing family members.'' ALL OUR BLOGGERS Prompted by the Reardon case, some lawmakers are trying to eliminate the statute of limitations ­ in a similar move to a failed attempt last year that expired in the judiciary committee without a vote.
    [Show full text]