To Live and Die in Connecticut

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:15:43 GMT

Michael Ross is still alive. I understand that he was back in New London Superior Court today and that competency and the conflict raised by his attorney were on the agenda. As of this writing, I don't know the outcome or if some sort of outcome was even announced. Perhaps we will learn a result by Friday morning.

In some respect, the fact that Ross is still alive might seem like a minor victory. But I admit that I was confident that he would be killed on the occasion of his first date with death. Others were more positive about the event, but I thought (I told the newspapers that "I feared") Ross would be executed. He wasn't. He still hasn't. And perhaps he never will. I perversely joked earlier this week that, while I don't represent and have not yet represented Michael Ross in any of his legal travails, I probably would be representing him two years from now as his legal avenues were still being followed. Many a truth is said in jest, they say......

Enough of this writing from a blogger who has been less than diligent these past many months. I best leave tonight as I do.... now..... Until a later date.

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:05:02 GMT

I forgot to give the link to the article I read about the verdict. Here it is:

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-stew0211,0,1331604,print.story?coll=nyc-homepage-breaking2

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:02:42 GMT

Attorney Lynne Stewart convicted

Her name may not be familiar to you. But this attorney and champion of the underdog and the undesirable criminal client was herself convicted today for allegedly helping "terrorists" by smuggling messages of violence from one of her imprisoned clients to terrorist disciples on the outside. The client -- described as a radical Egyptian sheik -- Omar Abdel-Rahman, had associations with the hated (the understandably hated) Osama Bin Laden. News accounts told how the government portrayed Bin Laden's presence in the case and in the courtroom. Without question, in the climate of a criminal trial post-9/11, the spectre of Osama Bin Laden would deny anyone a fair shake in front of a jury. No less (and even less so) an attorney with a client background like Stewart.

I can't say that I followed this trial closely, so I won't comment on the proof or the conclusion. But it is a sad day when one of our own, when a lawyer who has been in the trenches and has fought with the government on so many levels, is convicted of a federal crime. This is especially true when the acts about which the government complains were committed in the course of the attorney's representation of the client.

A lot has changed since the World Trade Center was attacked and toppled in 2001. To be free, we must be careful that all of our actions against those that threaten us are properly directed. If we aren't careful, if we aren't prudent, we could easily find ourselves on the pages of George Orwell's "1984" or a bad replication of the worse totalitarian state. It wouldn't take much at this point, the Bush Administration doing all that it can to undermine the Bill of Rights and a free society for everyone. Perhaps the Lynne Stewart verdict is merely one manifestation of where we are and, worse, where we are going.

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:48:48 GMT

Hiatus

Somehow, it doesn't seem like more than 4 months since I last posted to the blog. It really isn't due to lack of interest. And it certainly isn't due to lack of content. Connecticut has been the epicenter of a death penalty maelstrom (sorry for that mixed metaphor) in recent months. Convicted mass-murderer Michael Ross, long-time inhabitant of Connecticut's death row, has asked that no further appeals be made of his convictions and death sentence. Questions have been raised about his competency, but at each turn state and federal courts had rejected any motion in that regard. That is until Judge Robert Chatigny, sitting in the United States District Court in Hartford, imposed an indefinite stay of Ross's execution until a full hearing can be had in his courtroom about the competency issue. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the stay. It was reported on tonight's local news that Connecticut's Chief State's Attorney had filed papers in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking its intervention. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, Michael Ross lives. If all goes well, Michael Ross will continue to live until he lives his natural life. The lines have been drawn here in the compassionate Nutmeg State and, if letters to the editor of the conservative newspapers are any indication, emotions are getting stretched. It shoudn't be a surprise to any one who might read this blog that I don't think Connecticut should be in the killing business. I understand fully the emotions of those who seek death: vengeance and vindication are always understandable. But it solves nothing as a society other than expediency: That is, we have this problem with a guy who killed people, so we must kill him. It's efficient. In theory, it eradicates a known problem and limits the expense required to deal with it. In theory, it is a deterrent to others; yet it never is.

But Michael Ross lives one more day. And that is already one day more than he was scheduled to live.

Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:21:04 GMT

Expertise

expert: <noun> one with a special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.

I've been asked more than once over the past year or two to serve in different habeas corpus proceedings as an expert witness. The issues are generally the same: as an attorney experienced in this kind of work, would you have done what was done at the trial in this case? Or how would you have done it differently? At first blush, it might seem an honor to be called upon to serve as an expert; that someone has made a decision that you would have known better than the attorney who was actually in the trench that day. But the honor is dubious, being called upon to question the work of a brother or sister. There is, however, the occasional exception to the rule: those situations where a defendant has been sentenced to death and the attorneys who represented him at trial encourage questioning their performance at that time; to do whatever it might take to get a new trial for the client or to at least turn the sentence of death into a sentence of life in prison. That is the most recent case in which I have been called upon as an expert.

I thought out loud about the status of expert with a few friends the other day in the office and concluded what I think I had heard someone tell me years ago about being an expert: it just means that you are getting old; that you have been around long enough and seen enough, experienced enough, that you have something to share that might be considered illuminating. One day what you have to say might carry the day. The next day, it's just my opinion.

Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:10:37 GMT

Not surprisingly, it has taken me two days to get Monday's blog submission published. It probably had more to do with my need to renew my commitment with Radio Userland. Now that things seem to be back to normal, I'll get back in the swing soon. In the meantime, it's been great reading everyone else's work. Some new, some seasoned, some missing entirely. With the Presidential election on the near horizon, there will likely be plenty to write about. I just hope that I have as much time as will be required.

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:43:11 GMT

Well, after waiting more than four months to get back to the blog, it now appears I can't publish what I just wrote out on the web. Maybe that was what kept me away for so long: my impatience with the process. In any event, if these things suddenly start to appear, you'll know that I have been persistent. Godd night. Again, it feels good to be back.

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:37:20 GMT

Where the hell have I been?

Probably waiting for the right time to come back. I looked at the blog in the last week and saw that the last time I had posted anything was the end of April. So why now? Why even bother to write anything after more than 4 months? Well, I'm not really sure.

Alot has happened since I last blogged. I found out that the Judges were reading what I had been writing. Doing google searches on what was being published on the internet about their cases. I was discovered. Nothing bad, of course. But I knew they were out there. They still are. That didn't dissuade me from writing. I just think it was time and work and my family and summer.

It probably really isn't a coincidence that the last time I took the time to write was before the weather got nice here in Connecticut. And it's still nice. The season is turning from summer to fall <slowly> and soon the leaves will be changing. People have told me they have already started changing upstate. (Note for those unfamiliar with the State of Connecticut: upstate Connecticut is only one hour from downstate Connecticut. Connecticut is not California. This is not a big state.)

Since I last blogged, my son has gone from beginning his spring high school baseball season to beginning his high school football season. My daughter has gone from ending her first year of college to starting her second. Angel Cabrera is almost ready to get out of prison and go to a halfway house. And a whole bunch of new clients are starting out new prosecutions. To everything there is a season.

I would make another promise to be more diligent about writing the blog. Even my college daughter has started writing one. I don't ready hers (It already drives my wife nuts.) and I don't think that I have told her about mine (I am confident the writing wouldn't interest her.) I remain impressed by the folks that write volumes daily. I truly don't know how they do it and maintain any kind of regular job. I remain dedicated to the defense of death penalty cases. In fact, I have to appear in court in Hartford, Connecticut in the morning on one of those pending capital matters. The one that I last wrote about in April. And one other one is closer to trial.

I will post this now to make sure I don't lose it. I still haven't figured out how to post a photo to the blog. Maybe that is what has dissuaded me from blogging, my inability to make this space look interesting, my inability to improve my blog. I would promise further dedication in this regard, but that would be a false promise. I can promise to do more than I have and I can promise to do better. Please don't hold me to that, but you have my promise that I will try.

I'm sorry I've been gone so long. It's nice to be back.

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:34:56 GMT

Benedetto Cipriani

Benedetto Cipriani was arrested in a small town outside of Rome, Italy this week. I know that his name is meaningless to most, if not all, of my readers. Earlier this year, I began representing a young man -- I emphasize young, since he is still only 20 years old -- by the name of Michael Castillo. Michael is accused of driving his friend Jose Guzman in his Nissan Pathfinder to what became the scene of a triple homicide in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. It is alleged by the State of Connecticut that Cipriani was the “mastermind” behind the plot, that Cipriani had hired another young Hispanic man to hit one of the eventual victims so that Cipriani would be free to have his way with the victim’s wife. The plan worked. The victim was killed, execution style, in auto garage along with two co-workers. It was a shocking crime in a small community. The State has already advised us (See my blog entry for 4/9/2004 where I explain the probable cause hearing conducted for the other three defendants) that they are seeking the death penalty against Castillo and the others.

Cipriani, the State claims, has been on the run in his native country of Italy. He was found, but the Connecticut authorities never moved in because of Italy’s position on capital punishment. Apparently, as long as Cipriani faced death, Italy would not approve extradition. The law enforcement stalemate ended when the State agreed to drop the charge of capital felony against Cipriani in return for his return to the United States.

The “deal” means that the State of Connecticut may be forced to drop its pursuit of death against my client and at least one if not both of the other two men charged in the crime. If the State does not seek death against the man who devised and set the entire scheme in motion, can they reasonably seek death against a kid who drove the car that brought the gunman to the scene? It seems unlikely, but it remains to be seen. Stay tuned. An article appears in today's Manchester Journal-Inquirer that outlines some of the background for the case and the State's new arrest. No death penalty sought: State hopes to expedite Windsor Locks murder suspect's extradition

Florida won’t execute juveniles?

It appears that Florida might have entered the 21^st Century after all. A bill has been proposed that would make it unlawful for the State to execute boys and girls who have not reached the age of 18. The time left in the legislative session may work against the approval and passage of this bill, but the statement made by the proposal itself is a major step in the right direction. My congratulations to the Sunshine State.

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:55:39 GMT

Mark Pascual

Yesterday was, in some respects, a day of reckoning for my client Mark Pascual. Mark was arrested several years ago for the role he was alleged to have played in the murder of a man in West Hartford, Connecticut. The State claimed that Mark hired two men to shoot and kill the boyfriend of a woman with whom he was infatuated. Mark never got involved in the shooting of the man, but took steps with the others that led to the victim's ultimate fate. The men wanted $5,000.00 to do the job. Mark didn't have that kind of money, but he did have a snowmobile. So the job was done in exchange for the snowmobile.

Yesterday, in the Hartford Superior Court, Mark pled guilty to five of the offenses with which he was charged, not including the charge of capital felony. Capital felony is the offense under Connecticut law that carries the death penalty. By pleading as he did, Mark avoids the death penalty and avoids a sentence of life in prison without the possibility for release. It opens the door for Mark to receive at the conclusion of his case a sentence of a term of years. It gives Mark hope. In exchange (there is always a quid to some other quo), Mark has agreed to cooperate with the State of Connecticut in its prosecution of an imediate co-defendant and a defendant in another, unconnected prosecution.

Hearing the pleas of guilty yesterday was a bit unnerving: murder, conspiracy to commit murder, etc. Hearing the potential penalty -- a sentence between 25 and 110 years in prison -- was equally upsetting. But at 39 years of age, the alternative of death or the rest of his life in prison clearly was less palatable. At the moment, the sentencing hearing in Mark's case has been scheduled for December. Jury selection in the trial of Mark's immediate co-defendant begins April 26th.

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:38:39 GMT

Despite my promises to be more regular in my blogging this time around, I have been unable to publish this week. It hasn't been my fault entirely. It seems that each time I had the time and ability to sit down and write, my internet service was down. That was the story for the first three days of the week. The balance of the week just got too busy. It was an eventful week, particularly for two of my death penalty cases or what were previously death penalty cases.

As I mentioned in Sunday's blog entry, Angel Cabrera was sentenced by the Court on Wednesday of this week. In the end, Angel got the full 5 years to which he was exposed. I had asked the Court to take some time off of the 5 for his plea of guilty, something he would have been entitled to if his sentencing guidelines had not exceeded the statutory maximum sentence the Court could impose. I argued that he was entitled to the benefit of his bargain and some reward for not forcing the government to prove its case at trial. Of course, Angel did obtain some benefit from the plea agreement as it was written. The government agreed that his plea would resolve all of his criminal liability in the federal court and that they could never come back at him for involvement in the murder for which he was originally indicted.

In addition, the Court directed that Angel receive credit against for his sentence for the past 27 months he has been held by the Feds and the 15 months he was held by the State of Connecticut. If given full credit for this time, Angel should be out of prison before the end of this year. The final result: Instead of losing his life to lethal injection, Angel will do 5 years less credits for time served. I know that it seems like an amazing result on its face, but it is a long time for someone who hasn't committed a crime. Even the one for which he has now been sentenced. A prosecution-oriented news article on the sentencing appeared in Bridgeport's Connecticut Post newspaper the day after the hearing. It is factually inaccurate and decidedly one-sided, but it spells out some aspects of the case or cases that might be of interest. Accused Shooter Sentenced for Perjury