« December 2004 | Main | February 2005 »
January 25, 2005
Connecticut Supreme Court Rejects Public Defenders' Petition for "Next Friend" Status in Ross Case
Last week the Connecticut Supreme Court issued three decisions:
State v. Ross (SC17335) (Concurrence) (Concurrence)
State v. Gonzalez (SC16977) (Dissent)
Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital (SC17204)
Posted by dklau at 09:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 18, 2005
The Supreme Court issued three decisions this week:
Cecarelli v. Board of Assessment Appeals (SC17234)
Posted by dklau at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 12, 2005
U.S. Supreme Court Says Federal Sentencing Guidlines Are Unconstitutional
In U.S. v. Booker, a decision that has been anticipated for months, the United States Supreme Court held today, in an unusual two part opinion, that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines -- which were enacted two decades ago to reduce judicial discretion in sentencing -- violate the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to a jury trial. Following on the heals of the Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. --- (2004) decision last year, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the guidelines are unconstitutional because they allow judges to base sentences on facts that were not found by a jury. In the second part of decision -- also a 5-4 opinion -- the Court held that the remedy was not to strike down the guidelines in their entirety, but to make them advisory in nature. The Court said that, although federal judges are no longer bound to apply the guidelines in particular cases, they must at least consult them during sentencing. Appellate review of sentences must be judged by a standard of "reasonableness."
Posted by dklau at 09:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 11, 2005
The Connecticut Supreme Court issued decisions in four cases last week:
In State v. Alston (SC16910) the Court affirmed manslaughter and firearms convictions nothwithstanding the defendant's claim that the prosecution had been unfairly allowed to comment on the defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Rejecting the defendant's claims, the Court held that the prosecutor's comment was not impermissible because it was either fair comment on the defendant's failure to explain prior inconsistent statements or mere narrative of the chain of events leading up to the defendant's arrest. The Supreme Court also rejected claims by the defendant that the trial court had acted improperly in handling possible juror misconduct and in replacing a juror who had been selected in voir dire, but not yet sworn.
In Dept. of Transportation v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (SC16889) the Court considered whether an employer who had a bona fide, non-discriminatory reason for not promoting an employee could be liable for employment discrimination where the CHRO also concluded that the employee was not given the promotion because of his national origin. After transferring the case to its docket, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that, as a matter of law, the fact that the employee was not promoted for at least one bona fide, non-discriminatory reason precluded a determination that the employer had nevertheless acted with a discriminatory motive.
In two companion cases, Connecticut State Medical Society v. ConnectiCare, Inc. (SC17072)and Connecticut State Medical Society v. Oxford Health Plans (CT), Inc. (SC17071), the Court considered whether a physicians' association had standing to prosecute claims for violation of CUTPA and for injunctive relief against two HMO's. The Plaintiff had brought suit against the two HMO's alleging that they had engaged in unfair trade practices with respect to claims for payment made by the plaintiff's members. The HMO's both moved to strike the plaintiff's claims, asserting that the plaintiff was without standing because its claims were purely derivative of those of its members (who had agreed to arbitrate their claims against the HMO's). The trial court agreed, striking the plaintiff's claims. After transferring the cases to its own docket, the Supreme Court affirmed.
Posted by dklau at 09:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 04, 2005
The Connecticut Supreme Court issued one decision last week:
In State v. Miranda (SC17088)the Court reversed (via a truncated opinion) its decision in State v. Miranda, 245 Conn. 209 (1998) and held that, as a matter of law, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for assult in the first degree. The Court indicated that a full opinion would be issued at a later date.
Posted by dklau at 08:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack