If you are issued a summons or criminal citation, then you must appear at court on the date and time indicated on the summons. At the arraignment, the defendant is advised of several constitutional rights by the presiding judge and is required to enter a plea. At every arraignment, the Judge will set bond. If you do not have a record and the case is not violent in nature, then most likely you will be released on a written promise to appear on all subsequent court dates.
Other times, a judge will order a bond with or without surety. In that case, if you fail to appear then your bond would be revoked, and you would be held in custody without bond.
If a defendant is held in custody after arraignment the judge must review the bond status after 45 days. After the arraignment comes the pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference, you as the defendant, your attorney, and a prosecutor discuss the case.
Sometimes it can make sense to push back a plea to see what happens, or if other evidence or facts present themselves that can help your case. If the court allows a motion to dismiss then the case will be completely disposed of. If the court allows a motion to suppress, then, depending on the strength of the remaining case, it could either continue or be dismissed.
In other words, the prosecutor will forego prosecution of the charged crimes. If the defendant elects to go to trial, you have the right to be tried by a judge or by a jury.
In Connecticut, all non-Class A felonies and misdemeanors are tried to a jury of six people. For capital offenses and crimes that involve possible life sentences, the cases are tried to a jury of 12 people. In Connecticut, all verdicts must be unanimous. I hope there is someone around to hear us. Labels: courtside trials , Trial.
Unknown May 27, at AM. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. And how long did you say you've been on the State Ethics Commission? Many months it's just attending a meeting for three or four hours. We have been involved with some of the cases involving the Treasurer's Office and the lobbying issues and those hearings have taken two or three or four days at a time, usually spread over a couple of weeks.
So we've actually had contested hearings where we've sat as a quasi-judicial board and we've heard those matters. It's a hot topic in this building and perhaps you could share with us a little bit about your reading of the case, if you've had the opportunity to review it. I think it's important when you read Courchesne that it does indicate that in order to go away from the text from the plain language, there needs to be some persuasive sources in order to do that if the language is clear.
So I believe that the plain language is very important. We would look to the plain language. We obviously now have to look behind the plain language, but as the case says, the more strongly the bare text support such a meaning, the more persuasive those extra textual sources of meaning will have to be.
So, obviously we will give and should give great deference to the Legislature and believe their word. And, in fact, we are often times minds and it is a little disconcerting that we could have one or two members say something in legislative history that is taken forever in history to be the will of the entire body and frankly, sometimes in debate, you wonder if it's worthwhile to get up to counteract something somebody else said, but frankly, the Courchesne decision would encourage that.
And I have a big concern about the fact that many of the bills that we pass in this building have been crafted through compromise and over a period of months and they can be very complicated and very controversial in some instances and yet, when they reach the floor of the House or the Senate, they might actually be approved on the Consent Calendar with no floor debate whatsoever. So in that instance where there is no direct floor debate legislative history, what do you think the Courchesne decision would have to say about that situation?
PINKUS: Well, I mean the decision says that you have to look at the statute itself and then to the legislative history and the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the legislation. And I suppose I'm going to be duty bound to do that because that's what the Connecticut Supreme Court has said that I am required to do. So I will do that, but as it also says in the Courchesne decision, that those words are very important.
So I certainly will pay very close attention to those words. As a lawyer, many times I wish those words didn't mean what they said. I've had cases where I've represented clients and the words have said something and it hasn't necessarily suited my client and that I've been stuck with that. But I have been stuck with that. MCDONALD: I think you've put your finger on the potential problem that if somebody is intent on getting behind the words, the Courchesne decision might provide the avenue necessary to do that.
Once you have to dig down to what somebody is saying before the committee, for the legislative intent, I think we're all in perhaps deep -- whatever. Are there any questions from members of the committee before I get myself in trouble? Congratulations, Attorney Pinkus. I just wanted to ask you a quick question we sometimes ask folks.
Many of us in private practice have a majority of our practice in the civil area. Do you look forward to handling criminal matters as a judge? Do you have any concerns about that? Do you have an intellectual interest in the field? The GA, obviously, can be a pretty hectic atmosphere and I just wondered if you could comment on that a little bit.
Janet Reno was my boss. And I actually had my own division as a prosecutor, my own office, my own caseload. I probably tried over criminal cases when I was still in law school. I had one criminal jury case when I was in law school and I argued three criminal appeals while I was still in law school. So I did have -- that was all before I was a lawyer, but I did have extensive experience and when I came to Connecticut, I did consider going into that aspect of the criminal law.
As with many things, life takes different turns. They were hiring in the State's Attorney's Office at the time and I've practiced primarily in the civil end. Recently I have not done much criminal practice. I had a small GA practice back in the 's, but primarily I do civil. But I have no problem going to the GA. The GA is a very important part of our society.
That's where most of our society comes into contact with the judicial system and if that's where I go, I'll be proud to be there and I'll do my best to serve the community. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? If not, thank you very much and congratulations to you and to your family. Good afternoon, Mr. Please raise your right hand. BEAR: Thank you very much. I was born in New Haven, Connecticut at St. Raphael's Hospital and except for college and law school, I have been a resident of Connecticut for my entire life.
My parents, my two sisters, and I lived in Hamden, where I grew up, and I went to public grammar school, junior high school, and high school in Hamden. I was one of two graduates in my class of approximately people to start my legal career in the representation of persons who could not afford to pay for lawyers.
In state court, I defended tenants and others and I represented plaintiffs and defendants in divorces and in other family law matters. In bankruptcy court, I represented persons generally in individual Chapter 7 liquidation cases in order to provide them, hopefully, with fresh starts in their financial lives.
I also represented plaintiffs in several federal court cases, including some Class Actions concerning constitutional, welfare, housing, and consumer matters. Shortly before today, on April 30 th of this year I celebrated my 30 th anniversary at Zeldas, Needle and Cooper. And during my tenure there, I worked on a number of different cases in several areas of the law. My general areas of practice included general civil and commercial litigation, family law, and bankruptcy law.
I have listed, in my questionnaire response, some of the cases, including cases with reported decisions in which I have been involved over the years. Additionally, on the transactional side, I've drafted contracts, leases, distribution agreements, pre-marital, post-marital, and separation agreements, Chapter 11 disclosure statements, Chapter 11 plans of reorganization, and other documents. Additionally, I have represented professionals including doctors, accountants, and attorneys in partnership and professional corporations, separations and dissolutions.
I am hopeful that my legal experience will be helpful and useful if this committee approves my nomination and if I am appointed by the General Assembly to be a Judge of the Superior Court and I thank you for your time and attention. And welcome to you and I don't know if you have any family members with you today that you'd like to introduce?
BEAR: I do. My spouse, Cheryl Chase is here with me today. Do any members of the committee have any questions? Just a few questions. You said that you were one of two people in your graduating law school class to go into legal aid. BEAR: There have been reports over the years and by word of mouth and it was in when Legal Aid was really just getting started. Second, along the same line. You speak very proudly of the fact that after going to one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States, that you went to serve the indigent in the City of New Haven and surrounding environments.
And I was wondering, why do you feel that that experience will make you a better sitting judge and what prompted you to then leave that kind of practice and go into a more dollar oriented practice, if I may call it that? BEAR: Starting at New Haven Legal Assistance Association, I think I literally met some of the poorest and in many ways, some of the most desperate people in New Haven who were, in most cases, trying to live their lives, trying to be good citizens, trying to do well, but because of their circumstances and because they didn't have, in most cases, a family safety net of support, when something terrible happened, when an injury took place, a sickness occurred, a job was lost, they literally had no one to turn to in order to protect them and help them in their legal and personal needs and that's one of the functions that Legal Assistance was intended to serve and through that service, which lasted for me for approximately five years, I saw a segment of our society that someone who grew up in a suburb and then went off to school, I think generally didn't get a chance to see.
I made friends with my clients. Many of them, I kept in touch with many of them. I was happy when I could have a success of representing someone who was on welfare, helping him or her get to the point where they could go to school, earn a degree or find a job and end up being able to leave welfare and they were more proud and more happy than I was.
I left Legal Assistance because, in most cases, I would guess at the time I was there, those of us who were there stayed three to five years, sometimes more. Two people I worked with, Frank Deneen and JoAnne Faulkner stayed a lot longer, but most of us, I would guess, stayed three, five, six or seven years and then went out on our own to do various things and some of the people I worked with, including Judge Cordino and Judge Silbert, went onto become Superior Court judges.
Well, just by way of commentary, I have no further questions, would be that it seems that that five year experience has left a deep and indelible mark on you and that even though you've gone onto become a partner at a prestigious firm here in the State of Connecticut that has an excellent reputation, and that you had a wide variety of legal expertise that you can bring to the Bench, what I find comforting from my position is that you will be in an opportunity to really make sure that a courtroom functions with the utmost fairness and even-handedness for those from all socio-economic climbs in the State of Connecticut and my guess would be that, assuming all goes well, that when you walk into that courtroom, that those feelings that you had way back in are going to come back to the fore and you will find yourself in the position to be able to do, once again, great good for the widest body of individuals in the State.
So, I congratulate you. BEAR: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Representative Green. Just some thoughts from you on what you think the purpose of bonds are.
BEAR: I think the purpose of bonds in the criminal context? BEAR: Are really to assure the presence of the defendant, not for really any other reason. My understanding is that a bond is set so that the defendant will be motivated to appear in court whenever he is supposed to or she is supposed to appear.
I don't think they should be used for any other purpose. GREEN: Sometimes when I appear in court and I'm not an attorney, and I hear, I guess, the Bail Commissioner make recommendations for bond, I don't always see a response from a judge as to whether or not they feel that's high or low based on the evidence. It seems to be something that based on that recommendation, it's most of the times accepted, in my opinion as I see it. BEAR: Well, it may not be clear from the materials I submitted, but my firm does a lot of criminal defense work.
So we've been very sensitive over the years to those circumstances where we represent someone who we believe is not a flight risk or a danger to the community and who should be able to be out under the presumption of innocence until final resolution in the court, but has not been able to do so because in the circumstances of that person, the amount of the bond has been set is really too high for the person to be able to afford.
So I think I will -- I do have currently and I will have sensitivity in the future to what a bond is, the importance of it, and how it should be approached. GREEN: Another issue that I sometimes give a lot of thought to is the whole process of plea bargaining and I've heard that it's sort of a necessary evil in the sense that GREEN: some thoughts on what you think the plea bargaining is. What's the purpose? What's the value of that? Any thoughts on the process of plea bargaining? BEAR: I would hope its purpose is to reach a fair result, both to the State and its citizens and the defendant in a circumstance where a matter can be resolved in a fair way from both sides' perspective without the need for trial.
In the civil context, cases get settled all the time because it's really in the interest of the parties to have them settled rather than to have them tried by someone who might not know the circumstances as well as the individual people do, the parties do. And I would hope that plea bargaining wouldn't and isn't a substitute for good lawyering.
Again, speaking as someone who, for 30 years has been a member of a criminal defense firm, at least in part. And from word of mouth over the years, we've heard stories about lawyers in the GA who seem only interested in the plea bargain and then moving onto the next case. And while it makes the system work, I'm not sure that it's the best result for the people who go through the system. And one last question.
In terms of the ability of public defenders, I guess the other thing that I kind of sense is that it appears that maybe because of caseload and some time management issues, that there's this sense that public defenders tend to want to plea bargain cases to bring them to trial because of resources and time.
BEAR: I don't have personal experience, but my suspicion is that not only public defenders, but many other areas throughout state government need additional resources. But on the other hand, my experiences, especially with the court system in the last year where there have been a number of layoffs is that the remaining people in the system are trying very, very hard to do the best job that they can do.
It's been very impressive, especially when one day someone that you're used to working with from the court for a number of years is suddenly not there. Bear, it's been several years since I've last seen you, but you've proven yourself, yet again, to be a thoughtful and intelligent and compassionate man and I can only say that some of my law partners in Bridgeport are going to miss a worthy adversary across town.
Congratulations on your nomination. Bellis of Shelton. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
0コメント