Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

We all know President Donald Trump is thin-skinned, as witnessed the bloodstained Mika Brzezinski of “Morning Joe.” Recently, Trump tweeted about Ms. Brzezinski, now affianced to Joe Scarborough, the Joe of “Morning Joe,” that she had visited him recently and was “bleeding badly from a face-lift.” The usual kerfuffle in social media ensued, and Trump was bare-knuckled by what he considers media thugs, purveyors of “fake news.” Following the pummeling, Trump tweeted, more temperately, “Crazy Joe Scarborough and dumb as a rock Mika are not bad people, but their low rated show is dominated by their NBC bosses. Too bad!"

In April 2009 Attorney General Richard Blumenthal weighed in on the Chatigny-Ross affair . Blumenthal said at the time, “I have strong reservations about Judge Chatigny’s actions during the conference he conducted in the Michael Ross case. The Judicial Council of the Second Circuit will determine whether these actions were proper and ethical. My office has no role in that process. We have filed no formal complaint against the judge. No provision of state or federal law allows my office to recover costs from a judge found to have acted improperly or unethically.” It was a graceful bow out on a difficult question. As a rule, Blumenthal’s strong reservations quickly evolve into either an opinion that finds its way into the media or a suit. However, on occassions, when it suits his fancy, Blumenthal can be timid -- sensitve even. Blumenthal is now running for U.S. Senator Chris Dodd’s seat, which the senator has said he will abandon I the next election. Chatigny’s name was put into...

“ I don’t think this is a matter that’s going to lightly go away ,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican. “I think it evidenced the lack of a proper understanding of your role in the matter.” Sessions was speaking directly to Judge Robert Chatigny, President Barack Obama’s choice to fill a vacancy on the 2nd Circuit that opened when Judge Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chatigny was recommended for the appointment by Connecticut’s two U.S. Senators, Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman. The questions and remarks make by committee members were withering. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Chatigny had done “everything possible to prevent the execution. I just wonder why you think your behavior in this case — which is pretty extraordinary — why that behavior would warrant a promotion to a much more senior court.” Chatigny is best remembered in Connecticut – but apparently not by the state’s two U.S. senators -- as the judge who d...

Early in June, 2009, the state legislature passed a bill abolishing the death penalty that was vetoed by Governor Jodi Rell, who said she thought the present law was just in the cases in which it had been applied in Connecticut. Although a number of convicted killers are awaiting punishment on death row -- among them Daniel Webb, sentenced to death in 1991 for having brutally raped and murdered a bank executive in a park in Hartford -- the state has executed only two people within living memory: Ross and Joseph “Mad Dog” Taborsky in 1960, who has the distinction of being the only convict in Connecticut sent to death row twice for different crimes. Webb recently beat a guard severely enough to require medical attention. The bill abolishing the death penalty was passed after two convicted criminals released from prison, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, broke into a home in Cheshire, beat Dr. William Petit unconscious with a baseball bat, raped his wife and one of his daughters,...

“The 'most prolific' serial killer in U.S. history” has now been sentenced to death, according to  a report in the Daily Mail . It is suspected that Rodney Alcala, whose picture is shown here, murdered upwards of 130 young girls and women. Alcala is due to be executed by lethal injection for the murders of a twelve year old girl and four women. He has admitted killing another 30 women in the 1970’s. An amateur photographer, Alcala left behind hundreds of pictures of women, some of whom were his victims. “He committed unspeakable acts of horror,” said prosecutor Matt Murphy, “He gets off on the infliction of pain on other people. He's an evil monster who knows what he is doing is wrong and doesn't care.” Detective Claiff Shepard places Alcala “right up somewhere below Hitler and right around Ted Bundy. It is not humane what he does to these victims. It is torture.” Alcala raped his victims, strangled them until they lapsed into unconsciousness, then revived them ...

According to news reports, U.S. senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman have sent to the White House a letter favoring Judge Robert Chatigny to fill a position left vacant on the 2nd Circuit by Judge Sonia Sotomayor elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Robert Chatigny will be best remembered in Connecticut as the judge who delayed mass murderer Michael Ross’ execution by threatening to pull the license of his lawyer, the hapless T.R. Pauling. Ross raped and murdered his victims, leaving their bodies strewn all over the state. He was caught by some alert detectives shortly after he had worked his way through his seventh and eighth victims, two 14 year-old girls Ross picked up on the road on Easter Sunday. He raped and strangled one of the girls while the other watched terrified in the car; then he strangled the second girl, ditching her body behind a fieldstone wall. The case moved slowly through Connecticut’s judicial carousel– capital felony trial, conviction, penalty phase...

It is not likely that Joshua Komisarjevsky, one of the two alleged murderers in the Pettit case, need fear a cell invasion. But the lawyers for his partner in mayhem, Steven Hayes, who along with Komisarjevsky is accused of invading Dr. William Petit’s home and murdering his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, now are seeking an arrest warrant for Komisarjevsky. Hayes’ lawyers claim that Komisarjevsky has committed “criminal contempt of court” for having disregarded a judge’s gag order. Principles in the case are under a judge’s instruction not to chat it up before trial for fear the court may not be able to empanel a dispassionate jury. It is supposed by some defense attorneys that if a jury member has read about the events at issue in trial, the juror will be “tainted” and thus unable to render a just verdict. Good judges dispose of the worry by instructing jurors that in their deliberations they may only consider evidence pres...

Lets take this one step by step. In a recent editorial, the Hartford Courant inveighs against Connecticut’s death penalty law. “A legislative committee,” the paper advises, “has taken a brave step toward abolishing Connecticut's death penalty, a law that is all but unworkable, not to mention expensive, unfair and risky." The bill abolishing the death penalty was brought forward by the same folk who recently sought unsuccessfully to deprive Catholic bishops of their responsibility, in an apostolic structure, of determining the finances of their organization. The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty, for legitimate religious reasons. Now, why does the paper think that bringing forth such a bill is “brave?” It may be right, according to the revised religious precepts of the Catholic Church, but why is it brave? Is the opposition to the death penalty in Connecticut so fierce and unrelenting that those who have petitioned for its abolition are in some sense threatened?...

“And I alone am left to tell the tale” – Ishmael in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick According to a news report , the judiciary committee, presided over by chairmen Michael Lawlor in the House and Andrew McDonald in the senate, both lawyers, had been tossing around the question whether the legislature should abolish Connecticut’s death penalty for about eight hours when the proverbial skunk showed up at the garden party. Connecticut’s chief public defender, Susan Storey, testified that the death penalty was a drain on state resources and did not deter crime. Other speakers came forward and said that capital punishment was immoral. Co-chairman of the committee Michael Lawlor said earlier in a press interview before the hearing, "No one's going to be executed in Connecticut unless they want to be executed. This is really a fraud of a public policy." Mr. Lawlor was referring indirectly to the execution of serial killer Michael Ross , whose trial and execution took an inordinatel...

There’s something to be said for the vigorous application of bad laws; it’s the best way to get rid of them. The anti- capital punishment forces here in Connecticut want state prosecutors to develop a standard for the prosecution of those who commit capital felonies. Once the standard is established, it must be uniformly applied by all prosecutors in the state. A prosecution in which the standard is not uniformly applied then may be contested in court as being selective and falling outside the governing rule, providing plaintiffs accused of capital felonies with yet another useful arrow in their already crowded quiver. Should Connecticut appellate courts agree with those now arguing that the absence of a standard for prosecution in capital felony cases is on its face unconstitutional, one need not argue the guilt or innocence of the murderer; one need only show that a prosecutor in a different district unconnected with the case had failed to prosecute in a similar instance. A consisten...

“Judge Chatigny stated that he had forgotten his brief, inconsequential involvement with Ross' direct appeal and would have recused himself had he remembered it. A failure to recuse resulting from an innocent and reasonable memory lapse is not misconduct." Those lines, from a special committee report clearing Judge Robert Chatigny from charges of misconduct, ought to be dubbed “the Lisa Moody defense.” Essentially, the panel of judges that gave a pass to Chatigny are saying 1) Chatigny did indeed fail to recuse himself for having participated earlier in the Michael Ross case, 2) the failure to recuse does indeed indicate misconduct, but 3) a failure to recuse oneself need not lead to a determination of misconduct if the judge “innocently and reasonably” has a memory lapse. One recalls Moody’s doubtful memory lapse in connection with Chatigny because Moody, Governor Rell’s chief aide, had made handwritten notes on a memo she claimed not to have remembered; Chatigny hand wrote 1...

Judge Robert Chatigny was asked point blank by Assistant Attorney General Terrence O’Neill, “Does your honor hold any personally held beliefs or has your honor written in any other cases that we just haven’t been able to find yet that would cause us to question your partiality with respect to the implementation or execution of a death sentence?” Only two days before he threw a monkey wrench into serial killer Michael Ross’ impending execution, Chatigny answered, “I have no moral beliefs or other types of beliefs that would stand in the way of implementing a death penalty in the circumstances where the law called for it to be done. So, yeah; you'll not find anything that suggests anything to the contrary. I feel fortunate to be in a situation to be able to address these issues without having to deal with a client, the public, the media, a boss or anything other than my own conscience." Two days after the interrogatory between O’Neill and Chatigny, the judge convened a now notor...

Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney Harry Weller has argued in a brief he submitted to Connecticut’s Supreme Court that “Special counsel Thomas Groark cannot prosecute an appeal in the seemingly interminable Michael Ross case because “he is not a party” to ongoing litigation. Groark’s petition, therefore, “is inappropriate, unprecedented and should not be countenanced by this court.” Groark is petitioning Connecticut’s Supreme Court to review a decision made by Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford following an unprecedented hearing during which Clifford ruled that Michael Ross was mentally capable of deciding to forgo further appeals in his case. The hearing was unprecedented because a “final” decision on the matter of Ross’ competence had been made both by Connecticut’s highest court and the U.S. Supreme Court. These decisions were artfully subverted by Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny. Hours before Ross was to be executed, Chatigny convened a questionable teleconferen...

The execution of serial killer Michael Ross was stopped in its tracks several weeks ago by the unorthodox intervention of U. S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny. Those tracks are miles long. Both Ross and his living victims, the family members of the nine women he murdered, have endured a long trial, an automatic review by Connecticut’s Supreme Court, a penalty hearing at which Ross was sentenced to death, an appellate decision that occasioned a second death penalty hearing, and a second sentencing hearing during which new evidence was considered by a second jury that sentenced Ross to death a second time. This process of seemingly endless litigation finally was interrupted by Ross himself. Professing a concern for the family members of his victims, Ross discharged his public defenders and engaged a new lawyer, T. R. Paulding, to represent his interests. Ross had decided to forgo any further appeals and accept his sentence. In this effort, Ross was opposed by his former public defe...

It seems only yesterday that Michael Ross – a supremely narcissistic fellow according to one psychiatrist – had convinced all the relevant courts that, yes, he did want to be executed and, no, he was not incompetent. But that was before U. S. District Superior Court Judge Robert Chatigny, whose decisions in the Ross case were three times rebuffed by appellate courts, got on the phone and, fortified with information provided by several lawyers whom the appellate courts determined had no standing in the case, flipped Ross’ lawyer, T. R. Paulding. What a difference a day makes. Chatigny having threatened to deprive Paulding of his law license should it be determined at some point in the future that Ross was incompetent to forego further appeals, Paulding prove most obliging. The day after Chatigny threatened to deprive Paulding of his livelihood, Ross’ defense lawyer threw in the towel. Citing a “conflict of interest,” Paulding consulted with his client, who agreed to a new competency hea...

Cecily says to Algernon in Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Ernest," I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. The same cannot be said of Michael Ross, who claims that he has abandoned future appeals to spare the family members of his victims more agony. It is difficult to believe anything good of a man who is capable of strangling and raping all but one of his eight victims. It is much easier to believe that Ross is evil or crazy or manipulative -- and merely pretending to be good. Ross, in other words, is either crazy as a fox or just plain crazy. Proponents of the death penalty for heinous crimes -- which is to say, Connecticut's legislature and, according to polls, a majority of people living in the state -- believe that Ross was fully competent when he decided to forgo appeals and accept his death sentence. Such people do not believe that one need be a monster to commit monstrous crimes. Acco...

On Jan 29, those who were to witness the death by lethal injection of serial killer Michael Ross were told that the execution of Ross had been postponed due to “a potential conflict of interest.” The nature of the conflict of interest was not described, but it seemed to have something to do with Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny's hissy fit. A day earlier, Ross’ former public defenders, understandably dejected by a U.S. Supreme Court’s order lifting a stay of execution earlier imposed by Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny, told Connecticut’s news media that they had exhausted their legal resources. Chatigny had issued two stays of execution that in effect set aside previous decisions made by Judge Christopher Droney, Chatigny’s peer on the court, and Connecticut’s Supreme Court. Chatigny’s ruling, had it passed muster with the U.S. Supreme Court, would have required a new hearing during which new testimony concerning Ross’ mental impairment would have been introduced...