Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
It is virtually impossible right now to browse news stories without coming across another report of a high-profile individual accused of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct. Of course, sexual misbehavior is not a new problem, but recent months have seen an explosion of new allegations against movie producers, actors, comedians, and other influential people. Almost none of these cases have seen the inside of a courtroom yet—or even a formal filing—but careers have already been ruined, and lives have been turned upside down. Alleged offenders are being found guilty in the court of public opinion, with little regard for the nuances of each situation.
Unfortunately, concerns about the lack of due process are not limited to accusations of misconduct by prominent individuals. Over the last few years, the issue has presented itself on college campuses across the country. Students—male students, mostly—have found themselves suspended, expelled, and generally excoriated solely on the basis of allegations of sexual misconduct.
When a person is accused of committing a crime, he or she is afforded a number of rights. Most of them have their basis in the U.S. Constitution and the guarantee of due process of law. The Constitution, however, does not address each and every right that a person may or may not have and is rather silent regarding the rights of those who have been victimized by the accused’s alleged crimes. Thus, the rights of crime victims have long been a topic for debate in legal circles and among the general public. Last month, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a ruling one such disputed right—a ruling that has left some people concerned about the transparency of criminal legal proceedings.
An Ongoing Criminal Matter
The issue was brought before the state’s highest court as the result of a ruling by a lower court in a sexual assault case. The defendant—a 46-year-old former teacher’s aide—is charged with sex crimes related to an ongoing sexual relationship she allegedly had with a 15-year-old boy, beginning when the boy was under her care at a preschool. She is also charged with molesting the boy’s 16-year-old friend.
The state of Connecticut—like every other state—requires motorists to carry a minimum amount of liability coverage. Liability insurance is designed to help you cover any damages or injuries that may result from accidents for which you are at fault. Specifically, a driver must have at least $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident for bodily injury liability and $10,000 per accident for property damage liability.
Connecticut also requires drivers to carry uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with the same minimums. Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is intended to protect the driver and his or her passengers in the event of an accident in which the at-fault driver is either uninsured or does not have sufficient insurance to cover all of the injuries sustained.
Sometimes, however, an injured driver’s own insurance carrier may stall or delay when it comes time to pay up. Such was the case for a Niantic woman who recently reached a settlement with her insurance company after being involved in a crash caused by an underinsured driver.
When most people think about a personal injury lawsuit, an auto accident dispute between two strangers may come to mind first. Or, their thoughts may turn to a slip-and-fall incident at a retail store, leading to months of litigation by the victim against a large corporation and their insurance companies. Sometimes, however, a personal injury case may begin as a disagreement between friends which escalates to unnecessary violence. Such was the case between two college students whose case was recently decided by a Derby Superior Court jury.
A Physical Altercation
According to court documents, the incident took place in April of 2014 following a party at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. The plaintiff was riding in the front seat of the defendant’s car when he reportedly became concerned about the defendant’s ability to drive. The driver had allegedly been drinking and his driving had become erratic. The plaintiff claims that he repeatedly asked the driver to pull over, and the driver got angry and violent, punching the plaintiff in the head.
For decades, drug dealers have faced serious criminal consequences if they were caught selling illegal substances like cocaine, heroin, prescription pills, marijuana or other drugs. Now, because of a disturbing increase in drug overdoses, those who sell drugs may be facing even more severe penalties.
Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for those under the age of 50. In 2016, overdoses were linked to the death of approximately 64,000 people in the U.S. Some states have already been able to legally charge dealers of drugs like cocaine or heroin with first-degree murder if the drugs they sold led to a person’s death through overdose. However, the proliferation of a new drug called fentanyl has caused legislators to sanction even stricter laws.
Fentanyl is a drug up to 50 times more powerful than heroin. It is often combined with heroin—sometimes without the dealer or buyer’s knowledge. Fentanyl is intended to be used for anesthesia or for managing chronic pain. When prescribed and monitored by a medical professional, it can be a beneficial drug, but when recreational users underestimate the amount of fentanyl they are consuming, it can be deadly. Fentanyl caused 20,100 deaths in 2016 in the United States alone. This represents a staggering 540% increase in overdose deaths caused by the drug in the last three years.
When a person is convicted on charges of certain sex crimes, he or she may be required to register on the state’s sex offender registry for a period of time following any applicable prison term. Depending on the severity of the offense, registration may be required for 10 years or for the rest of the offender’s life. Because such a registry is considered by most people to be important in maintaining public safety, there is a common belief that every person on the list still poses a danger to his or her community.
Members of the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, however, say that a “one-size-fits-all approach to registration of sex offenders” is not always in the public’s best interest. In 2015, the Connecticut General Assembly directed a Commission subcommittee to consider a risk-based alternative to the current offense-based system.
The subcommittee announced a risk-based proposal in October that would require an in-depth evaluation of each individual convicted of a sex crime. Alex Tsarkov, the sentencing commission’s executive director, said, “We’re not trying to make life easier for offenders. We’re trying to focus on public safety.”
With the winter holidays fast approaching, many workplaces and organizations are starting to schedule Christmas parties and other celebratory gatherings. Many such parties are held at bars, restaurants, and clubs and involve substantial drinking. When a person drives under the influence of alcohol, he or she is generally responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by his or her decision to drive drunk. The law in Connecticut, however, provides that other parties may also share the liability, particularly if the driver was overserved at a bar or restaurant.
What Are Dram Shop Laws?
Laws that permit injured parties to seek compensation from bars, clubs, and other sellers of alcoholic beverages are known as “dram shop laws.” In fact, the applicable law in Connecticut is actually titled the “Dram Shop Act.”
The term “dram shop” traces its roots back several centuries to when small stores sold liquor and spirits—often homemade—in small measures known as “drams.” While most people do not use the phrase to describe bars, taverns, or other such establishments today, the name has stuck on the laws that govern purveyor liability.
In many areas, the day before Thanksgiving is quickly becoming one the biggest partying days of the entire year. Bar owners and news outlets began noticing an uptick in food and liquor sales on “Thanksgiving Eve” several years ago, earning the day the ominous-sounding nickname of “Blackout Wednesday.” The moniker is a play on Black Friday—the retail boom that takes place on the day after Thanksgiving—but the word “blackout” implies the overconsumption of alcohol. Unfortunately, many of those who overindulge on Blackout Wednesday will still try to drive home, placing themselves, their passengers, and others on the road in serious danger of injury or death.
A Perfect Storm
There are many factors that come together on the day before Thanksgiving that makes it such an appealing day to party. Blackout Wednesday revelers often include a large number of college students who have returned home for the holiday and who make plans to celebrate with high school and childhood friends—usually at bars or similar establishments. In addition, most adults do not have to work or otherwise be up early on Thanksgiving Day, giving them the freedom to drink more the night before than they otherwise might. Some begin as soon as work ends on Wednesday and continue well into the night.
It has been five years since the Connecticut legislature added 17-year-old criminal defendants to the state’s juvenile court system. When the reform was first enacted, many feared that the change would overwhelm the juvenile courts and have virtually no effect on the likelihood of juveniles returning to criminal activity in the future. While the doomsday predictions have largely proven to be inaccurate, there is still concern among law enforcement and prosecutors that restrictions on detaining juvenile suspects and transfers to adult court have made their jobs more difficult and placed the public at risk.
The debate was reignited by Governor Dannel Malloy’s continued efforts to create an extension of the juvenile court system that would be used for most defendants up to 20 years old. For the last two years, Governor Malloy has touted his “Second Chance Society” initiatives, citing emerging research on brain development in adolescents and young adults.
When a person is arrested in a home or an apartment, it is understandable for the law enforcement officers making the arrest to conductive a protective sweep of the residence to ensure that nobody is hiding or waiting to attack the officers. While protective sweeps are considered a type of search under the Fourth Amendment, they are often permitted without a warrant.
Sometimes, however, the police overstep their bounds and use such sweeps as a justification to conduct evidentiary searches. When evidence is uncovered as the result of such a search, it may be considered tainted and the court may rule that the evidence is inadmissible. A recent ruling by a federal court in Connecticut highlights the importance of limiting the scope of protective sweeps.
Sweep Following an Arrest
In May 2016, members of the U.S. Marshals’ Violent Crime Fugitive Task Force showed up to execute an arrest warrant for Connecticut man wanted in connection with an armed robbery and two domestic disputes. Eight officers, including representatives from several local police departments, arrived to arrest the man at his girlfriend’s apartment where they knocked on the door. The man kept the police waiting for a short time before he emerged and surrendered without incident. He was taken outside to a police car while other officers conducted a protective sweep of the apartment.
50 Founders Plaza
