www-pattispazlaw-com-full-site

What Recent January 6 Case Developments Mean for Federal Criminal Defense

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 15:12:04 GMT

A recent report from The Washington Post highlights a significant development in some January 6 cases, where the Department of Justice is moving to vacate certain seditious conspiracy convictions .

You can read the full article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/14/january-6-convictions-seditious-conspiracy/

While this situation is specific to those cases, it raises important questions about how serious federal charges are handled—and what happens when legal strategies, interpretations, or priorities shift over time.

What Is Seditious Conspiracy?

Seditious conspiracy is one of the most serious charges in federal criminal law. It involves allegations that individuals conspired to use force to oppose the government or interfere with the execution of federal law.

These types of cases are often complex, involving multiple defendants, extensive evidence, and highly technical legal arguments.

Why This Development Matters

The recent move by federal prosecutors shows something many people don’t realize:

Even major federal convictions are not always final.

Cases can change after a verdict due to:

Appeals and post-conviction motions
Evolving legal interpretations
Shifts in prosecutorial strategy
Questions about how laws were applied

This is especially true in large, high-profile cases where legal theories are tested at the highest levels.

The Importance of Early Defense Strategy

In federal cases, the defense strategy doesn’t start at trial—it starts immediately.

A strong legal approach should:

Challenge how charges are defined and applied
Examine whether intent and coordination can actually be proven
Identify weaknesses in the government’s case early
Preserve key issues for appeal

In complex cases, decisions made early on can directly impact what options are available later.

Federal Criminal Law Is Always Evolving

What we’re seeing in these cases is part of a larger reality:

Federal law is not static.

Legal interpretations can shift. Strategies can change. Outcomes can be revisited.

That’s why it’s critical to have a defense team that understands not just the immediate case—but the broader legal landscape and how it may evolve.

Facing Federal Charges?

If you or someone you know is facing serious federal charges, it’s important to work with a legal team that has experience handling complex, high-stakes cases.

At Pattis & Paz, our team understands the nuances of federal criminal defense—from pre-trial strategy to appeals—and how to navigate cases where the stakes are high and the legal terrain is constantly shifting.

What Is the Trial Tax in Criminal Cases?

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 14:48:23 GMT

The term “trial tax” is often used to describe what happens when someone goes to trial, loses, and receives a harsher sentence than what was offered in a plea deal. While it is not a formal law, it is a common reality in criminal cases.

What Is the Trial Tax?

The trial tax refers to the tendency for sentences to increase after a conviction at trial compared to pre-trial plea offers.

Why Does the Trial Tax Exist?

There are two main perspectives:

Prosecution view:

Plea deals are a reduced sentence
Trials require time, resources, and witness testimony

Defense view:

People should not be penalized for exercising their right to trial

What Happens If You Go to Trial and Lose?

In many cases:

The sentence is higher than the plea offer
The penalty may be closer to the maximum allowed

Should You Always Take a Plea Deal?

Not always. The right decision depends on:

Evidence in the case
Potential sentencing outcomes
Personal goals

Key Takeaway

Understanding the risks of going to trial is essential before making a decision. Speaking with an attorney can help clarify the best path forward.

FAQs

What Is a Garvin Agreement in Connecticut?

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 14:47:50 GMT

A Garvin agreement is a type of plea arrangement used in Connecticut that can significantly impact your sentence. While it can offer a favorable outcome, violating its conditions can lead to much harsher penalties.

What Is a Garvin Agreement?

A Garvin agreement allows a defendant to receive a specific sentence if they meet certain conditions before their sentencing date.

How Does a Garvin Agreement Work?

When a plea is entered but sentencing is scheduled for a later date, the court may require:

No new arrests
Appearance at the scheduled sentencing

If those conditions are met, the agreed-upon sentence is typically imposed.

What Happens If You Violate a Garvin Agreement?

If the conditions are violated, the judge is no longer required to follow the original agreement.

This means:

A harsher sentence may be imposed
The sentence can go up to the statutory maximum

What Counts as a Violation?

Common violations include:

Getting arrested before sentencing
Missing a court date

Why Garvin Agreements Are Risky

Even a minor mistake can lead to significantly more jail time. These agreements require strict compliance with all conditions.

Key Takeaway

If you are given a Garvin agreement, it is critical to follow all conditions and stay in close communication with your attorney.

FAQs

When Can Speech Become a Crime? Understanding First Amendment Limits

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 14:47:03 GMT

T he First Amendment pro tects your right to free speech, but that protection is not unlimited. In some situations, what you say or post online can lead to criminal charges or court restrictions. Understanding where the line is drawn can help you avoid serious legal consequences.

What Does the First Amendment Protect?

The First Amendment protects your right to speak freely, especially when it comes to discussing the government, court systems, and public issues. This type of speech is given strong legal protection.

However, not all speech is protected.

Can You Be Arrested for Something You Say?

Yes. Certain types of speech can result in criminal charges.

These may include:

Harassment
Threats
Speech that incites harm

For example, social media posts directed at another person that are considered harassing may lead to arrest.

When Do Courts Restrict Speech?

Courts can place limits on speech, especially during a criminal case.

These restrictions must:

Serve an important government interest
Be narrowly applied
Avoid limiting protected speech unnecessarily

Courts evaluate whether restrictions are based on the content of speech or applied more broadly.

When Do Speech Restrictions Become a Legal Issue?

Problems arise when courts restrict speech that is not threatening or harassing.

For example:

Talking about your own legal case
Discussing court processes
Sharing personal experiences related to the legal system

These types of speech are often protected.

Why This Matters

If speech is restricted improperly, it may violate constitutional rights. In those cases, legal action may be taken to challenge or remove those restrictions.

FAQs

News Coverage: In-Custody Death at McDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:45:41 GMT

Content warning: The referenced news coverage may include disturbing descriptions or images.

NBC Connecticut Investigates reported on the death of a 26-year-old man, Kenneth Campbell, who died while in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction at McDougall-Walker Correctional Institution. The report states that state police arrested Kyle McKinnon and that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. The facts:

NBC Connecticut Investigates reported on a death inside McDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Connecticut that happened on December 12.
The inmate who died is identified in the transcript as 26-year-old Kenneth Campbell .
The report says state police arrested Kyle McKinnon (31) in connection with the death of his cellmate.
The segment shows surveillance video that (according to NBC) shows McKinnon carrying the victim’s limp body and placing it on a table shortly after the killing.
The transcript says the medical examiner determined the cause of death was neck compression and ruled it a homicide .
The arrest warrant affidavit alleges McKinnon told investigators he killed/choked the victim while he was sleeping , said he didn’t know why , and then brushed his teeth and left .
A witness reportedly told police the victim had asked to be moved to a different cell about 12 hours earlier .
The victim’s family hired attorney Norm Pattis , and the Department of Correction confirmed the death occurred in its custody but declined further comment because the case remained under review/investigation.

Pattis & Paz LLC represents the family/estate in connection with this matter. Out of respect for the family and the nature of the allegations, we do not share graphic materials on our website.

If your loved one has died in custody—or suffered an ICU-level injury or permanent disability—our firm may be able to review the matter. We do not handle minor injury or conditions-only complaints. Learn more on our official web page What to Do After a Death in Connecticut Jail or Prison.

Appellate Victory for Pattis & Paz: New Trial Ordered for Client

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:42:06 GMT

The Connecticut Supreme Court has reversed a prior appellate decision and granted a new trial to Cecil Grant, a client represented on appeal by Attorney Norm Pattis of Pattis & Paz, LLC. This ruling is a significant win in the realm of ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Mr. Grant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, attempted robbery, and assault in connection with the 2011 shooting of a pizza delivery driver. His defense claimed that another individual was responsible. However, the jury never saw crucial phone records that undermined the prosecution’s key witness—records that were available to trial counsel but never investigated or introduced at trial.

The Connecticut Supreme Court found that the failure to present these records constituted not just deficient performance by trial counsel, but one that created a reasonable probability of a different verdict. As a result, Mr. Grant’s convictions have been vacated, and he will receive a new trial.

Victory in Bridgeport: Evidence Suppressed Under Plain Feel Doctrine

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 14:46:04 GMT

Our office recently secured a successful ruling on a suppression motion in the Judicial District of Bridgeport. The case centered on an unconstitutional search and seizure during an investigative stop by the Bridgeport Police Task Force. Although our client was initially detained for being in the company of an armed individual, the court found that the search—conducted under the guise of a pat-down for weapons—exceeded constitutional limits.

Citing the Plain Feel Doctrine as established in Minnesota v. Dickerson and applied in Connecticut's State v. Trine, the court concluded that the officer unlawfully manipulated an object in our client's pocket before determining it was narcotics, making the search and seizure unconstitutional. As a result, the evidence was suppressed.

Ansonia Animal Cruelty Case Suspects Due In Court

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 14:13:49 GMT

ANSONIA – Three men accused of neglecting 11 dogs in an Ansonia house are scheduled to appear in court March 26.

Javon Coverson, Assante Coverson, and Hezekiah Johnson-Coverson each face charges of animal cruelty in connection to the case. They have also been charged with animal vaccine and registration infractions.

Each defendant has a different lawyer: Javon Coverson is represented by New Haven attorney Brittany Paz. Assante Coverson is represented by Ansonia attorney Caroline Baird. Michael Boynton represents Hezekiah.

Two animal advocates – attorneys Jim Fiore and Lori Mizerak – have been appointed by the court to “represent the interests of justice” in the case. Their role is similar to that of a victims’ rights advocate, according to the University of Connecticut School of Law.

The three defendants made a brief court appearance Feb. 25.

Boynton said the case may not see resolution for some time yet, due to the need to coordinate appearances between five different lawyers.

Javon and Assante Coverson were initially arrested after over a dozen animals were seized from a Condon Drive home on June 6, 2024.

Police said that 11 dogs and three cats were removed from the house in emaciated and sickly conditions. Two dogs were in such poor condition that they had to be put down after they were brought to the veterinarian’s office.

A police incident report stated that the house’s garage “had an odor of animal urine and feces that was so potent once the doors opened up it could easily be smelled from outside.”

Ansonia Animal Control Officer Jeanne Roslonowski said one of the dogs was a mastiff that weighed only 51 pounds – when it should have weighed between 90 and 110 pounds, she said.

Hezekiah Johnson-Coverson was arrested about a month later in connection to the same investigation.

In addition to the court-appointed advocates, about half a dozen members of “Desmond’s Army” sat quietly in the front rows of the courtroom, wearing purple T-shirts with a dog’s face emblazoned on the front.

The group is a volunteer organization that seeks to be “a voice for the voiceless in the courts and at the Capitol,” according to their website’s mission statement. Their website includes a calendar with court dates for animal cruelty cases throughout Connecticut.

Members of the group declined to comment outside the courtroom, as did the court-appointed animal advocates.

Javon Coverson’s case has appeared on the docket eight times; Assante Coverson and Hezekiah Johnson-Coverson’s cases have appeared seven times.

Federal judge denies Kosta Diamantis’ request to question jurors

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:57:57 GMT

A federal judge denied a request from Konstantinos Diamantis, the former director of Connecticut’s school construction program, to question the 12 jurors who convicted him of bribery, extortion, conspiracy and lying to federal investigators earlier this year .

Diamantis and his attorney, Norm Pattis, filed a motion in October asking U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill to call the jurors back into court so they could answer questions about whether any of them were untruthful during the jury selection process.

But Underhill, who oversaw Diamantis’ nine-day trial, saw no reason to summon the jurors back into federal court in Bridgeport.

Diamantis’ motion to question the jurors cited remarks the jury forewoman made to news reporters outside the courthouse following the verdict.

The forewoman reportedly told Hearst Connecticut Media she was not aware of Diamantis before the high-profile criminal trial, but she suggested that other members of the jury panel had heard of Diamantis before the trial began.

Pattis argued that statement suggested some jurors had not answered truthfully when Underhill asked them whether they had read or viewed any media about Diamantis.

“Simple logic suggests that one or more jurors in this case were either exposed to potentially prejudicial pre-trial publicity in this case and failed to disclose it, or that one or more jurors were exposed to potentially prejudicial publicity during trial,”

But Underhill sided with the federal prosecutors, and ruled that the statements by the forewoman did not justify bringing the jurors back into court.

“The only evidence that Diamantis can point to in support of his motion is a single sentence from a single article published after the verdict was delivered,” Underhill wrote in his order.

Underhill also said Diamantis was taking the jury forewoman’s statements out of context.

“Diamantis’ cherry-picking of one sentence from a much longer article — when that sentence does not even quote the foreperson directly or point to any concrete instance of jury misconduct — does not provide incontrovertible evidence that members of the jury acted improperly,” Underhill wrote.

Pattis said he did not agree with Underhill’s order.

“Burying your head in the sand guarantees you will see nothing. We asked for a hearing to make the context clear,” Pattis said in a statement.

“The court’s decision to avoid looking so that it could conclude it sees no evil is unworthy of the court. This decision gives ostriches a bad name,” Pattis said.

Diamantis’ sentencing hearing is set to take place next year, but before that occurs, he is scheduled to face another federal criminal trial in February for allegedly pressuring state officials to cancel a state Medicaid audit in return for bribery payments.

Walked In Facing Charges; Walked Out Free

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 17:26:58 GMT

Attorney Brittany Paz secured a full dismissal for a client facing serious charges, including robbery and a shooting. Jury selection was set to begin, but the State ultimately couldn’t meet its burden of proof. We pushed hard, held them to their standard, and our client walked away with no convictions.

Prosecution Rests Case in Federal Bribery Trial of Lamont’s Former State Deputy Budget Director

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 21:35:24 GMT

Prosecution Rests Case in Federal Bribery Trial of Lamont’s Former State Deputy Budget Director

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (WTNH) — The government rested its case Wednesday in the federal bribery trial of Gov. Ned Lamont’s former state deputy budget director, Konstantinos “Kosta” Diamantis.

From the very first day of the trial, Diamantis has suggested that he could take the stand in his own defense. The former Lamont administration official faces 21 counts, including bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and making false statements to federal investigators.

Federal prosecutors allege that Diamantis demanded and received thousands of dollars in bribes from contractors hired for school construction projects between 2018 and 2021. The 69-year-old was arrested last year and has pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Throughout the trial, Diamantis’ defense attorney, Norm Pattis, has seemed to portray his client as an aggressive, hands-on manager rather than a corrupt state official shaking down contractors for bribes.

The charges are tied to his previous role as director of the Connecticut Office of School Construction Grants and Review. The indictment alleges that Diamantis demanded and received bribes from Acranom, a masonry contractor in Middlefield, as well as from the company’s president and vice president. Diamantis also allegedly used his official position to obtain and maintain contracts for them for state-funded school construction projects.

The 35-page indictment further alleges he demanded and received bribes from the owner of Construction Advocacy Professionals, or CAP, to assist CAP in obtaining contracts to provide construction administrator and related services on construction projects.

In the fall of 2021, Lamont’s office was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury seeking documents related to the school construction program that funds hundreds of millions of dollars in projects statewide.

Diamantis was the deputy secretary at Connecticut’s Office of Policy Management until he was placed on paid administrative leave in October 2021. On the same day, he submitted a letter of resignation and his retirement.

On Tuesday, Pattis and Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Francis discussed the possibility of Lamont’s testimony in open court, and Judge Stefan R. Underhill questioned the relevance of his testimony, siding with the prosecution’s suggestion that the testimony would not be relevant to the underlying charges.

“Bribes for influence”

The prosecution opened the trial last week with testimony from John Duffy, a former construction executive, who said his company funneled multiple cash payments to Diamantis in exchange for help securing lucrative school construction contracts he oversaw for the state.

Frank Dellaripa, an official with the city of Hartford, testified that he did not believe the hiring of Roy’s company for administrative work saved any money on a school construction project in the capital city. Michelle Dixon, a career state employee, told jurors that Roy’s company brought “no value whatsoever” to another administrative project in New Britain.

Dellaripa, Dixon, and a succession of municipal officials and state executives painted a picture of a powerful, headstrong official in charge of the state’s powerful school construction office. Multiple witnesses, from the head of Hartford’s school construction board to an executive with a large construction firm, said they felt pressure to select certain contractors — the same ones whose executives have said they paid Diamantis.

Prosecutors drew their case to a close with testimony from two seasoned federal agents with the FBI and IRS. The purpose of their testimony was mainly to bolster the numerous counts of false statements leveled against Diamantis. On Wednesday, the prosecution showed jurors recordings made by FBI agents during interview with Diamantis in which he denied helping Roy get a contract for a project in Tolland.

Sowing doubt

With each witness, Diamantis’s defense attorney has sought to introduce a measure of doubt in the minds of the jurors.

While cross examining Duffy, Roy, and construction executive Salvatore Monarca, defense attorney Norm Pattis elicited from each admissions that they initially lied to federal investigators.

The defense has also begun laying the groundwork for alternate explanations for Diamantis’s actions, though the full scope of those defenses won’t be illustrated until it’s Pattis’s turn to present his case.

Pattis is no stranger to high profile trials. He’s taken on some of the most headline-grabbing civil and criminal matters in state history, each time bringing his signature style that melds pointed questioning with theatrical flare. Laughter and smiles — including from jurors and the federal judge presiding over the case — have occasionally punctuated Pattis’s questions and remarks.

In impromptu press conferences outside the federal courthouse in Bridgeport, Pattis has declined to discuss the evidence presented in the case. He’s remained tight-lipped about the specifics of the case he’ll begin laying out on Wednesday.

Diamantis set to take the stand

One thing Pattis has been willing to discuss with the throng of reporters who rush to intercept him when he departs the courthouse is his client’s apparent willingness to testify in his own defense.

Diamantis himself has also expressed that desire, telling reporters last week, “You will probably hear my testimony when the time comes.”

On Wednesday, Diamantis was formally informed of his rights to testify, or not to, by the presiding judge — a standard practice that reiterates the constitutional protections guaranteed to all defendants.

His testimony could come as soon as Thursday.

Defense Attorney Norm Pattis Takes on Diamantis Bribery Case

Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:28:59 GMT

Former State Budget Official Kosta Diamantis Prepares for Trial with Defense Attorney Norm Pattis

Hartford — The upcoming federal trial of former Connecticut deputy budget director Kosta Diamantis is set to begin October 6, with jury selection already underway. Diamantis faces 22 counts of extortion, bribery, conspiracy, and lying to federal investigators, stemming from allegations that he used his position overseeing the state’s school construction office to solicit bribes from contractors.

Prosecutors have submitted a witness list of more than 40 individuals, including current and former state officials and executives from some of Connecticut’s largest construction firms. The testimony is expected to revisit scandals that shook Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration in 2021.

Defense attorney Norm Pattis, representing Diamantis, has argued that jurors’ views of Lamont and his administration will be central to ensuring a fair trial. Pattis has requested that the court allow him to question jurors about potential political bias.

“Mr. Diamantis has been held hostage by these accusations for a long time,” Pattis said, stressing that his client looks forward to clearing his name.

The trial is expected to last two weeks and will feature testimony not only from construction executives who have already pleaded guilty, but also from municipal officials and even Diamantis’ daughter, whom prosecutors allege benefited from her father’s influence.

Ex-CT cop who served 2½ years for sexual assault before court's reversal gets 'unconditional release'

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:15:34 GMT

TORRINGTON — A former Middletown police officer who was sentenced to six years in prison in 2019 — and served roughly two and a half years — for the sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl at a Litchfield residential treatment center was given an unconditional release Thursday at state Superior Court in Torrington.

Ulyses Alvarez, 32, of Waterbury, was convicted by a jury of fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child. He was in prison from June 2019 until December 2021 when the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the jury verdict in his case.

Alvarez, a residential adolescent supervisor at the Litchfield facility at the time of the allegations, originally was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, risk of injury to a minor, promoting a minor in an obscene performance and possession of child pornography. The latter two charges were dropped during a pretrial hearing prior to his original trial.

In 2023, the state Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's ruling. The state opted not to retry the case, and on Thursday agreed to an unconditional discharge.

The Appellate Court agreed with defense attorney Norm Pattis' argument on behalf of Alvarez that the trial court failed to disclose certain records under seal. The failure to disclose the documents referencing witness credibility and a capacity for truthfulness in the prosecution's case was ruled "not harmless."

At his trial in Superior Court in 2019, Alvarez's teenage accuser spoke about the treatment she said she endured at the hands of Alvarez as a residential adolescent supervisor.

"He was acting like he cared just to get what he wanted out of us," the girl said. "He made me feel worthless."

At his sentencing hearing in September 2019, Judge Michael Wu said Alvarez abused a position of supervision and authority.

"Instead of contributing to a safe and rehabilitative environment, he exploited vulnerability for his personal sexual gratification," Wu said.

At trial, jurors heard testimony about a sexual misconduct complaint against Alvarez while he served briefly as a police officer in Middletown in 2015.

His defense attorney, Kevin Smith, noted during the trial that his client was one of the few male staff members at the Touchstone facility in Litchfield, and said the girls there were infatuated with him.

Former Litchfield County State's Attorney Dawn M. Gallo had described Alvarez as a predator and a danger to society with a "heavy" history of indiscretion and using his position to manipulate women for personal gain.

How Reliable Is DNA Evidence? A Criminal Defense Attorney Breaks It Down

Tue, 13 May 2025 13:38:50 GMT

When it comes to criminal cases, DNA evidence is often portrayed as a silver bullet. But is it really that conclusive? In this post, Attorney Brittany Paz explores the complex realities of DNA testing, the reliability of forensic reports, and the critical role of Porter hearings in Connecticut courts. Here are the top insights from her latest video on what every defense attorney—and client—should know.

1. DNA Reports Have Changed—And Not Always for the Better

From Alleles to Probabilities

In the past, DNA reports presented data using allele charts to compare genetic material. Today, these reports are dominated by probability language. Rather than a straightforward "yes" or "no" regarding whether someone’s DNA is present, reports now use phrases like “more likely than others in the population.” This shift introduces a layer of uncertainty that requires a critical eye.

2. Complex Mixtures: The Hidden Risk in DNA Evidence

What Are Complex Mixtures?

When multiple individuals handle an object, it often results in a complex DNA mixture. Forensic scientists must estimate how many contributors were involved—2, 3, 4, or even more.

The Problem with Probability Modeling

For instance, if there's:

Analysts default to the highest percentage even if it's well below 50%. This creates a potential for unreliable conclusions to be introduced at trial.

3. When Is DNA Too Complex to Be Reliable?

The Case of the Two Guns

Attorney Paz discusses a case involving two firearms:

In both situations, the results raise serious doubts about admissibility and reliability.

4. Challenging DNA Evidence: The Role of a Porter Hearing

What Is a Porter Hearing?

In Connecticut, the legal process for questioning the scientific validity of evidence is called a Porter hearing (similar to a Daubert hearing in federal court). During this hearing:

If the evidence doesn't meet the threshold, it may be excluded.

5. Lessons from Polygraph Tests: A Cautionary Tale

Polygraphs were once widely used but are no longer admissible in trials due to their questionable reliability—something established through Daubert hearings. The same fate could await complex DNA mixtures if courts find the assumptions and probabilities scientifically unreliable

6. The Stakes Are High: DNA Evidence Can Make or Break a Case

If DNA evidence is excluded after a Porter hearing, prosecutors may lose their key piece of evidence, potentially influencing their decision to pursue charges at all. This legal grey area makes DNA analysis a critical battleground in criminal defense.

DNA Evidence Isn’t Always What It Seems

Attorney Brittany Paz emphasizes that DNA evidence isn’t always as reliable as it seems—especially when based on complex mixtures and probability models rather than clear genetic comparisons. These assumptions can lead to questionable evidence being presented in court. At Pattis & Paz , we know how to challenge unreliable forensic methods and protect your rights. If you're facing charges involving DNA or forensic evidence, don’t leave your defense to chance. Contact us for a free consultation and let our experienced New Haven legal team fight for you.

Waterbury Woman Accused of Holding Stepson Captive Wants GPS Monitor Removed

Wed, 09 Apr 2025 17:44:53 GMT

WATERBURY — The 57-year-old woman accused of holding her stepson captive for more than two decades asked the state's appellate court on Mon day to reverse a Superior Court judge's order requiring her to wear a GPS monitor, arguing the decision was legally improper and not supported by evidence.

The March 28 order issued by Judge Joseph Schwartz added GPS monitoring to Sullivan's pre-trial conditions, despite a ruling two weeks earlier by a different judge, who denied the same request.

In her petition, Sullivan argues that the new order constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion and reflects a punitive shift rather than one based on public safety.

"There was no new material information that demonstrated the inadequacy of the original conditions and need for the new condition. The Defendant was not arrested or even charged with any new offenses in connection with this case," Christopher DeMatteo , an attorney at Pattis and Paz law firm , wrote in the appeal.

Well-Known CT Attorney Norm Pattis Will Represent Waterbury Stepmom on Appeal of Bail Conditions

Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:22:15 GMT

WATERBURY — Norm Pattis , the New Haven-based attorney who has represented high-profile defendants in Connecticut numerous times, has joined the team representing the Waterbury woman accused of imprisoning her stepson for more than 20 years to argue an appeal of her bond conditions.

Pattis' firm, Pattis & Paz , said in a news release Friday that it has filed a motion with the Connecticut Appellate Court in an attempt to alter the conditions of Kimberly Sullivan's release after a Superior Court judge ordered she be monitored by GPS.

Pattis has represented the likes of Alex Jones and Fotis Dulos in Connecticut courts previously.

Sullivan was released on a $300,000 bond the day after her March 13 arrest on charges that include first-degree assault, second-degree kidnapping, unlawful restraint, cruelty to persons and reckless endangerment.

On March 26, prosecutors argued that the initial conditions of Sullivan's bond should be changed, requesting electronic monitoring and home confinement for her . A judge two days later ordered the GPS monitoring but did not agree to place Sullivan under house arrest while she awaits trial.

“In our view, there is a strong argument that the modification was made due to public attention and desire for punishment, rather than any real concern regarding her willingness to appear in court,” Paz said in the news release.

To learn more about this case, read the rest of this article linked below.

Navigating the Complexities of Stalking and Harassment Cases

Fri, 21 Feb 2025 15:53:03 GMT

Criminal defense cases often involve complex legal and emotional factors, requiring careful examination of evidence and context. Attorney Brittany Paz , a Connecticut criminal defense lawyer, recently handled a case involving cyber harassment and stalking. While the allegations were serious, the case highlighted key issues, including mental health, digital evidence challenges, and the need for fair legal proceedings.

Understanding Stalking and Harassment Charges

Stalking and harassment laws protect individuals from repeated, unwanted contact that causes distress. With the rise of digital platforms, these offenses increasingly involve:

Fake social media profiles impersonating or defaming someone
False or misleading online statements
Doxxing and unwanted solicitations
Persistent digital harassment

While these actions are illegal, each case must be assessed in context, considering mental health, intent, and mitigating circumstances.

Mental Health and Legal Accountability

In this case, the defendant suffered a traumatic injury, leading to self-esteem struggles. He was manipulated into buying expensive gifts, including a car, under the belief that a romantic relationship was forming. When the woman cut ties and refused to return the car, he retaliated by creating a fake social media account advertising her as a sex worker, leading to criminal charges.

While his actions were legally indefensible, it was crucial to consider the emotional distress and psychological factors that contributed to his behavior. Courts must weigh whether punishment alone is the best course of action or if rehabilitation would be a more effective approach.

Challenges in Digital Evidence Cases

Investigating cyber-related stalking cases requires extensive digital tracking through:

Search warrants for social media platforms.
IP address identification.
Further subpoenas to internet providers.

This process took over a year, and by the time an arrest was made, no further incidents had occurred. Despite this, the alleged victim continued to make new claims without proof, leading to delays. Attorney Brittany Paz successfully challenged these unverified allegations, ensuring due process was upheld.

Achieving a Fair Resolution

When evaluating sentencing alternatives, courts consider:

Criminal history
Likelihood of reoffending
Steps taken toward rehabilitation
Severity of the crime

Attorney Brittany Paz demonstrated that the defendant had no prior record, was in therapy, and had not reoffended. Ultimately, the judge granted entry into a diversionary program, allowing the case to be dismissed upon completion—avoiding a permanent criminal record.

Why Strong Legal Representation Matters

Stalking and harassment cases, especially those involving digital evidence, require skilled legal defense. Without proper representation, individuals risk unjust penalties, prolonged legal battles, and reputational damage—even when evidence is weak or accusations are exaggerated. The right defense strategy ensures that all evidence is thoroughly examined, mental health factors are considered, and due process is upheld.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, don’t wait to seek legal help. Early intervention can make all the difference in securing the best possible outcome. Contact Pattis & Paz LLC today to discuss your case and protect your future.

Pattis & Paz LLC Represents Family in MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution Homicide Case

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:34:26 GMT

Pattis & Paz LLC is committed to seeking justice for those who have suffered tragic losses. We are honored to have been selected to represent the family of Kenneth Montaner-Buscampell, a 26-year-old inmate whose death at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution on December 12, 2024 has been ruled a homicide by the Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

The Department of Correction (DOC) confirmed that an emergency medical code was called at 7:19 a.m. but, despite life-saving efforts, Mr. Montaner-Buscampell could not be revived. Connecticut State Police and the DOC have launched investigations into the circumstances surrounding his death. No one should lose their life while in state custody and we are committed to ensuring his family receives the answers they deserve. Mr. Montaner-Buscampell’s family demands transparency and accountability for this tragic loss, and Pattis & Paz will relentlessly pursue justice on their behalf.

To learn more about this case, read the rest of the article linked below.

Trump Commutes 17-year Prison Sentence for Volusia County Proud Boys Leader Joe Biggs

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:44:35 GMT

Volusia County Proud Boys leader Joe Biggs, who was sentenced to a lengthy term in federal prison for his role in the Jan 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, had his sentence commuted on Monday by President Donald Trump.

Biggs, who lived near Ormond Beach, was sentenced in August 2023 to 17 years in federal prison after a trial in Washington, D.C.

Biggs’ defense attorney Norman Pattis wrote in an email Monday night that Trump had commuted Biggs' sentence.

On Tuesday morning, the federal Bureau of Prisons website showed that Biggs had been released on Monday.

CT Lawyer Who Represented Proud Boys Leader in Jan. 6 Case 'Thrilled' by Trump Pardons

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:38:30 GMT

Reacting to news of impending pardons for individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, a Connecticut lawyer who represents a member of the far-right Proud Boys group said his client was preparing to leave federal prison.

“I’m thrilled,” said New Haven-based attorney Norm Pattis , reached by phone Monday evening.

Pattis represents Joe Biggs, who was sentenced in 2023 to 17 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges in connection with the insurrection.

Pattis said he understood on Monday evening that Biggs was being processed for release from a federal prison in Alabama. Pattis expected Biggs to leave prison on Tuesday.

Understanding the Process of Accident Cases

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:30:44 GMT

Accidents happen. If you are injured by the actions or negligence of any person or company, we are here to make sure that you do not get hurt again by not being fully compensated for your injuries. We are lawyers, not doctors. We cannot heal you physically, but we can help you recover damages for your medical bills and pain and suffering. We will monitor your medical treatment and go as far as we have to—settlement, arbitration, or trial—to reach the best possible solution for your case. Our office staff will request your medical records and bills, and our attorneys will advocate for your case.

Types of Accidents We Handle

We handle the following kinds of accident cases:

The Initial Steps in an Accident Case

Accident cases often start by making a claim with the liable party's insurance carrier. While this may seem straightforward, insurance companies often look to minimize payouts. That’s where we come in. A strong demand for compensation requires legal knowledge and experience to ensure all aspects of your damages are accounted for, including medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

What Happens If a Settlement Cannot Be Reached?

If the case cannot be settled at the insurance stage, the next step is filing a lawsuit and taking the case to court. This process involves several key stages:

Why Experience Matters in Accident Cases

All of the attorneys at Pattis & Paz have extensive trial experience and will go the distance for you. We understand how to navigate the legal system, counter insurance company tactics, and advocate effectively for our clients. Whether it’s negotiating a settlement or arguing your case in court, we are prepared to fight for the best possible outcome.

The Litigation Process: What You Need to Know

Litigation is a long and difficult process, but we will make sure it is as easy and painless as possible for you. We cannot say the same for the other side. Our team will keep you informed at every step, ensuring you understand what to expect and how your case is progressing. From managing deadlines to addressing your concerns, we strive to make the process stress-free for you so that you can focus on your recovery.

Why You Shouldn’t Wait to Take Action

If you were injured due to the actions or carelessness of another person or business, it’s important to act quickly. Evidence can fade, witnesses may become harder to reach, and there are strict time limits for filing a claim (known as the statute of limitations). By contacting us early, we can begin building a strong case to maximize your chances of recovery.

Contact Pattis & Paz Today

If you’ve been injured in an accident, don’t wait to seek legal help. Contact Pattis & Paz today to discuss your case. We’ll fight tirelessly to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve for your injuries and losses. Let us handle the legal process while you focus on healing and moving forward.

A Guide to Pistol Permits in Connecticut

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:30:01 GMT

The right of an individual to keep and bear arms is protected by the United States Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, and the Connecticut Constitution. Connecticut has among the strictest state gun laws in the country. A permit or eligibility certificate is required to purchase firearms and ammunition in Connecticut. With very limited exceptions, a Connecticut pistol and revolver permit is required to carry handguns outside the home, including in a vehicle--Connecticut does not recognize permits issued by other states.

Pistol Permits

Connecticut requires individuals to possess a Permit to Carry Pistols or Revolvers in order to carry a handgun, which could be either a pistol or revolver. A “pistol permit” can be used to purchase ammunition or long guns, which include rifles and shotguns. Individuals who are eligible to possess firearms first apply through their local issuing authority, which is usually a police department but could be a selectman or other official for a municipality that does not have its own police department. The issuing authority can deny permits to individuals it finds ineligible or eligible but “unsuitable.” Suitability is a subjective determination and a finding that one is not suitable can be based on information and interactions, even if there is no arrest or conviction.

How to Appeal the Denial of a Pistol Permit

An applicant who is denied a permit can appeal to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, who will hold an evidentiary hearing and decide to grant or deny the permit. The Board’s decision could be further appealed to the Superior Court. The time to appeal is ninety days from the denial, so you should contact Pattis & Paz right away. In many cases, the denial is based on an error or an issue that can be corrected. Attorney Chris DeMatteo has assisted several clients obtain permits after they were denied by issuing authorities but before their appeals were heard.

How to Appeal the Revocation of a Pistol Permit

A permit that has been issued can be revoked for a variety of reasons. An arrest or other incident with law enforcement can trigger a revocation. As with denials, a revocation can be appealed to the BFPE. We have successfully appealed numerous revocations for clients.

What is an Eligibility Certificate?

Pistol permits require suitability. Purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition requires only eligibility. Various state and federal statutes establish disqualifications for possessing firearms--the most common are convictions for felonies and domestic violence offenses. In addition to pistol permits, Connecticut issues ammunition, long gun and pistol/revolver eligibility certificates. An ammunition certificate allows a person to purchase only ammunition. A long gun eligibility certificate enables a person to purchase a rifle, shotgun or ammunition. A pistol or revolver eligibility certificate enables a person to purchase, but not carry, a handgun, or ammunition.

Connecticut Firearms and Weapons Lawyers

The attorneys at Pattis & Paz are dedicated to protecting the rights of lawful gun owners and defending those accused of violating Connecticut’s strict weapons laws. Whether you are facing criminal charges, administrative proceedings for a permit denial or revocation, or other firearm-related legal challenges, our experienced legal team will advocate for you every step of the way. We understand that firearm ownership is both a constitutional right and a responsibility, and we fight to ensure that these rights are preserved for law-abiding citizens. From navigating the appeals process for permit denials and revocations to defending against criminal accusations, our lawyers bring a wealth of knowledge and a proven track record to every case. If you need help with a firearm-related issue , contact Pattis & Paz for experienced, reliable legal representation.

How Can a Criminal Conviction Affect Your Life?

Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:26:26 GMT

Criminal convictions have two types of consequences: direct and collateral. A direct consequence is the actual penalty for the conviction, which includes jail time, probation, fines, a driver’s license suspension (in DUI cases) and anything else a court may impose. Collateral consequences are those that are not set in the punishment, but result from another, independent legal mechanism. Examples of collateral consequences are deportation or inadmissibility for non-citizens, sex offender registration and the prohibition of firearms possession for felons. Some, like sex offender registration, are offense-specific. Others apply to a class of convicted persons, most commonly those convicted of felonies or domestic violence offenses.

We discuss these issues with all of our clients and advise them of the possible collateral consequences of a conviction because these could be worse for them than the actual sentences. We then work to avoid them through plea negotiations and litigation. Additionally, there are ways to have these rights and privileges reinstated. We can help with that too.

The following rights and privileges may be impacted by the conviction of either specific or general crimes–both misdemeanors and felonies–under state and federal law.

Immigration Consequences

Any criminal conviction--any arrest even--can cause immigration consequences for individuals who are not citizens of the United States, even lawful visa and “Green card” holders. Convictions can render a non-citizen deportable or inadmissible, and can also lead to visas or Green cards to be denied or revoked.

Guns

Felony convictions bar a person from possessing a firearm in Connecticut, most states and the United States. In addition some misdemeanor convictions will disqualify a person from possessing firearms or obtaining a pistol permit. Those include convictions for drug possession, domestic violence offenses, negligent homicide, certain assaults, threatening, unlawful restraint, rioting and reckless endangerment.

Driving Privileges

In addition to a suspension imposed by a court, the Department of Motor Vehicles may administratively suspend the drivers’ licenses or operating privileges of persons convicted of DUI and other motor vehicle offenses and also minors convicted of alcohol or marijuana possession (note: these are actually lesser offenses than misdemeanors).

Employment

Private employers may ask job applicants whether they have been convicted of a crime (including misdemeanors) and use that in making hiring decisions.

Student Loans

Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1091(r), a person convicted of any drug offense may be denied federal student loans. Such rights and privileges that may be restricted are:

Voting Rights

In Connecticut, a felon who is incarcerated is suspended from voting but may be reinstated upon release. Other states have even more serious prohibitions on voting for felons.

Professional Licenses

Many professional licenses, ranging from barbering to the practice of law, may be revoked, suspended or refused upon conviction of a felony.

Government Programs

Government housing authorities may prohibit felons from living in their properties (even if not the actual tenants) and in some circumstances, private landlords may evict or refuse to rent to felons. Government social insurance programs such as SNAP and WIC can be denied or restricted due to drug convictions.

Note that this list is not exhaustive. Many other state and federal laws and regulation may lead to further consequences and restrictions. Please contact Pattis & Paz today to discuss the specifics of your case and we will determine how you can avoid these consequences or work with them.

Understanding the Burdens of Proof

Fri, 03 Jan 2025 22:00:15 GMT

In the world of law, the concept of "burden of proof" is central to every case. Whether you're facing criminal charges, a civil lawsuit, or simply trying to understand your rights, knowing the different levels of proof required can make all the difference. Today, we’re diving into the legal spectrum of burdens of proof—what they are, how they’re applied, and why they matter.

The Spectrum of Burdens of Proof

Think of burdens of proof as a sliding scale, ranging from the least amount of evidence needed to justify police action, to the highest level of certainty required to convict someone of a crime. Here’s how the spectrum breaks down:

Reasonable Suspicion
This is the lowest standard and is used to justify police stops or investigations. Officers need an articulable reason for their actions, such as observing someone matching the description of a suspect. It's minimal but enough to begin probing further.
Probable Cause
A step above reasonable suspicion, probable cause is required to make an arrest or secure a search warrant. It means there’s a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been committed. While it’s not a high bar, it’s more substantial than a mere hunch.
Preponderance of the Evidence
Common in civil cases, this standard requires proof that something is "more likely than not" true—essentially, just over 50%. For instance, in violation of probation hearings, the judge only needs to find by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred.
Clear and Convincing Evidence
This higher standard is often applied in certain hearings, such as those involving constitutional questions or some contract disputes. It requires evidence that is substantially more likely to be true than false.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Reserved for criminal cases, this is the highest burden of proof. While it doesn’t require 100% certainty, it does require jurors to be firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.

Why These Standards Matter

Understanding these standards explains why outcomes can differ across legal contexts. For example, you could be acquitted in a criminal case due to the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" but still be found liable in a civil case, where only a preponderance of the evidence is required.

A famous example is O.J. Simpson: he was acquitted in his criminal trial but found liable in a civil lawsuit. This discrepancy highlights the significance of knowing how burdens of proof function in different courts.

Navigating the Burdens in Your Case

At Pattis & Paz , we guide our clients through these legal nuances, ensuring they understand what the state or opposing party must prove. Whether you’re facing a criminal charge or dealing with a civil matter, knowing the burden of proof can empower you to make informed decisions about your case.

If you’re ready to tackle your legal challenges head-on, contact Pattis & Paz today. Together, we’ll navigate the spectrum of proof to protect your rights and secure the best possible outcome.

When Bounty Hunters Get Involved: Inside High-Bond Cases

Fri, 03 Jan 2025 19:07:23 GMT

It’s not every day that a bounty hunter shows up at your office, but that’s exactly what happened to us recently. While it’s a rare occurrence, it sheds light on a lesser-known aspect of the justice system—what happens when a high-bond defendant skips court.

The Bail Process and Its Risks

When someone is arrested, they may post bail to secure their release while awaiting trial. High bonds, like $500,000, are often paid with the help of a bail bondsman, who charges a non-refundable fee—typically 10%, or $50,000 in this case.

The bondsman then becomes the surety, guaranteeing the defendant will show up to court. If the defendant fails to appear, the court forfeits the bond, leaving the bondsman liable for the full amount. To mitigate these risks, many bondsmen hire bounty hunters to track down absconding clients, especially when frequent losses threaten their insurance coverage.

The Case of the Missing Client

The bounty hunter who visited Pattis & Paz was searching for a client of my partner’s—a man who skipped his sentencing hearing after being convicted at trial. The case stemmed from a neighbor dispute, resulting in charges like violations of protective orders and harassment.

Facing the likelihood of jail time, the client decided to flee. His bond was forfeited, warrants were issued, and the bondsman enlisted a bounty hunter to locate him.

Attorney-Client Privilege: Where We Draw the Line

Despite the bounty hunter’s questions, we couldn’t provide any information about the client’s whereabouts. Attorney-client privilege protects all confidential communications, even when the client is in legal trouble.

From what we’ve gathered, the client may have left the country, complicating the bounty hunter’s task. Still, their efforts not only assist the bondsman in recovering losses but also demonstrate due diligence to insurers.

A Reminder of Justice’s Complexities

This visit was a reminder of how interconnected the justice system is. While we focus on defending our clients’ rights, others—like bounty hunters—play their own roles in maintaining order.

Don’t Let Legal Troubles Hunt You Down

Life may not be a Hollywood movie, but when it comes to legal matters, the stakes can feel just as high. Whether you’re dealing with criminal charges, appeals, or high-conflict civil cases, don’t leave your future to chance. At Pattis & Paz , we’re here to protect your rights, navigate the complexities of the legal system, and keep you ahead of the game. Don’t wait for a bounty hunter—or worse—to become part of your story. Contact us today and let our experienced team help you write a better ending.

Understanding Motions for Non-Testimonial Evidence

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 15:41:27 GMT

When facing criminal charges, understanding the processes and motions that might arise during your case is critical. One such motion, the Motion for Non-Testimonial Evidence, plays a significant role when DNA evidence is involved. This blog will provide an overview of what this motion entails, the steps involved in DNA testing and comparison, and how it may impact your case.

What Is a Motion for Non-Testimonial Evidence?

A Motion for Non-Testimonial Evidence is a legal request filed by the state to obtain physical evidence from a defendant that doesn’t require verbal testimony. Most commonly, this motion is used to collect a buccal swab—a sample of cells from the inside of a person's cheek—to compare the defendant’s DNA profile to DNA found on evidence related to the case.

The DNA Testing Process

Step 1: Testing the Evidence

The process begins when an item, suspected to contain DNA evidence, is collected and sent to a forensic laboratory. There, scientists assess whether a usable DNA profile can be developed from the item. Several factors determine the viability of this DNA profile:

Environmental Exposure : If the item was exposed to the elements, like rain or heat, the DNA might degrade.
Complex Mixtures : Items with multiple DNA profiles may make it challenging to isolate any single individual’s DNA for comparison.

If no viable DNA profile can be developed, the investigation may not proceed further in this direction.

Step 2: Collecting the Defendant’s DNA

If a viable DNA profile is developed from the evidence, the state attorney files a Motion for Non-Testimonial Evidence to request a sample from the defendant. With the court’s approval, the defendant provides a buccal swab. This swab contains epithelial cells rich in DNA, which forensic scientists can use to create a DNA profile.

Step 3: DNA Comparison

The DNA profile from the buccal swab is compared to the profile from the evidence. The results are typically expressed in probabilities, estimating the likelihood that the DNA on the evidence belongs to someone other than the defendant.

Challenges in DNA Evidence

While DNA evidence is often portrayed as definitive, it isn’t always straightforward. Several issues can arise during the process:

Complex Mixtures : If the evidence contains DNA from multiple individuals, it may be impossible to isolate a single contributor.
Improper Testing : Errors or deviations from proper testing protocols can compromise the results.

Addressing DNA Testing in Your Defense

If DNA evidence is part of the case against you, an experienced attorney can challenge its reliability in several ways:

Engaging DNA Experts : A skilled attorney may consult with DNA experts to review the testing methods and results. These experts can identify errors or inconsistencies in the forensic analysis.
Observing the Testing Process : Experts can also observe the testing to ensure proper procedures are followed.
Presenting Alternative Interpretations : If DNA evidence points to a potential match, an attorney can challenge its statistical probability or argue that the testing was inconclusive.

By scrutinizing every aspect of DNA testing, an attorney can potentially weaken the prosecution’s case or cast doubt on the evidence presented at trial.

Contact Pattis & Paz LLC Today for Legal Guidance

If you are facing criminal charges involving DNA evidence, you need an experienced attorney who understands the complexities of motions for non-testimonial evidence and DNA testing. At Pattis & Paz LLC , we are committed to protecting your rights and building the strongest poss ible defense for your case. Don’t leave your future to chance— contact us today to schedule a consultation and get the legal guidance you deserve.

What Is a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)?

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:17:29 GMT

In complex legal cases, particularly those involving minors, the role of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) is crucial. A GAL is appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child, especially in situations where the parent or guardian may not be able to do so objectively. GALs are commonly involved in both family and criminal court cases, particularly in high-conflict situations or cases involving allegations of abuse.

What Is a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)?

A Guardian ad Litem, or GAL, is an individual appointed by the court to independently advocate for what is in the best interest of a child involved in legal proceedings. This role is distinct from that of an attorney representing the child; instead, the GAL’s primary focus is to evaluate the child’s needs and safety, particularly in situations where family dynamics might compromise objectivity.

When Is a GAL Appointed?

GALs are typically appointed in contentious family cases, such as divorces or custody disputes, and in criminal cases where the child is directly affected, such as cases of abuse or neglect. For instance, if a child is under the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) or in foster care, a GAL may be assigned to ensure that all aspects of the child’s well-being are properly addressed. GALs are especially necessary when a parent has an ongoing relationship with someone accused of harming the child, as this may present a conflict of interest.

The GAL’s Role in Family Court Cases

In family court, GALs are often appointed in high-conflict divorce or custody cases. The GAL’s role here is to evaluate the child’s living conditions, educational environment, and access to healthcare or counseling services. They may collaborate with DCF, schools, and healthcare providers to create a comprehensive understanding of what will serve the child’s best interests, ensuring that their recommendations provide the child with a stable and safe environment.

The GAL’s Role in Criminal Court Cases

In criminal court cases, GALs work to prioritize the child’s safety, particularly in cases involving allegations of abuse by a family member. Here, a GAL provides an independent assessment to protect the child’s interests, especially when the accused may still have a relationship with a family member. For example, if allegations are made against a stepparent, and the other parent remains in contact with the accused, the GAL ensures that any recommendation to the court centers around the child’s well-being and protection.

Balancing a Child’s Desires with Their Best Interests

One of the GAL’s most challenging tasks is managing situations where the child’s expressed desires differ from their best interests. For instance, a child may wish to maintain a relationship with a family member who is the subject of allegations. While the GAL may acknowledge and communicate these feelings to the court, their primary responsibility remains to advocate for the child’s safety and health, even if it conflicts with the child’s preferences.

Why GALs Are Essential for Children in Complex Cases

GALs play an essential role in protecting children who might otherwise lack an impartial advocate in the legal system. By prioritizing the child’s best interests over familial bonds or personal biases, GALs help guide courts to make decisions that foster the child’s well-being, safety, and future stability.

Need Guidance or Support Regarding GALs?

For those involved in family or criminal cases requiring a GAL, understanding the process and knowing what to expect can provide clarity and peace of mind. Contact Pattis & Paz for professional guidance in navigating these sensitive cases and ensuring the best possible outcome for the child involved.

Understanding the Consequences of the Sex Offender Registry

Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:37:41 GMT

The sex offender registry is often seen as a tool for public safety, but its impact extends far beyond its intended purpose. While it aims to protect communities, it also imposes severe and often overlooked consequences on those listed, particularly when it comes to securing housing and basic survival needs. This blog explores the harsh realities faced by individuals on the sex offender registry.

The Inescapable Nature of the Registry

In Connecticut, those convicted of certain offenses are required to register as sex offenders, with only two possible outcomes:

10-Year Registration : For less severe offenses, individuals must remain on the registry for a decade.
Lifetime Registration : For more serious offenses, registration is for life.

There is no middle ground or opportunity for early removal, except through a difficult and rare process of obtaining a pardon. This requirement leaves individuals branded with a permanent stigma that goes far beyond social consequences, affecting every aspect of their lives.

The Housing Crisis for Registered Offenders

One of the most significant challenges for individuals on the sex offender registry is finding a place to live. Many registrants, often living at or below the poverty line, are unable to afford home ownership and are forced into the rental market, where they frequently encounter severe discrimination. Most rental applications require disclosure of sex offender status, leading to automatic disqualification regardless of the individual’s circumstances or efforts to rehabilitate. The situation is even more challenging for those relying on Section 8 housing assistance. If a registrant attempts to live with a family member who receives Section 8 benefits, that family member risks permanently losing their housing assistance. These barriers leave many registrants with no viable housing options, often resulting in homelessness or precarious living situations.

The Cycle of Homelessness and Legal Violations

The inability to secure stable housing creates a dangerous cycle for individuals on the sex offender registry. Many registrants, unable to find rental housing, are left homeless, often living in motels, cars, or on the streets. This lack of stable housing poses significant problems, especially for those on probation, which typically requires a permanent address. Without a fixed residence, registrants cannot meet probation requirements, leading to violations and, in many cases, incarceration. Courts often respond to these violations by sending individuals back to jail—not for new offenses, but simply because they have nowhere to live. This cycle of punishment complicates their ability to reintegrate into society and increases the risk of reoffending.

Legal Strategies to Mitigate the Impact

Given the severe consequences of being on the sex offender registry, it is essential to explore legal strategies that can help mitigate these impacts and protect the individual's future. Attorneys must carefully consider all available options to reduce or eliminate the requirement for registration, especially when it could jeopardize housing stability.

Negotiating Charges :

One of the most effective strategies is negotiating charges with prosecutors to avoid those that carry a mandatory sex offender registration requirement. This approach is particularly critical in cases where the individual’s ability to secure stable housing is at risk. By negotiating for lesser charges or alternative sentencing, it may be possible to prevent the long-term consequences associated with the registry.

Trial Considerations :

In situations where negotiations do not lead to a favorable outcome, taking the case to trial may be necessary. While this approach carries its own risks, it can be a crucial step in avoiding the life-altering implications of being placed on the registry. A successful trial outcome could mean the difference between a lifetime of

The Realities of the Sex Offender Registry in Connecticut

The sex offender registry in Connecticut imposes severe and lasting consequences on individuals, particularly in terms of housing and the risk of homelessness. The rigid requirements and lack of flexibility within the registry system often lead to additional legal challenges, creating a cycle that can be difficult to escape. While legal strategies may help mitigate some of these impacts, the overall system presents significant challenges for those affected.

Key Points :

The sex offender registry can result in substantial housing difficulties, often leading to homelessness.
The inability to secure stable housing frequently results in probation violations and additional legal consequences.
Legal negotiations and trials are sometimes necessary to address the severe impact of the registry on individuals' lives.

Protect Your Rights Now

If you or a loved one is facing the challenges of the sex offender registry, it’s crucial to seek legal advice early in the process. The attorneys at Pattis & Paz LLC have extensive experience navigating the complexities of the registry and can help explore all available legal options. Contact us today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist in protecting your rights and ensuring the best possible outcome.

New Haven Man Found Not Guilty In 2011 Slaying

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:42 GMT

NEW HAVEN >> Given a case with no forensic evidence and prosecution witnesses with shady histories, a jury Monday found Larry Johnson not guilty of murder in the 2011 shooting death of Edward Andrew Thompson .

The 12 Superior Court jurors needed just 2½ hours to reach their decision. They also found Johnson, 34, of 121 Pine St., not guilty of carrying a pistol without a permit.

Thompson, 37, was shot in front of dozens of witnesses in the middle of Grand Avenue on Oct. 13, 2011, at about 12:30 a.m. But those witnesses either didn’t want to cooperate with police or could not see the shooter because his face was obscured by a hood and it was dark outside.

Ex-Jailer Gets 16 Years For Causing Fatal Crash

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:41 GMT

BRIDGEPORT — What a difference a month makes when you are in prison.

The defiance had been crushed from Patricia Daniels .

The clenched jaw, the out-thrust chest and brightly colored outfits the former correction officer had worn since her arrest in connection with a crash that killed a woman and injured her young son two years ago were gone. Instead, she was dressed Friday in a drab gray prison outfit, her once-wild hair tied up in small braids.

She slumped in her chair at the defense table, eyes closed as she waited to hear her fate from a Superior Court judge.

As it turned out, it was bad — but not as bad as Daniels, who once described herself as “The Prophetess,” had thought. Though she faced more than 40 years in prison, state Superior Court Judge John Kavanewsky Jr. sentenced her to 20 years, suspended after 16 years in prison and followed by five years of probation.

Former New Haven Teacher Gets Prison For Having Sex With Teen Student

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:40 GMT

NEW HAVEN — A former New Haven Public Schools teacher who sexually assaulted one of her students has been sentenced to serve nine months in jail.

Kirvanna Jones, who was 24 at the time of the assault in December 2015, had sexual intercourse with a student who was 15, according to the police warrant.

Jones initially was charged with second-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. Admitting in court recently that she had had intercourse with the victim, she pleaded guilty to the risk of injury charge and was convicted on that count. The guilty plea enabled her to avoid a trial.

Former Corrections Officer Convicted of Fatal Hit and Run

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:39 GMT

BRIDGEPORT — Her jaw clenched in the pose of indignity she has held since her arrest two years ago, former corrections officer Patricia Daniels was convicted Friday of intentionally causing the crash that killed a woman and injured her young son.

Two years and five days after the fatal crash on Boston Avenue on Dec. 4, 2014, a state Superior Court jury of three men and three women found the 44-year-old Daniels guilty of first-degree manslaughter, misconduct with a motor vehicle, risk of injury to a child and evading responsibility.

She faces up to 45 years in prison when she is sentenced Jan. 27 by Judge John Kavanewsky Jr.

New Haven Pastor Sentenced to 3 Years In Prison For Sexual Assault Of a Minor

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:38 GMT

NEW HAVEN >> A New Haven pastor has been sentenced to serve three years in prison for second-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor.

Walter Williams, who was 59 at the time of his arrest last July, lives in Northford section of North Branford. He is senior pastor at the Walk of Faith Church of Christ in New Haven , according to the church’s website.

Police said he was accused of having as many as six sexual encounters with a minor who was a member of the church. According to police, the incidents occurred between July 2015 and April 2016.

State Official Jailed As Threat

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:37 GMT

BRIDGEPORT - A member of the State Board of Education , arrested four times for drunken-driving in 12 weeks, was ordered taken into custody by a Superior Court judge Tuesday.

“He has serious allegations pending in multiple jurisdictions and this court is concerned he not only is a threat to himself but to others,” Judge Kevin Doyle ruled as judicial marshals snapped the handcuffs on Stephen Wright ’s wrists and led him away.

Following a hearing the judge found that Wright, a Monroe lawyer and former Trumbull Board of Education chairman, gave evasive answers and violated prior conditions of release. He then ordered the 62-year-old Wright held in lieu of $300,000 bond which can only be posted in the courthouse.

Jennifer Dulos Case: Judge Grants Troconis Last-Minute Hearing

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:37 GMT

STAMFORD — Less than a week before she was due to appear in court on criminal charges, Michelle Troconis was granted a status hearing on short notice.

Judge John Blawie granted defense attorney Andrew Bowman’s request for the hearing, which is scheduled for 2 p.m. Friday at state Superior Court in Stamford — just hours after co-defendant Fotis Dulos will appear for his own criminal proceedings.

Troconis was originally due to appear in court on Oct. 10 on two counts of tampering with evidence and one count of hindering prosecution in connection with the May 24 disappearance of Jennifer Dulos.

Middlebury School Staffer Gets Probation For Sexual Messages To Girls

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:36 GMT

WATERBURY — A former paraprofessional at a middle school who sent female students sexual messages on social media has been spared prison time.

Chad Ouellette was sentenced Tuesday to five years’ probation on three counts of risk of injury to a minor.

Prosecutors say the 20-year-old Ouellette sent Snapchat messages to three girls under the age of 16 at Middlebury’s Memorial Middle School where he worked.

The Republican American reports that one girl showed the principal an inappropriate video Ouellette sent to her last year. Two other girls came forward shortly after.

Ouellette’s attorney, Brittany Paz, says her client has a difficult home life.

Ouellette apologized for his “stupid” decision. He was also ordered to have no unsupervised contact with children younger than 16.

Prosecutors sought at least a year in jail.

Norwalk Man Pleads Guilty To Sexually Assaulting Two Young Sisters: "I Will Accept Responsibility"

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:36 GMT

STAMFORD — A 42-year-old Norwalk man accused of sexually assaulting two girls under the age of 12 pleaded guilty to the crimes despite a moment of hesitation before accepting responsibility in court on Tuesday.

Antonio Lazaro Torres-Rodriguez appeared before Judge John Blawie in a remote hearing in state Superior Court in Stamford and pleaded guilty to two counts each of first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor as a part of a plea agreement with the state stemming from long-running sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s two daughters.

But before he entered his pleas, the deal nearly fell apart as Torres-Rodriguez appeared hesitant to admit his guilt in the case.

Norwalk Man Considers Plea Offer With 15-Year Prison Term For Charges of Sexual Assault of Two Young Girls

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:34 GMT

STAMFORD — A 42-year-old Norwalk man accused of sexually assaulting two girls under the age of 12 would face at least 15 years in prison if he accepts a disposition agreement offered by the state in the case.

As a part of the deal, Antonio Lazaro Torres-Rodriguez would plead guilty to two counts each of first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor in exchange for a 25-year jail sentence, suspended after 15 years, Assistant State’s Attorney Michelle Manning said. The offer would also include 25 years of probation, she said during a hearing Monday in state Superior Court in Stamford.

Brittany Paz, Torres-Rodriguez’s lawyer, said at that hearing that her client is also facing mandatory deportation if he accepts the offer.

Behind the Scenes of Connecticut Criminal Defense

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:33 GMT

Welcome back to Attorney Paz’s rants of a criminal defense attorney. This week I want to talk about something that most people don’t really know, which is that probably 95% of everything that happens in court happens behind closed doors. Here, I will discuss what happens behind the scenes and why it happens behind the scenes.

ALWAYS WORKING FOR YOU

Most people don’t understand that good criminal defense lawyers are always at work. Sometimes clients come to court and they’re thinking, “wow, I don’t see my attorney, where is she, she’s late,” when the truth is I’ve been at the court since 9 o’clock, talking to people, talking to these people behind closed doors on the client’s behalf.

There is something called a judicial pretrial, most cases go through them, and it’s essentially where the attorneys, the state attorney and the defense attorney, go and have a closed door meeting with the judge. There are other criminal defense attorneys and state attorneys in there, but long story short, the clients aren’t allowed back there. The thought behind this is essentially that, where things aren’t happening outside on the record, most people are willing to be honest about the strengths of their case, the weaknesses of their case, and put opinions on there that you wouldn’t necessarily put in open court. But this tends to get a little weird with the client, because the clients think, “you’re not fighting for me, I don’t see you fighting for me.”

It’s because I say things on the record that aren’t necessarily the same things I’m saying for you in pretrial. I’m way more open in discussing issues in pretrial then I would be necessarily on the record, and there are various reasons for this. Essentially, the discussions that are happening in pretrial are very, very in depth, and we’re going through all of the issues about evidentiary issues, whether the state can prove their case, whether there are suppression issues, whether the case is likely to go to trial, character of a defendant, if there are mental issues to be addressed, things like that, that I really don’t want to say in front of other people in the courtroom. So just because you’re not seeing your attorney physically do this in open court, does not mean it’s not happening.

That’s the rant for the day. If you have any questions about that, feel free to email me and as always take care, don’t get arrested, and see you soon.

Rights On Probation

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:32 GMT

Unjust things happen in court every day, despite how much you may try to object or fight it. As a criminal defense attorney, I unfortunately experience this firsthand.
I’ve started a video series on Facebook detailing some of these injustices and, when possible, what can be done about them. My first video details a situation that I had with a client on probation. You can read the transcript from the video below. Check out my video series and other information by following me on Facebook .

My day in court is an example of an unjust experience. I want to explain what happened so that you understand that if you find yourself in this position, it’s not because your lawyer isn’t fighting for you. It’s because the system is set up for you to fail.

So, I have a client who is on probation, and he is stopped in connection with a drug investigation. But the stop is completely devoid of reasonable suspicion. So, in other words, the police had no suspicion to stop him. However, they saw him near a person who they did have reasonable suspicion to stop. So they stopped and searched him as well. And when they searched him they found some marijuana (which he has a marijuana card for), and they search his phone. When they searched the phone, they see some text messages which they say contain narcotics lingo.

LIMITED RIGHTS

Now under normal circumstances, the marijuana that they seize and the narcotics lingo that they see would normally be the subject of a motion to suppress. But my client is on probation. Now what does that mean? It means that the police and the state’s attorney can threaten and cajole you. They basically say, “if you don’t want to plead guilty to the offenses which I say you have to plead guilty to, I’m going to put your violation of probation down for an immediate hearing.” At which point, you would then be subject to a hearing where you almost have zero chance of winning. That’s because it’s a lower burden of proof, and for which I also cannot suppress the evidence. This is because there is really bad case law that suggests that you have no rights on probation. So it doesn’t matter if your rights were violated with the stop, they can still essentially put that evidence against you at a violation of probation hearing.

GOING TO JAIL

So even though the state attorney has no reason for the stop, can’t even articulate a reason for the stop, they’re in a position where they don’t care. They’re offering jail time because my client is on probation. So, they are essentially saying, “well, I don’t care that your client’s rights were violated, he was on probation.” So, I get up and I hem and haw about how unjust it is, and the judge just says, “sorry, there’s nothing I can do about it. I can’t force the state to drop the charges. The best thing I can do for your client is make him an offer that he probably can accept.”

So, for you clients out there who are on probation, know that your rights very well may be violated in connection with a case. However, the system is set up where you have no rights on probation. The state will use that probation status against you to coerce you into pleading guilty to things that there really isn’t evidence for, or there is not enough evidence to support. They can do this simply because they know you don’t want to go to jail and you will do anything to minimize any jail exposure you have.

So this is my rant for the day, if you have any questions about further unjust events that happen on a daily basis at court, feel free to email us.

Make Sure Your Rights Are Protected

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:32 GMT

Hello and welcome back to rants of a criminal defense attorney. I want to talk about something really disturbing that I witnessed in court this week that made me remember just how important it is to make sure that your rights are protected.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

I happened to sit through arraignments one day recently and I watched the court handle the out domestic arraignments, so these are the people who are arrested for domestic violence who are not incarcerated. They are unrepresented, most of them. When you get arrested, you don’t hire an attorney right before you come to court, and then you’re not entitled to a public defender because you’re not incarcerated, so you approach the court on your first appearance unrepresented. On this day for a domestic arraignment, the court issues a protective order.

Now the protective order could be a full no contact protective order throwing you out of your home, making you unable to see your children, I could go on and on about how awful the protective orders can be. But they issue the protective order without you being able to be heard on whether this level of protective order is appropriate. Now I watched the court give out these protective orders and people try to contest the level of protective orders, and they start speaking to contest the level of protective order, and I watched the judge basically tell them to stop talking. The judge just says, “I’m just giving out this protective order today, and you can contest it at a later date.”

YOUR RIGHTS COULD BE VIOLATED

This is inaccurate, legally inaccurate. And the reason why it’s legally inaccurate is because at your arraignment, you have to request something called a Fernando A. hearing in order to contest the protective order. Now a Fernando A. hearing means that you are entitled to an evidentiary hearing on why this level of protective order is not necessary to protect the parties. And the state bears the burden of proof that this level of protective order is appropriate. Now if you don’t request this hearing at the arraignment you waive it and later you can file a motion to modify the protective order, but there is no evidentiary hearing and guess who bears the burden of proof? Not the state – you.

So essentially what’s happening was that the court was not allowing these people to object to the level of protective order thereby waiving their right to this hearing. And then they go on their merry way not knowing that they are giving up this right. What is happening? You need to make sure you go to court with a lawyer at all times. Nobody is going to protect your rights but you and your lawyer. The court obviously isn’t doing it, and is just handing out these protective orders like they’re candy and they don’t care about who they hurt or why and they don’t care about whether the protective order is valid. They don’t care if they’re effectively making you waive your rights because you’re not represented and you don’t have any ability to preserve them.

So that’s my rant for the day, this is what I saw in court, it’s disturbing, but just make sure when you go to court at all times you have a lawyer making sure that someone is protecting your rights. If you have any questions about this feel free to contact us and as always take care, don’t get arrested, and see you soon.

The Fundamental Framework: The Fourth Amendment's Rule

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:31 GMT

First and foremost, let's establish the groundwork by discussing the Fourth Amendment. This amendment is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution, designed to safeguard individuals from unwarranted government intrusion. Essentially, it requires governmental entities to obtain a warrant before conducting searches of your person, residence, or any location associated with you.

Exceptions To The Rule

While the Fourth Amendment enforces the necessity of a warrant for searches, it's essential to recognize that exceptions exist. For instance, if law enforcement possesses time-sensitive information, they may not be required to procure a warrant before making an arrest or conducting a search. This exception, commonly referred to as "speedy information," allows police to act swiftly in certain circumstances.

Understanding The Warrant Process

Now, let's delve into the intricate process of obtaining a warrant. Unlike federal court proceedings where a grand jury can issue indictments, in Connecticut, the process is streamlined. A judge is presented with a warrant affidavit, a one-sided document created by a police officer. This affidavit outlines the basis for probable cause, which is a legal threshold required to justify an arrest or search.

Hearsay In Warrant Affidavits

One critical aspect of warrant affidavits is the inclusion of hearsay. Hearsay refers to statements made by individuals who are not present in court to testify. Contrary to popular belief, hearsay is admissible in warrant affidavits and can contribute to the establishment of probable cause. For instance, if someone shares information with the police and is willing to testify under oath that they observed a certain event, their statement can be considered as part of the warrant's foundation for probable cause.

The Unalterable Nature Of Issued Warrants

Once a warrant is issued and signed by a judge, it becomes a binding document that cannot be rescinded. This means that the warrant must be executed, and law enforcement is obligated to serve it upon the individual named in the warrant. While attempts to revoke an issued warrant have been made, it's important to note that such efforts have proven unsuccessful. Serving the warrant initiates the legal process, requiring the individual to either post a bond or proceed with an arraignment in court. This step allows the court to assess the conditions of release and the subsequent legal proceedings.

Final Thoughts

In summary, a warrant is a complex legal instrument governed by the Fourth Amendment. It's crucial to grasp that hearsay is permissible within warrant affidavits and plays a role in establishing probable cause. While this article provides a foundational understanding, there are numerous other aspects of warrants that warrant (pun intended) further exploration.

If you find yourself seeking additional insights or grappling with specific questions, please don't hesitate to reach out. We are here to provide clarity, guidance, and support as you navigate the intricate terrain of criminal defense and the legal system in the state of Connecticut. Remember, knowledge is your greatest ally when safeguarding your rights and ensuring justice prevails.

Turning Yourself In On a Warrant: A Crucial Legal Step

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:30 GMT

At Pattis & Paz , we understand the frustrations that come with our profession. One of the most common sources of our exasperation is when clients pay for our expertise but fail to heed our advice. Today, we want to address a crucial topic that we've previously touched upon in our videos – turning yourself in on a warrant. In this blog, we'll delve into the reasons why it's in your best interest to follow this advice and the importance of timing in this process.

Warrants: Once Issued, Irrevocable

As we've discussed in our previous content, it's vital to recognize that once a warrant is issued, it cannot be revoked. It's firmly embedded in the legal system, and it must be served. Serving a warrant essentially involves the police taking you into custody and processing you, which includes photographing, fingerprinting, and entering your information into the system.

Choosing To Surrender

Given the circumstances, it's usually in your best interest to surrender voluntarily before the authorities come to find you forcibly. The consequences of being served with a warrant in public places like your workplace or in the middle of the night at your home can be deeply embarrassing and traumatic, especially if your loved ones witness it.

Taking Control Of Your Situation

By choosing to turn yourself in, you regain some control over the situation. This proactive step demonstrates to the court that you are not a flight risk. In essence, you're conveying that you are ready to cooperate with the legal process, and this can work in your favor when you appear before a judge at your arraignment.

Timely Surrender Is Key

When you decide to surrender on a warrant, it's crucial to give the police sufficient time to process you thoroughly. This includes all the necessary steps, such as photographing, fingerprinting, and entering your information into the system. They will also need to transport you to court. Naturally, no one wants to spend any more time in custody than absolutely necessary.

Bonding Out At The Police Department

If you have the means to post bail, it's a good idea to bring a bondsman with you to the police department when you surrender. This way, once the formalities are completed, the bondsman can secure your release promptly. The entire process usually takes just a few hours, and you'll leave with a new court date in hand.

When Bonding Is Too High

In some cases, the bail amount might be too high to be posted at the police station. When this happens, you'll need to go to court to argue your bond. To minimize your time in custody, we recommend arriving at the police station extremely early in the morning, ideally around 6:00 a.m. This allows enough time for processing before the daily arraignments, typically held at 12:00 p.m.

The Consequences Of Delay

It cannot be stressed enough that timing is critical in this process. Arriving at the police station any later than the suggested time could result in spending a night in jail until the next day's arraignment at 12:00 p.m. We recently had a client who learned this the hard way when he didn't arrive on time and ended up spending an unnecessary night behind bars.

Contact Pattis & Paz Today

In conclusion, turning yourself in on a warrant, while not always an easy decision, can save you from embarrassing and inconvenient situations and potentially work in your favor when you face the judge. At Pattis & Paz , we're here to provide you with sound legal advice and guidance. Thanks for reading, and until next time, take care.

The Complex Landscape Of Animal Cruelty Cases

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:30 GMT

At Pattis & Paz , we've dealt with a spectrum of criminal cases, spanning the range of heinous to relatively benign. But among all the charges we've encountered, few elicit as much emotional response as those involving cruelty to animals. We want to shed light on the challenges and nuances of defending these cases.

Understanding The Emotion

It's no secret that many, including us at Pattis & Paz , hold animals close to our hearts. They're not just pets; they're family. Their vulnerability, much akin to that of a child, is what makes crimes against them particularly heart-wrenching. This sentiment is exemplified by those tear-jerking ASPCA commercials we've all seen. Cases of animal cruelty, while mostly misdemeanors, can escalate to felonies if they involve death or grave injury. This intensifies the emotional weight attached to them, and here lies the challenge. In Connecticut, a group named Desmond's Army, inspired by a tragically abused dog named Desmond, has become the watchdog for such cases. Their commitment to the cause is commendable, but their methods sometimes add layers of complexity. They monitor police reports, attend court proceedings, and often picket outside courthouses. This presence, while rooted in a genuine concern for animals, has sometimes made it challenging to arrive at objective legal resolutions. Some state attorneys, under the pressure of potential picketing, lean more towards jail time, elongating the resolution process and often leading to harsher outcomes for the accuse.

Our Stand & Approach

At Pattis & Paz , we believe that every individual deserves a fair chance at defense, no matter the charge. We understand the emotion that surrounds animal cruelty cases and the external pressures that come with it. But if you ever find yourself on the receiving end of such a charge, know this: judgments are left at the door when you consult with us. We're here to provide objective, experienced, and compassionate counsel. Being in the eye of public scrutiny is daunting, but we stand by your side, ensuring your rights are upheld and the legal process is fair. If you have questions or need guidance, don't hesitate to reach out.

Navigating Subpoenas In Criminal Trials

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:29 GMT

At Pattis & Paz , we specialize in a broad spectrum of criminal cases, providing expert legal guidance for various challenging situations. One common yet complex scenario is receiving a subpoena as a witness in a criminal trial. Understanding your rights and options in this situation is crucial, and we're here to shed light on the intricacies of navigating such a process.

Understanding Your Subpeona: Compliance & Consequences

When subpoenaed, individuals face a decision: comply or face potential legal consequences. Ignoring a subpoena can lead to arrest and custody, especially in Connecticut where gender disparities in custodial holding present unique challenges for women. Being taken into custody for non-compliance can have far-reaching personal and professional repercussions, making it a serious consideration. However, compliance also requires understanding the implications of your testimony and how it may affect the trial. On the other hand, the state attorney might choose leniency, dismissing the case if it can't proceed without the witness, which could lead to a resolution without legal ramifications for the subpoenaed individual

Seeking Legal Advice

The best course of action in such circumstances is to seek legal advice. A skilled attorney can evaluate the potential risks and benefits of various responses to a subpoena, ensuring that your legal rights are protected throughout the process. They can also provide crucial guidance on how to interact with law enforcement and court officials. At Pattis & Paz LLC , we emphasize the importance of informed decision-making and assertive legal representation to navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system. Our team is well-equipped to handle the subtleties of your case and to advocate for your best interests, minimizing the stress and uncertainty that often accompany legal proceeding

Empowering Yourself With Knowledge & Expertise

In conclusion, facing a subpoena can be intimidating, but with the right guidance and support from Pattis & Paz , you can confidently handle these legal challenges. Stay informed about your legal options and rights, and don't hesitate to seek professional legal support from Pattis & Paz when needed.

Understanding Bonds in Criminal Defense

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:28 GMT

In the realm of criminal defense, one of the most critical yet often misunderstood aspects is the concept of bonds. These are the conditions set for a defendant's release while awaiting trial. Given the potential long duration of legal proceedings, understanding the intricacies of bonds is essential for anyone navigating the criminal justice system. Attorney Paz offers expert insights into this complex topic, aiming to clarify and guide through the nuances of bond conditions and their implications.

The Basics of Bonds

Bonds serve two primary purposes: ensuring the defendant's presence in court and protecting the community or victims, particularly if the defendant poses a danger. The nature of bonds can vary significantly. They might be as simple as a direct release from the police department with minimal or no payment, or they might require the services of a bondsman. In recent years, Connecticut has modified its bond structure, allowing defendants to post a percentage of the bond in cash directly to the police department or clerk's office, which is refundable at the case's conclusion. However, if a bondsman is used, typically 10% of the bond is paid as a non-refundable fee.

Variability And Challenges In Bonding

The conditions of release are not always financial; they can include protective orders, treatment requirements, or even ankle monitors. When focusing on financial bonds, it's important to note that they can differ greatly depending on the courthouse, the judge, and other factors like the defendant's history. For instance, bonds for serious offenses like homicide can reach up to a million dollars, while those for protective order violations in certain jurisdictions might unexpectedly soar to similar levels. This variability often leads to confusion and concern among defendants, highlighting the importance of expert legal guidance in these matters.

Navigating Bonds With Expert Assistance

Navigating the bond process can be complex, especially in cases where the bond amount is high and beyond the defendant's capacity to post the entire amount. In such instances, working with a reliable bondsman can be crucial. Attorney Paz collaborates with a trusted bonds person who offers payment plans and assistance in these challenging situations. To learn more about how Pattis & Paz can help with your case in Connecticut, contact us today .

Paz Law LLC & Pattis & Associates LLC Announce Monumental Merger

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:27 GMT

In a landmark move, Paz Law LLC and Pattis & Associates LLC, two of Connecticut's most esteemed criminal defense practitioners, have announced their merger. This strategic alliance unites Attorneys Brittany Paz and Norm Pattis, renowned for their formidable expertise in criminal defense. The merger promises to enhance legal services for clients across Connecticut, offering unparalleled access to top-tier criminal defense representation.

“Norm has been an inspiration, colleague and mentor to me since I first began the practice of law,” says Attorney Paz. “In the years since I have branched out on my own, I have worked to build my own unique reputation in representing my clients. This merger represents a full-circle moment for me: a return to the firm where I started, but with the knowledge and experience to offer this new firm the ability to grow and better serve our clients.”

Attorney Brittany Paz, known for her tenacious advocacy and deep understanding of criminal law, joins forces with Attorney Norm Pattis, recognized for his aggressive defense tactics and successful case outcomes. Together, they aim to set a new benchmark in criminal defense, advocating fiercely for the rights and freedoms of their clients.

“I am thrilled to forge this new partnership with Brittany. She’s smart, driven and honest,” says Attorney Pattis. “I think we’ll be an unbeatable team.”

The merged firm will operate under the name Pattis & Paz LLC and will continue to serve clients at their existing locations in Shelton and New Haven. This merger is not just a fusion of talents but a beacon of hope for those seeking justice in the complex landscape of criminal law.

Understanding DUI Proceedings: The Administrative & Criminal Aspects

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:26 GMT

DUI (Driving Under the Influence) cases are complex and involve two distinct aspects: the administrative and the criminal. These proceedings often confuse those unfamiliar with the legal system. Attorney Paz sheds light on the intricacies of DUI cases, particularly focusing on alcohol-related suspensions and the dual nature of these proceedings.

The Administrative Aspect Of DUI Cases

When arrested for a DUI, the first aspect you face is administrative, concerning your driving privileges. Contrary to common belief, driving is not a constitutional right; it's a privilege granted by the state, symbolized by your driver's license. In DUI cases, the state exercises its authority to suspend or revoke this privilege under certain conditions. The administrative suspension is triggered by either of two scenarios: refusing chemical testing or having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit of 0.08%.

License Suspension And Interlock Devices

If found in violation (either through refusal of testing or exceeding the BAC limit), your license can be suspended for 45 days. During this period, you may apply for a work permit. Afterward, you can request an ignition interlock device (IID) installation. For a first offense refusal, the IID is mandatory for one year, while for a BAC over 0.08%, it's required for six months. Additional fees are associated with reinstating your license and managing the IID, which must be used every time you start and periodically while operating your vehicle.

The Criminal Aspect Of DUI Cases

Parallel to the administrative procedure is the criminal case, where you're charged with DUI. This aspect deals with the legal consequences of driving under the influence, separate from the administrative license suspensions. The criminal proceedings can result in various outcomes, from fines and community service to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense and the individual's driving and criminal history.

Navigating DUI Proceedings In Connecticut

Navigating DUI proceedings requires an understanding of both administrative and criminal aspects. Each carries its own set of rules, procedures, and consequences. If you find yourself facing a DUI charge, it's crucial to seek legal advice to understand these two distinct proceedings fully. Stay informed and follow Attorney Paz for more legal insights and advice on handling DUI cases effectively, or contact us for a consultation!

The Consequences Of Not Appearing In Court

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:26 GMT

In the bustling world of legal intricacies and the courts, navigating the system can be daunting. Attorney Paz from Pattis & Paz LLC , shares valuable insights on what happens when you fail to appear in court, a situation that may lead to serious consequences.

The Serious Consequences Of Missing A Court Date

Many people underestimate the severity of not showing up for a court appearance, mistaking it for a minor issue. However, the reality is far from insignificant. When you fail to appear in court as scheduled, it signals a disregard for the judicial process, prompting the judge to potentially issue an arrest order. This section explains the legal ramifications of missing a court date and how it can escalate into a more serious situation

The Economic Impact Of Bond Forfeiture After A Missed Court Appearance

Upon being ordered rearrested, one immediate consequence is the forfeiture of any posted bond. Bonds, serving as a financial promise of returning to court, when forfeited, result in a significant financial loss—either directly to the court or as a debt owed to a bondsman. This segment explores the financial repercussions of bond forfeiture and its complex implications on one's legal journey

How To Address The Arrest Warrant

The issuance of an arrest warrant following a failure to appear in court makes many individuals feel fearful and uncertain. Fortunately, there exists a legal recourse: filing a motion to vacate the warrant. This part of the blog discusses the procedural steps involved in challenging an arrest warrant and the importance of taking proactive measures to mitigate the situation

A Motion To Vacate A Warrant

Filing a motion to vacate an arrest warrant offers a beacon of hope for those caught in this predicament. This action requests the court to reconsider the warrant based on legitimate reasons such as accidental oversight or unforeseen emergencies. Highlighting the critical timing for filing this motion, this section underscores its potential to prevent arrest and resume legal proceedings

How Court Discretion Influences The Outcome Of a Warrant Vacation Request

The court's decision on a motion to vacate can pivotally change the direction of your legal case. If granted, it not only cancels the warrant but also reinstates bonds and reschedules the case, offering a new opportunity to resolve legal matters. Conversely, a denial leads to the individual's immediate arrest

The Importance Of Legal Diligence & Proactivity

Facing the possibility of rearrest necessitates a deep understanding of legal procedures and the potential consequences of one's actions. Attorney Paz emphasizes the critical need for adherence to court schedules and exploring available legal avenues to correct a missed court appearance. To learn more about how Paz Law can help you with legal matters in Fairfield County, give us a call for a free consultation.

Understanding DUI Offender Categories: Zero to Third Offender

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:25 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

Driving under the influence (DUI) convictions carry serious legal consequences and vary significantly based on the offender’s history and the specifics of each case. This article provides a clear breakdown of the different categories of DUI offenders, from zero to third-time offenders, and explains how these categories are treated differently by criminal courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Zero Offender

A zero offender is an individual arrested for a DUI who has yet to be convicted. This initial status can lead to an administrative suspension of the driver’s license. Eligible individuals might participate in the Impaired Driving Course, which, if completed successfully, generally results in the dismissal of the case, thus preserving the zero offender status in the context of DUI.

First Offender

If a person previously classified as a zero offender is arrested for another DUI within a ten-year window, they are still considered a first offender in criminal court. This classification holds even though the DMV may record them as a second-time offender due to the presence of two administrative suspensions. This illustrates the distinction between criminal court proceedings and DMV records.

Subsequent DUIs And Penalties

Consider a scenario where an individual with no prior convictions within ten years faces three pending DUI charges. In criminal court, this person is treated as a first offender for each charge, with potential penalties including up to six months' incarceration per charge, totaling up to eighteen months. However, a third-time offense within ten years could escalate the mandatory minimum incarceration to one year, with up to three years possible.

DUI Vs. Criminal Court

The difference in how DUI offenses are recorded and assessed by the DMV and criminal courts is critical. The criminal court's assessment is based on convictions, while the DMV considers all recorded incidents, which can lead to multiple administrative suspensions. Thus, an individual could be regarded as a third offender by the DMV but as a first offender in criminal court.

Trust the Professionals at Pattis & Paz

The complexities of DUI laws demonstrate the importance of understanding both the legal ramifications of DUI charges and how various offenses are classified by different authorities. Being aware of these distinctions can significantly impact the legal strategy and outcomes in DUI cases. For further professional advice and guidance on navigating DUI charges and understanding your rights and responsibilities, it is advisable to consult with a qualified legal professional like those at Pattis & Paz . Stay informed to navigate the legal challenges effectively and ensure your rights are protected.

Navigating Early Sentencing And Parole Eligibility In Connecticut

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:23 GMT

In the complex landscape of criminal justice, understanding the nuances of sentencing laws can provide significant advantages for defendants. In Connecticut, securing an earlier sentencing date can be crucial for defendants, as it impacts the commencement of the Risk Reduction Earned Credits system—often referred to as "good time credit." This system can substantially decrease the time a defendant is required to serve.

Eligibility For Early Release

Connecticut categorizes crimes into two main parole eligibility groups: 85% and 50%. The former includes severe offenses such as violent crimes and sex offenses, requiring that at least 85% of the sentence be served, minus any applicable earned credits. The latter group allows for parole consideration after half the sentence has been served, provided the defendant meets certain conditions.

Role Of The Offender Accountability Plan

Upon sentencing, individuals receive an Offender Accountability Plan (OAP) from the Department of Corrections (DOC). This plan outlines required activities and behaviors during incarceration. Compliance with the OAP and avoidance of disciplinary infractions can lead to earning up to five days off the sentence per month.

Special Considerations Fro Youthful Offenders

Youthful offenders face their own set of challenges and considerations. For those charged with an 85% offense and adjudicated as youthful offenders, their records may be expunged upon reaching the age of 21. However, they must first navigate the complexities of their sentencing and earned credits.

Ready For Assistance? Connect With Our Team Today

For professional guidance on navigating the complexities of the Connecticut criminal justice system and to ensure the best possible outcome for your case, consider consulting with experienced legal professionals. Contact us today to learn more about how early sentencing and risk reduction credits can benefit your situation and to discuss your specific legal needs.

OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony investigator hired in Jennifer Dulos case

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:23 GMT

Stamford Advocate - Local News

by Lisa Backus , July 16

Patrick McKenna, the high-profile private investigator who helped win acquittals on murder charges for Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson, has been hired by Fotis Dulos’ defense team, according to sources connected to the case.

The 51-year-old Dulos and his girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, 44, have been charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution in the May 24 disappearance of his estranged wife, Jennifer Dulos.

The disappearance of Jennifer Dulos has sparked a massive police investigation that has spanned two states, several Connecticut counties, including three bodies of water and tons of garbage at a Hartford trash facility .

Attorney Norm Pattis, representing Fotis Dulos, has said the defense team has hired its own private investigator to look into the case.

On Monday, McKenna contacted a former employee of Fotis Dulos’ real estate development company, according to the worker’s attorney, Lindy Urso.

"He reached out to a client of mine and said he was working on behalf of Fotis Dulos," Urso said. "My client is not going to be speaking with him."

Urso said his client, who was seen driving Fotis Dulos’ pickup truck in New Canaan the day Jennifer Dulos vanished, has been cleared as a suspect in the case.

McKenna declined to comment Tuesday when asked about the Fotis Dulos case. McKenna referred questions to Pattis, who also declined to comment.

"I'm not going to comment on the investigation at this time," Pattis said.

It’s unclear who is paying for McKenna’s work. While Fotis Dulos was held at the Bridgeport Correctional Center for 10 days on $500,000 bond following his June 1 arrest, Pattis said his client was trying to find enough resources to post the required 10 percent to be released. Fotis Dulos was released after paying $35,150 when he pleaded not guilty on June 11 .

McKenna's resume on his LinkedIn profile lists some of his clients as Yoko Ono, the Irish Republican Army, William Kennedy Smith and F. Lee Bailey in addition to Simpson and Anthony, who was accused of killing her 6-year-old daughter Caylee in Florida 11 years ago.

McKenna was the lead private investigator for Anthony’s defense team. Anthony told the Associated Press in a 2017 interview that she was tried in the "court of public opinion" and could sympathize with Simpson, whose own legal proceedings 25 years ago after the murder of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were called "the trial of the century."

Pattis has said Fotis Dulos is being tried by the media and public by "innuendo" and that he planned to hire his own private investigator to unearth facts in the case. The defense team in recent weeks has sought to humanize Fotis Dulos with statements released by his sister, Rena Dulos , and an official with the Greek international water ski organization that hosted competitions that involved his children. Both said Fotis Dulos was a good father and didn't seem capable of harming his wife.

Court documents filed in the criminal case and the acrimonious two-year divorce proceedings between Jennifer and Fotis Dulos paint a different picture. Motions filed in the divorce indicate that Jennifer Dulos was afraid of her husband and feared that he would make good on his promise to take the children to his homeland of Greece.

Fotis Dulos and Troconis were arrested after videos from the Hartford police surveillance system showed a couple matching their descriptions making more than 30 stops in a four-mile stretch of Albany Avenue around the time Jennifer Dulos was reported missing the evening of May 24, arrest warrants said. Fotis Dulos was also seen tossing bags into trash bins that contained his wife’s blood, according to arrest warrants.

Fotis Dulos was also seen on video stuffing a FedEx box that contained old license plates to a car registered to him in a storm drain at the intersection of Garden Street and Albany Avenue, according to arrest warrants.

Police said they found blood stains and "signs of a serious physical assault" in the garage of the New Canaan home Jennifer Dulos has been renting since she filed for divorce in 2017. Investigators also found the DNA of Fotis Dulos mingled with the blood of his estranged wife on a faucet in her home, according to State's Attorney Richard Colangelo Jr. A judge has granted Colangelo’s request to have the search warrants in the case sealed for 90 days .

Beth Ann Carpenter, Serving Life In Prison, Goes To Federal Court Seeking A New Trial

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:22 GMT

Hartford Courant - Local News

by David Owens, August 2

The former Ledyard lawyer found guilty of convincing her boyfriend to hire a hit man to kill her brother-in-law, and then fleeing to Ireland to avoid prosecution, is again trying to have her conviction and life sentence thrown out.

Beth Ann Carpenter, 53, is going to federal court in a long-shot effort to have her state court conviction overturned.

Her lawyer, Norm Pattis, filed the federal habeas corpus petition on Wednesday. In it, Pattis argues that Carpenter's trial lawyers made mistakes that resulted in Carpenter's conviction.

Similar claims have been raised with appeals and a state court habeas corpus petition, and both times judges rejected them.

"That case continues to haunt my office," Pattis said Wednesday. "Beth Carpernter is not a murderess. She fell in love with the wrong guy who did a little freelance work and she didn't leave him when she should have and the state was able to stitch together a very, very thin conviction on conspiracy to commit capital felony. We're doing our level best to get Beth a new trial."

Carpenter was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit capital felony in 2002 for plotting with her lover and boss, Haiman Clein, to kill her brother-in-law, Anson "Buzz" Clinton, over Clinton's alleged abuse of his daughter.

Clinton was fatally shot in 1994 in East Lyme.

Carpenter fled to Ireland after the killing and was extradited only after U.S. officials agreed not to seek the death penalty. Clein is serving 35 years in prison, and hit man Mark Despres is serving 45 years.

Notable cases taken by Attorney Norm Pattis

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:21 GMT

CT Post - Local News

by Chris Hoffman, February 24

Attorney Norm Pattis is arguably Connecticut’s most colorful and controversial lawyer — defender of two of the most despised defendants in recent state history, accused wife murderer Fotis Dulos, who died in January after attempting suicide, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has pushed the lie that the Sandy Hook school killings were a hoax.

For more than 20 years, Pattis has roamed the state’s halls of justice looking for trouble. In that time, he’s been called everything from “attorney Slash and Burn” to “the P.T. Barnum of the courtroom.” Combative, whip smart, fast on his feet, provocative to the point of incendiary, Pattis specializes in cases that make most people cringe. He’s defended everyone from child murderers to rapists — he admits to being particularly drawn to homicide cases. If the allegation is heinous and the defendant reviled, chances are pretty good Pattis is involved.

Can You Get Out Of Jury Duty For Pregnancy? It's Not An Open & Shut Case

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:21 GMT

Romper

by Lindsay E. Mack, December 30

When you're expecting a baby, receiving a jury summons is probably the last thing on your mind. So can you get out of jury duty for pregnancy , or do you just have to grin and bear it? The answer will vary from person to person and case to case.

Officially, jury duty is still on the table. "Pregnancy is not a disqualifying event," Norm Pattis, a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer and the bestselling author of Juries & Justice , tells Romper. Other experts support this idea, including Jeffrey Abramson, Professor at Univ. of Texas School of Law . For the most part, "pregnant women are not entitled to an automatic or statutory exemption from jury duty," he tells Romper.

In reality, however, pregnant people are often excused from jury duty. For instance, judges may excuse those who are in their third trimester of pregnancy, or those who have a physician's note stating that serving would cause a medical hardship, as Abramson explains. For the most part, jurors need to be mentally and physically present for a trial, and sometimes pregnancy can disrupt this ability. If a pregnant juror is mentally preoccupied by the pregnancy, or unable to sit for long periods of time, then they may be excused from jury duty, explains Pattis. In general, exemption from jury duty is decided on a case-by-case basis. "Some pregnancies are more difficult than others. If a juror truly believes they cannot perform the job because of their pregnancy they need to speak up," says Pattis.

The type of trial itself could also affect whether pregnant jurors may be excused. "I suspect a case involving injury to a fetus, or to a pregnant woman, would lead the lawyers to conclude a pregnant juror is not a good fit," says Pattis. In addition, "a pregnant woman could ask to be excused from a case involving child abuse or neglect, or a lawsuit over custody or parental determination," says Abramson. Every trial is a bit different, so pregnant jurors may be excused from cases with particularly troubling information. Interestingly (and encouragingly), some states do excuse breastfeeding mothers from jury duty .

If you do serve on jury duty, then there are ways to make the process more comfortable and convenient for pregnant people. "In most jurisdictions, a summonsed juror may ask to postpone her jury duty until another time," says Abramson. It's also totally appropriate to ask for accommodations if you're going to be a juror while pregnant. "If selected to serve, a pregnant juror should alert the judge to issues of discomfort requiring her to take more frequent breaks ," says Abramson.

So if you find yourself called to serve while expecting, remember that pregnant people have many options when it comes to serving jury duty, including accommodations, postponement, or being excused entirely.

Conn. doctor charged with sexually assaulting patients at Clinton practice

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:20 GMT

The Republic

by Associated Press, June 5

A doctor charged with sexually assaulting patients at a health center was released on $450,000 bail Tuesday.

Dr. Tory Westbrook, the husband of a Superior Court judge, was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault for attacks police say occurred at Clinton's Community Health Center between 2010 and January.

The Hartford Courant reported Westbrook's attorney said he'll plead not guilty to the charges.

"Dr. Westbrook is an outstanding physician who has for many, many years given a great deal to the community," attorney Norman Pattis said. "I would ask for people to suspend judgment, not to believe everything they read, don't jump on the bandwagon and give us an opportunity to tell our side of the story. I'm confident that, when that happens, Dr. Westbrook will return to the practice of medicine."

Prosecutor Peter McShane indicated he would seek to have the temporary sealing of warrants in the case made permanent.

The arrest of Westbrook came after a five-month investigation that included the state's attorney's office and state Departments of Health and Consumer Protection, Clinton police said in a news release.

The health center released a statement saying it received a serious complaint against Westbrook, 43, within days after he resigned in February to become medical director of the Charter Oak Health Center in Hartford.

Health center officials said they reported the allegation to police and the Health Department and have been cooperating in the investigation.

"Community Health Center takes all patient concerns seriously and has stringent procedures in place to protect the quality and safety of care," the center said in its statement. "We will continue to work with authorities as needed."

Police said they interviewed "a number of victim patients" who reported they were sexually abused during appointments at the Clinton office.

Charter Oak CEO Peter Velez told the Courant that Westbrook, of Glastonbury, has been placed on administrative leave and he has never treated patients there.

Westbrook is the husband of Superior Court Judge Dawne Westbrook, and he was appointed last year to a volunteer position on the governor's health care cabinet. The governor's office said Tuesday the appointment was under review because of the allegations. Westbrook also has served on the state's commission on health equity.

A phone message seeking comment was left at Westbrook's home.

Anna Gristina reaches deal in UES prostitution ring

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:19 GMT

AM New York

September 25

Accused Manhattan madam Anna Gristina pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution Tuesday and was assured she won't return to jail, ending with a whimper a case prosecutors once hoped would expose wealthy clients and law enforcement accomplices of a high-end sex-for-pay ring.

Gristina, 44, a mother from upstate Monroe, was held in jail on $2 million bail for four months as prosecutors tried to get her to spill the beans. But she refused, and they admitted they were never able to corroborate her alleged bragging about contacts in the NYPD, the FBI and the governor's office in Albany.

"We are left with a straightforward promoting prostitution case - a defendant who ran a brothel for many years and who profited from the sex trade," said Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Charles Linehan.

Gristina, released from jail in June after an appeals court ordered her bail reduced, pleaded guilty to her original indictment - setting up a sexual encounter between an undercover officer and two prostitutes in July 2011 - only after Judge Juan Merchan assured her that his planned sentence won't require her to return to Rikers Island.

"Your honor, I would gratefully like to accept the plea," Gristina said, ending a day of suspenseful speculation about a possible plea as her husband and children watched from the front row.

Gristina was first detained in February.

Prosecutors said she was arranging hookups at an apartment on East 78th and had been under investigation for five years.

Before imposing sentence, Merchan, the judge who originally imposed the $2 million bail, criticized Gristina for bringing her 9-year-old son to court. She faced up to seven years in prison. But despite his criticism and the sensational allegations, Merchan said that as a first offender Gristina deserved only six months in prison - which, with credits applied by correction officials, would be satisfied by the four months she has served - and five years' probation.

She will be sentenced in November. As a Scottish citizen, she may also face deportation.

Dr. William Petit releases statement on Supreme Court death penalty ruling

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:19 GMT

Fox 61 - Local News

by Tony Terzi, August 13

Sentenced several years ago to die for what one attorney called “an assault on the American dream,” two of Connecticut’s most despised criminals are among the 11 Connecticut death row inmates who will no longer be executed.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Connecticut’s death penalty is unconstitutional. The state passed a law in April 2012 to repeal the death penalty for all future capital offenses. But one death row inmate, Eduardo Santiago, whose attorneys have argued since the law change that any execution carried out after the 2012 repeal would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, won his appeal today.

Nearly five years ago, on the day Steven Hayes was sentenced to death for his role in the July 2007 murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Hayley and Michaela, Hawke-Petit’s father said, “We are grateful that we have been a part of a society that feels that there are just some people who do not deserve to live in God’s world.”

On Thursday, Hawke-Petit's husband, Dr. William Petit, released a statement the court's ruling:

The dissenting justices clearly state how the four members of the majority have disregarded keystones of our governmental structure such as the separation of powers and the role of the judicial precedent to reach the decision they hand down today. The death penalty and its application is a highly charged topic with profound emotional impact, particularly on the victims and their loved ones. Justice Espinosa, in her dissent especially, forcefully and compassionately recognizes that devastating impact.

Prominent New Haven-based criminal defense attorney Norm Pattis, a death penalty opponent, does not agree with those who want an eye for an eye.

“This is the final ruling,” said Pattis. “It's not a decision that can be reviewed by any other court. This effectively ends the death penalty in Connecticut.”

As with the attorneys for the other nine death row inmates, Pattis says the lawyers for Hayes and his accomplice, Joshua Komisarjevsky, are now filing motions to correct what is now an illegal sentence.

“I'd be betting that they'll be returned to New Haven,” said Pattis. “They will appear before Judge (Jon C.) Blue, and Judge Blue will say, 'in light of State v. Santiago, I am revoking the sentence of death.”

That proceeding, Pattis says, could take 30 seconds or all day, depending on how many people would like to be heard, including Dr. Petit, whose daughters and wife were tortured before they were murdered by Hayes and Komisarjevsky.

“Mr. Pettit, under the state constitution, has a right to be heard at every stage of the proceedings,” said Pattis.

But with Connecticut now joining 16 other states in completely abolishing the death penalty, Fox CT asked Pattis if he could imagine there would ever be a day when a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, is changed?

“It's exactly as it sounds today, but there is always a possibility of parole, depending on how legal doctrines evolve,” said Pattis.

That being said, he believes it is unlikely the Cheshire killers will ever be set free. Then again, there was a change in juvenile life sentences.

“The Supreme Court has held that 60 years, or a life sentence for a juvenile, is unlawful and so you've got a series of resentencing cases there,” added Pattis.

The worldwide prominence of the Petit murders is easy to understand, said Pattis.

“It was a direct assault on the American dream. This was a family living the dream, as it were. They lived in paradise, in a bedroom community in Cheshire. A popular physician, a beautiful woman, beautiful daughters, filled with promise, and one night they were slaughtered for no reason that we can discern.”

State Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, released a statement on the ruling as well.

Today Connecticut’s Supreme Court stepped way out of line and wrongfully took on the role of policymakers. Their ruling deliberately circumvented the will of the people and the legislators who represent each and every Connecticut resident.

If the court rejected the death penalty repeal legislation based on an argument that it violated equal protection by creating a separate class of citizens, the remedy should rightly be to strike it down, which would leave us with the death penalty intact per prior law. Instead, the activist court chose to act as policymaker and expand the repeal beyond what was approved by state lawmakers. I agree with Justice Espinosa’s dissent. This court has overstepped its constitutional obligations and allowed personal interpretations of what some may think are just and fair to overshadow the law as defined and enacted by the people.

Multiple lawmakers never would have voted in support of repealing the death penalty if the legislation was retroactive. Edith Prague, for example, said in 2012, ‘I couldn't live with myself if repeal got Komisarjevsky and Hayes to win an appeal to have their death penalties reversed.’

“I, alongside Sen. John McKinney, warned that this would happen when we voted against this legislation. But warnings were ignored as Democrat leaders assured lawmakers on the fence that the legislation repealing the death penalty would be prospective only.

“In 2012, Governor Malloy stated: ‘What I've said is any legislation that I would sign would be prospective, it would be out into the future…I've guaranteed that it would be drafted in such a way as to guarantee that these two individuals -- if we ever had a workable death penalty -- would be put to death, if that's the sentence of the jury.’ But that is no longer the case today. Had lawmakers foreseen today’s ruling, the legislation repealing the death penalty would have lacked the support needed to pass in the first place.”

Pattis says the death penalty achieves nothing, except tax payer debt.

“What you buy with the death penalty or bought with the death penalty prosecution in Connecticut was decades of costly and expensive litigation.”

“On a national basis, the average appeal cost is in excess of $2 million,” says Gov. Dan Malloy.

And in Connecticut, prisoners have a unique opportunity to challenge the performance of their counsel indefinitely, meaning endless appeals and never-ending costs for the prosecution. And crafty attorneys, like Pattis, take full advantage of Connecticut laws.

“I have said to prosecutors early on in death penalty prosecutions you will never kill my client. You will spend millions and we will be the last men standing.’ We will die before the client does.”

The sister of Fotis Dulos, estranged husband of missing New Canaan mother Jennifer Farber Dulos, says “he is not the person they say he is”

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:18 GMT

Hartford Courant - Local News

by Dave Altimari, July 1

The sister of Fotis Dulos on Monday spoke publicly in defense of her brother saying, “he is not the person who they say he is” and expressed how much her family loves his estranged wife, Jennifer Farber Dulos, who has been missing for more than a month.

“We really feel very worried first about Jennifer,” Rena Dulos said in a phone interview from Greece.

“Fotis is very sad, very emotional and very tired. This isn’t something that he was expecting he would ever face,” she said.

Rena Dulos is 13 years older than her brother. She said that people in Greece have a much different view of the shocking case that has become an international story. Jennifer Farber Dulos has been missing since May 24 when she dropped off the couple’s five children at a private school in New Canaan.

That same day, police said a man resembling Fotis Dulos was captured on surveillance video dropping two contractor-sized garbage bags into trash cans along Albany Avenue in Hartford that investigators said contained bloody sponges, clothes and towels. Prosecutors have said the blood belongs to Farber Dulos.

Fotis Dulos and his girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, have both been charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution in connection with Farber Dulos’ disappearance, and are currently free after each posted $500,000 bail. Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

“I hope the truth will shine as soon as possible and people will understand that this is not the Fotis that they are thinking he is," Rena Dulos said.

"There may have been problems with Jennifer, of course, but he couldn’t do such a thing. We all loved Jennifer very much. We had a fantastic relationship with her.”

The couple have been embroiled in a bitter two-year divorce and custody battle, a contentious case full of back-and-forth accusations of ignoring court orders, threatening each other in front of the children and allegations of threats to hurt the children or each other. The couple’s five children have been staying in their grandmother Gloria Farber’s New York City apartment since May 24.

The grandmother sought temporary custody of the children in probate court. The filings in that case have not been made public.

Rena Dulos said that she had talked to Jennifer about the divorce two years ago when it started. She said that she was emailing with her until about six months ago when her lawyers told her to stop.

“We had a fantastic relationship even when the court situation started. She was a loving person for our family and we are so much worrying about her and I hope everything will end nicely,” Rena Dulos said.

While the case has captured daily headlines here in the United States, it has been covered differently by the Greek press, she said.

“All his friends, schoolmates and family are very skeptical because they know Fotis since his childhood and they know this isn’t something that Fotis could do. It is so far from who he is,” she said.

Family members have come from Greece to stay with Dulos at his Farmington home so that he isn’t alone, she said. Some of them have been photographed with him by television cameras following his every move since he posted bail last month.

“We are trying not to leave him alone. He is so much alone he cannot communicate with the kids. It’s very difficult and very sad, this situation,” she said.

Rena Dulos said she felt an obligation to speak up so that there is fair coverage of the story.

“I know him so well and I can tell you the truth is very far from what we know so far,” she said.

Rena Dulos said the whole family came to Fotis and Jennifer’s wedding including their mother who has since died.

“It was great day, a beautiful day," she said. “We are so much worried about her. It is really a shocking situation.”

<p">On the day Farber Dulos disappeared, police found her black Suburban SUV on a road near Waveny Park close to her home. State police have systematically searched all of the properties Dulos’ luxury home building company, the Fore Group, owns in New Canaan, Farmington and Avon and other places that he frequented like a lake in Avon where he took the children water skiing.

State police detectives also spent three weeks combing through 30-35 tons of trash a day looking for evidence. They wrapped up that search last month without saying if they had found anything significant that could be tied to Farber Dulos’ disappearance.

As many as 25 to 30 investigators across a half-dozen agencies are working the case on a daily basis, and New Canaan police have received more than 800 tips and 80 surveillance camera submissions to date, New Canaan police have said.

State drops charges against Christopher Dukes, former CCSU official accused of assaulting wife, holding police at bay

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:17 GMT

Hartford Courant - Local News

by David Owens, November 14

A state prosecutor on Thursday dropped all criminal charges against Christopher Dukes, a former Central Connecticut State University official who Hartford police had accused of kidnapping and assaulting his wife during an incident in April 2018.

Prosecutor Vicki Melchiorre said she was dropping the charges because the victim does not want Dukes to go to jail for the sake of their children. His lawyer, Norm Pattis, had filed a speedy trial motion and the case was called in for trial on Thursday. Dukes has turned down a variety of plea offers, including one that would have ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the charges, and has maintained his innocence.

After Melchiorre said she would not prosecute Dukes, Pattis asked Hartford Superior Court Judge Laura F. Baldini to dismiss the charges, which she did. That effectively eliminates any public record of Dukes’ arrest or prosecution.

“It is clear to me that Mr. Dukes is incapable of taking any responsibility for his actions on the night in question, even though he’s on tape telling the police what to do, what not to do and holding them at bay with a loaded gun,” Melchiorre told the judge in explaining her decision to nolle the case. “It is also clear to me that he is continuing to try to control the victim by forcing a trial in this matter and that he intends to use the trial as a bully pulpit from which to vilify his wife for wanting out of her marriage and then to accuse her of cheating on him.”

Melchiorre told the judge that Dukes “wants to portray himself as the victim and I will not enable him to do so. He doesn’t seem to understand that this is 2019 and he doesn’t get to control his wife.”

Christine Dukes filed for divorce from Christopher Dukes in May 2018 and the case is scheduled to go to trial in February. Family court rather than criminal court is the appropriate venue for the matter, Melchiorre said, and Dukes “can engage in whatever vitriol he wishes.”

Pattis thanked the state “for doing justice in this case” and said that he disagreed with Melchiorre’s comments.

“Had the case been tried, there’s no question in our minds that Mr. Dukes would have prevailed as to those claims involving his wife,” Pattis said. The outcome was less certain on the other charges, he said.

“As to the claims involving ... breach of peace, Mr. Dukes believes he was being set up and would have to persuade a jury what it’s like to be black in 2019 with armed police officers demanding that you leave the safety and security of your home,” Pattis said.

Dukes was also fearful that he was the victim of a hoax police call known as swatting, Pattis said.

“We believe [his wife] harbored a hope and desire that police would eliminate him, thus making possible for her a new life with someone else," he said.

Outside court, Melchiorre said a guilty verdict would have likely resulted in jail and Christine Dukes did not want that.

“The kids love their father,” she said. “The victim was reasonable here. I hope Mr. Dukes can learn to be reasonable.”

Before his arrest, Dukes had no criminal record, no substance abuse issues and had a good job, she said. “We try to give people the benefit of the doubt,” Melchiorre said. “We hope they realize they’re getting a break and they act accordingly.”

After his arrest, Dukes was suspended from his position as director of student conduct at CCSU in New Britain. He was terminated in December 2018, although the termination is on appeal. The university has hired someone to replace Dukes.

Jury won't be sequestered at Komisarjevsky trial

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:15 GMT

WTNH Channel 8 - Local News

by Jamie Muro, September 12

Attorneys for accused killer Joshua Komisarjevsky lost their bid to have the jury sequestered for their client's upcoming trial.

It was July 2007 when Joshua and convicted killer Stephen Hayes broke into the Petite home in Cheshire. Dr. William Petit was severly beaten, his wife Jennifer Hawke, and two daughters, Hayley and Michaela were killed. The case has received widespread, almost viral, publicity, and questions remain as if there can be such a thing as an impartial jury.

Norm Pattis is a well-known Connecticut defense attorney. He said, "Given the ubiquity, the ever-presence of Twitter and Facebook, the above-the-fold coverage when you walk into the courthouse, juries should be sequestered. The fact that we refuse to acknowledge the 24-7 saturation of coverage, of this significance, is ridiculous to me."

At a hearing this morning in New Haven, Judge Jon Blue denied a defense motion to sequester the jury for the trial, which is scheduled to start a week from today.

Defense attorney's also asked for clarity regarding the 17 counts against their client.

On Tuesday, the state will present information as to why Komisarjevsky is either a principal, an accessory, or both to the crimes. "It's a chance to make your list, make sure you have everything in order because hell is coming, and you're going to face it. The state of Connecticut is determined to see this man dead, and your responsibility is to throw every roadblock you can up," Pattis explained.

Komisarjevsky defense also tried to bring up the issue of moving the trial to another courthouse. Judge Blue said he would hear any new motions, including a change of venue, at a hearing on Friday morning.

Hayes was found guilty of those crimes last year and was sentenced to death.

Estranged husband of Jennifer Dulos hires prominent lawyer Norman Pattis

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:15 GMT

WTNH Channel 8 - Local News

by Owen Kingsley, June 9

According to the Hartford Courant the estranged husband of Jennifer Dulos, Fotis Dulos, who is at the center of her disappearance investigation has hired prominent lawyer Norman Pattis.

Pattis said Saturday that he will be in Stamford Superior Court Tuesday when Fotis Dulos is arraigned on charges of hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence.

“Trial by innuendo has convicted my client,” Pattis said Saturday according to the Hartford Courant. “We will opt for a trial by jury.” Dulos has been held on a $500,000 bond at the Bridgeport Correctional Center since his arrest on June 1.

"Sources said police also are trying to determine why Fotis Dulos is covered in a poison ivy rash and where he may have gotten it. They noticed the poison ivy last week when they executed a body search warrant on him and took his DNA," the Hartford Courant reports.

The Hartford Courant also reports that Dulos had a first wife named Hilary Vanessa Aldama whom he married in June of 2000 and divorced in July 2004; roughly one month before Fotis married Jennifer Farber in August 2004.

"Hilary Aldama and Fotis Dulos had no children," reports the Hartford Courant, "Their marriage had broken down irretrievably, but it was a no-fault divorce, with no finger-pointing or blame in the record."

Cheshire man accused of killing his wife wants to see his child

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:14 GMT

CT Post - Local News

by Randall Beach, September 4

A legal clash erupted in court Wednesday when the attorney for Emanuel Dominguez-VillaGomez, accused of murder in the stabbing death of his wife , Monica Dominguez, in Cheshire, asked a judge to allow the defendant to have contact with his young daughter.

The attorney, Norman Pattis, who has been hired in place of the public defender who initially represented the defendant, told Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Clifford his client wants a no-contact order lifted so Dominguez-VillaGomez can see his biological daughter, who will have her second birthday in November. The defendant is being held in lieu of $1 million bail.

Pattis’ request drew a strong objection from Nickola Cunha, the attorney for the maternal grandmother of the child.

“He’s given up the right to his child by taking the life of the child’s mother,” Cunha said.

Clifford then reminded Cunha: “He’s presumed innocent of the charge. He may well end up having a relationship with her.”

“Not if I have anything to do with it!” Cunha replied.

Pattis then accused Cunha of speaking “gibberish” in the courtroom.

Clifford did not rule on the request for contact. But he appointed a guardian ad litem to investigate the situation and report back with recommendations based upon the best interests of the child. A guardian ad litem is a lawyer for a child.

Dominguez-VillaGomez, 31, allegedly stabbed his wife dozens of times during a domestic dispute in their home on Mountain Road on the night of Sept. 11. According to court records, Monica Dominguez had initiated divorce proceedings against him in July.

He is charged with murder, first-degree assault, reckless endangerment, risk of injury to a child and unlawful restraint.

The defendant, dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit, was quiet and stoic during the spirited discussion about the proposal he be allowed to see his daughter. He has not yet entered a plea to the charges but is expected to plead not guilty.

Senior Assistant State’s Attorney John P. Doyle Jr. noted the couple also had an 11-year-old boy, who, unlike the daughter, is not the defendant’s biological child. Doyle said the boy is a potential witness in the case.

During the hearing, Clifford noted the protective order that had been imposed on the defendant “was to protect the deceased but it extended to the children.”

At this point the state is still gathering evidence in the case, which it will share with Pattis. Doyle said he is waiting for the state medical examiner’s final report and information from state police.

Clifford scheduled the next hearing for Oct. 30 and said on that date they will discuss the possibility of setting a future date for a probable cause hearing. In those hearings the prosecution outlines its evidence in an effort to prove there is enough to go forward with the murder charge. Pattis said he anticipates he will exercise the right to ask for that hearing.

Cunha told Clifford the maternal grandmother is seeking custody of the children. Pattis then asked Clifford to appoint a guardian ad litem. Pattis asserted Cunha “lacks objectivity.”

Diana Montes of Meriden, who said she was one of Monica Dominguez’s best friends, watched the courtroom proceedings, then spoke outside court about the victim.

“She loved wine and going to vineyards,” Montes said. “She liked to ride her bike around town, she liked to hike and she loved kick-boxing. She was very fit.”

Montes, who said she raised nearly $11,000 for her friend’s funeral costs, said Dominguez-VillaGomez “should have no right” to see his young daughter.

“Everybody wants justice,” Montes added.

Cunha said outside the courtroom, “This is a very sad ongoing saga with the state of Connecticut. The state could have helped, could have intervened. And unfortunately, they didn’t. This family could have been spared this trauma.” She declined to specify what state official or department she believes should have intervened. But she added, “We have a mental health crisis.”

Asked to respond to Pattis’ courtroom statement that she was speaking “gibberish,” Cunha said: “He knows me well. He knows I would not say anything on the record unless I have sold evidence.”

Oligarch in Bridgeport seeking to be reunited with daughter

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:13 GMT

LMT Online

by Daniel Tepfer, October 23

The city rarely gets to host an honest-to-goodness Russian oligarch.

But there Shalva Chigirinsky was, pacing the fifth floor of the Fairfield County Courthouse on Tuesday in an impeccably tailored suit, amidst the poor and disenfranchised.

The 67-year-old Chigirinsky was once considered one of Russia’s richest men, with a fortune estimated by Forbes at $1.6 billion. But that was before his divorce in 2009 from Tatiana Panchenkova, a willowy blond and daughter of a former Russian ambassador to the U.S.

Chigirinsky is now in court, before Superior Court Judge Mark Gould, seeking a court order to reunite with his 12-year-old daughter, who had previously claimed he sexually assaulted her at their former Greenwich home.

Chigirinsky took the witness stand as his ex-wife, who is vigorously opposing the court action, sat next to her lawyer, Norman Pattis.

In a thick accent, Chigirinsky testified he currently sees his other three, older children.

“We have a typical relationship,” he said under question by his lawyer, George Benaur, of New York, London and Moscow. “The children are depressed, and they are afraid of everything. They don’t listen properly and are not sincere; they lie a lot.”

Asked by Benaur what he hopes to gain by the court order, Chigirinsky replied: “I just want to be a father to my children, no more, no less.”

Asked who was responsible for his children’s’ distrust, Chigirinsky motioned toward his ex-wife, who was calmly listening to a Russian translator.

“The mother and her household have filled the entire nest with lies,” he said.

Chigirinsky hasn’t seen his youngest daughter since March 2016, when he was charged with two counts of risk of injury to a child for allegedly sexually assaulting her. The charges were dismissed after prosecutors in Stamford said they could not prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, and Chigirinsky has been seeking to be reunited with the girl ever since.

But Hartford clinical psychologist Nancy Eiswirtha, who was appointed by the court, testified Tuesday that the girl doesn’t want to see her father and is upset that he isn’t in jail. However, Eiswirtha said, she is still recommending that Chigirinsky eventually be reunited with his daughter.

“I have no opinion about whether these allegations happened or didn’t happen,” Eiswirtha said. “There is evidence on both sides.”

Chigirinsky and Panchenkova divorced in 2009 and have been fighting over custody and visitation rights since then in courts in Moscow, London, New York, Stamford and Waterbury.

The family previously lived in a multimillion-dollar Greenwich home and a $17.3 million upper East Side Manhattan condo. Panchenkova now lives with her children in a $10 million cottage in Greenwich while Chigirinsky, according to reports, moves between homes in Moscow, London and New York.

During the divorce hearings, Panchenkova claimed that during their marriage Chigirinsky beat her on numerous occasions, once causing her to have a miscarriage.

Fotis Dulos defense hires high-profile investigator Patrick McKenna, known for working on O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony cases

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:12 GMT

Hartford Courant - Local News

by Nicholas Rondinone, July 16

Fotis Dulos’ defense team has hired high-profile private investigator Patrick McKenna, who has worked on the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony murder cases, to assist in their defense of Dulos, who faces charges in connection with the disappearance of his estranged wife, New Canaan mother Jennifer Farber Dulos.

Sources on Tuesday confirmed the move by the defense team, which is led by New Haven attorney Norm Pattis. Pattis declined to confirm the hiring but said, “We will spare no expense or effort in defense of Mr. Dulos.”

Reached by phone Tuesday, McKenna said he could not talk about his work. A LinkedIn profile lists his clients, including Anthony, Simpson and Yoko Ono. It is not uncommon for private investigators to assist lawyers with cases.

Dulos, 51, of Farmington, is free after posting $500,000 bail as investigators continue to probe the disappearance of Farber Dulos, 50, the mother of his five children. Farber Dulos and the children were living in New Canaan when she went missing on May 24. The couple is involved in a contentious two-year divorce.

Investigators said a man resembling Dulos was seen on surveillance videos discarding contractor bags with bloody items in trash cans along Albany Avenue in Hartford the night that Farber Dulos was reported missing. Police learned the items in the bag tested positive for Farber Dulos’ blood, court records show.

In a recent court hearing for Dulos, Stamford/Norwalk State’s Attorney Richard J. Colangelo Jr. said that Dulos’ DNA was found mixed with Farber Dulos’ blood in her New Canaan home.

A woman resembling Dulos’ girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, also was seen in the surveillance videos obtained by Hartford police and given to state police investigators, records show. Both Dulos and Troconis have pleaded not guilty to charges of evidence tampering and hindering prosecution.

Pattis has said he is pursuing a theory that Farber Dulos’ disappearance was a “revenge suicide.”

Dulos is scheduled to return to Superior Court in Stamford on Aug. 2. Troconis’ next court date is Thursday.

Connecticut Supreme Court Tosses Conviction of Kennedy Cousin Michael Skakel

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:12 GMT

Law & Crime

by Aaron Keller, May 4

In an extremely rare move, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed its own previous decision in the case of Michael Skakel , a cousin of the Kennedy family. The court on Friday ruled that Skakel did not receive a fair murder trial in the death of Martha Moxley . Skakel and Moxley were neighbors in affluent Greenwich, Conn. when she was murdered in October 1975. Moxley was 15 when she died. Skakel was tried and convicted in 2002. He is a nephew of the widow of Sen. Robert Kennedy .

Attorneys sometimes file so-called motions of reconsideration after courts render decisions on cases. In many states, the motions are highly discouraged, as they suggest that the court, after argument, research, and deliberation, made an incorrect decision.

Here, what changed was the makeup of the state’s highest court. As the Hartford, Conn., Courant points out , one justice retired, and a new one took his place. That flipped what was a 5-4 decision against Skakel to a 4-5 decision in his favor.

One of the now-dissenting judges, Carmen Elisa Espinosa, reacted this way:

I write separately in order to highlight the continued and disturbing practice, as I discussed in my dissenting opinions in [several other cases,] of certain justices of this court ignoring the law and fabricating facts in order to reach their desired result. On this occasion, the majority goes even further and ignores and distorts the policies and rules governing motions for reconsideration that have previously guided this court.

The court determined in its newest decision that Skakel’s attorney, Michael Sherman , was ineffective. Specifically, the court said Sherman failed to elicit testimony from a disinterested witness who could have confirmed Skakel’s alibi.

Legally, Skakel could be tried again, though opinions are mixed as to whether that will happen. The Courant points out that many attorneys consider a retrial unlikely because the evidence is 43 years old. However, Connecticut attorney Norm Pattis points out that “the high stakes and the high profile nature of the case make it likely the State will try Mr. Skakel again.”

He adds that new forensic testing, including new DNA tests, are now available. “I suspect the State is working overtime to look for new forensic evidence in the Skakel matter,” he concluded.

Tony Moreno, the Middletown man who threw his son off the Arrigoni Bridge, asks state Supreme Court for new trial

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:11 GMT

Hartford Courant - Local News

by Kathleen McWilliams, January 17

A lawyer for Tony Moreno, the Middletown man who was convicted of killing his infant son in 2015, argued in front of the state’s highest court Thursday that his client deserves a new trial because he was medicated and not in the right frame of mind when police questioned him in his hospital bed.

Moreno was convicted of murder and risk of injury to a child in 2017, two years after throwing his 7-moth-old son Aaden off Middletown’s Arrigoni Bridge. Moreno was sentenced by Judge Elpedio N. Vitale to 70 years in prison without parole.

Arguing in front of the state Supreme Court, Moreno’s lawyer, Norman A. Pattis, sought a new trial on the basis that Moreno was interviewed by police and waived his constitutional right to remain silent just hours after he was pulled from the Connecticut River in need of medical attention. Moreno jumped off the bridge after killing his son and was placed on a suicide watch at Hartford Hospital.

“Mr. Moreno was taken out of the Connecticut River at midnight and he was taken to a level one trauma center in Hartford because he was banged up pretty bad,” Pattis said. “It appeared to me that Mr. Moreno was in no condition to make a major decision...the waiver of a constitutional right seems to me akin to a complex judgment.”

Robert Scheinblum, senior assistant state’s attorney, said that Moreno had “relatively minor injuries” after his 100-foot fall from the bridge.

Pattis also said that six minutes of the interrogation, including the portion where Moreno waives his Miranda rights, is missing from a video recording of the interview because of a technological malfunction. Pattis said police are required by state law to record all interviews that take place in police detention. While a hospital is not explicitly listed as a place of detention, Pattis argued that because Moreno was restrained and interviewed by police at Hartford Hospital, police were obligated to record their entire conversation with him.

“Taping is used to protect individuals,” Pattis said.

Scheinblum disagreed, saying that the Hartford Hospital room Moreno was interviewed in was not a detention facility and not subject to the state law.

“A hospital room is unambiguously not a detention center,” he said.

Justice Andrew J. McDonald asked Scheinblum why there wasn’t a more clear definition of what constitutes a detention facility.

“Why isn’t the term ‘detention facility’ widely understood to be a place where someone is being detained?” McDonald asked.

A third area of contention is a letter Moreno wrote before the start of his trial in which he offered to plead guilty to manslaughter in exchange for a 25-year sentence. Pattis said the letter was never shown during the trial and that it deprived the jury of understanding Moreno’s remorse about what happened.

Supreme Court justices questioned what value the letter would have added to Moreno’s defense, given that he also testified during his trial.

“He was not precluded from presenting that defense during the trial,” Justice Maria Araujo Kahn said.

Scheinblum said that the court should uphold Vitale’s ruling that the letter was not relevant to the case.

“The judge has the discretion to exclude evidence deemed irrelevant,” Scheinblum said.

State Moves To Send 48-Year Fugitive Robert Stackowitz Back To Georgia

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:10 GMT

Hartford Courant - Local News

by David Owens, August 30

The state briefly took fugitive Robert Stackowitz into custody Tuesday as part of the process of extraditing him to Georgia to face charges related to his escape from a prison camp there in 1968.

A state police detective served an extradition warrant on Stackowitz, 71, at Superior Court in Danbury. Stackowitz's lawyers, Norm Pattis and Kevin Smith, immediately filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of the arrest.

"We are not waiving extradition and are requesting a hearing to contest extradition," Pattis told Danbury Superior Court Judge Dan Shaban.

Pattis told Shaban that Stackowitz has a variety of serious medical issues, including congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease and bladder cancer.

"Our fear is if he is incarcerated, the stress of incarceration would kill him," Pattis said.

Pattis also asked that Stackowitz be released on bail until a Sept. 26 hearing on his petition.

Danbury State's Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III and Assistant Attorney General Steven Strom did not oppose Pattis' request for bail and the judge set bail at $100 cash. Stackowitz posted bail Tuesday afternoon.

For a brief period Tuesday, it appeared Shaban would not allow Stackowitz to post bail and that he'd be taken into Department of Correction custody. Stackowitz, who said during a May interview that four days at the Bridgeport jail nearly killed him, was visibly shaken.

After court, Pattis said he plans to go to federal court in the next several days as he continues to work to keep Stackowitz in Connecticut.

"This fight's going to go on as long as we've got energy and we've got plenty of that," Pattis said.

Stackowitz, a Bridgeport native, found himself in Georgia in 1966 after his marriage fell apart. He was 21. He met two men who proposed they burglarize a house. Stackowitz, who had a car, was to be the getaway driver. During the burglary, the victim arrived home and the three tied the man up.

As they drove off, a police officer began to chase them. All three were quickly arrested. A short time later, and after a 15-minute trial, Stackowitz was convicted of burglary by force and sentenced to 17 years in prison.

In 1968, about two years into his sentence, he drove away from the camp in a vehicle he used to travel around the state to repair school buses. He drove to the Atlanta airport and bought an airplane ticket home to Connecticut.

Steve Hayes, a spokesman for Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles, has said that Stackowitz must return to Georgia so the agency can review his case and determine what action to take.

Norm Pattis on Dealing With the Police

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:09 GMT

Norm Pattis on Dealing With the Police

How the FBI became the world’s largest distributor of child sex abuse imagery

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:07 GMT

TNW News

by Bryan Clark, January 28

For 12 days between February and March, 2014, the FBI was the world’s largest peddler of images and video depicting child sexual abuse on the internet.

In an attempt to catch criminals uploading, viewing, sharing and downloading these files, the US government authorized members of the FBI to run an operation — ‘Operation Pacifier’ — of dubious legality to catch pedophiles visiting Playpen, the world’s largest child sexual abuse site.

“There is something tawdry and sick about FBI agents peddling porn,” says famed civil rights trial attorney Norm Pattis.

In speaking with attorneys about Operation Pacifier, I heard words like: “shocking,” “disgusting,” and “vile”; they weren’t talking about the pedophiles.

Playpen

Playpen launched in August of 2014 as a dark web site only accessible by ‘The Onion Router’, commonly known as TOR. Through use of TOR, users are able to access the Deep Web while routing web traffic around the world in an attempt to anonymize their browsing.

It’s not foolproof, but it’s the best weapon a Web user has to remain anonymous online. And anonymity, when peeking into the darkest corners of the web, is paramount.

Due to the nature of the site in question, I didn’t want to dig too far, but from FBI testimony on the topic, it contained files — mainly images and video — of some of the most extreme child abuse imagery one could imagine as well as advice on how sexual abusers could perpetrate their crimes without being caught.

For all intents and purposes, Playpen was amongst the darkest of the dark corners of the web.

Operation Pacifier

February 20, 2015 was an unremarkable day for Playpen’s users. At the surface, the site was operating as usual, but behind the scenes its server had been seized by FBI agents at a web host in North Carolina and moved to a secure government-controlled facility in Virgina.

No one noticed. And really, how could they?

For fear of raising suspicions amongst Playpen’s users, the FBI left the site fully operational while they sought a warrant to track users through what it refers to as “network investigative techniques” or NIT.

NIT, is a vague term for an exploit the FBI uses to gain access to a network or device. In this case, malware.

To be clear, ‘fully operational’ means just that. For two weeks, users had the ability to upload new files, view existing images or video and communicate with other pedophiles. Basically, it was business as usual, only the FBI was piloting the ship.

From February 20 until March 4, 2015, the FBI continued to operate Playpen while infecting users computers with malware in hopes that it would lead to identifying information, such as an internet protocol (IP) address.

During its 12 day reign as the king of all child sexual abuse sites, the FBI garnered some 1,300 of these IP addresses.

Sting operations featuring Deep Web honeypots aren’t new to the FBI.

In 2011, the bureau used NIT — albeit a different type of exploit — on three hidden services (Deep Web websites) hosting lewd images of minors. Users of these services were targeted through a Flash application that would ping a users real IP address back to an FBI-controlled server rather than routing the traffic through TOR, as intended.

But this operation, in comparison, was small potatoes in comparison to Pacifier. The FBI was only able to collect 25 IP addresses.

With Pacifier, the FBI went bigger. To catch a criminal, it seems, you have to become one. And that’s exactly what the FBI did, at least according to the legal professionals involved in the case.

Was the operation legal?

First, it’s important to understand that what the FBI did resides very much in the grey area of our legal system. As much as I tried, securing a conclusive and concrete answer to the legality of the FBI running this type of site proved elusive.

New York attorney Joseph Potashnik informed me that in federal cases this kind of conduct by law enforcment is legal. He wasn’t alone.

An attorney who preferred not to be named remarked that it was not only legal, but it was “abused by the government on a regular basis” in other cases he’s tried, citing an officer that committed a sex act with a prostitute and then charged her with prostitution.

Oddly enough, he wasn’t the only attorney to use that reference.

Others, like attorneys Mark McBride and Norm Pattis disagreed. According to McBride, who has defended these types of cases before, “It’s definitely not legal.”

Attorney Christopher Eskew noted that it wasn’t legal, but it wouldn’t be a case the US government would prosecute.

In short, there isn’t a clear answer as to the legality of what the FBI did. The agency did secure a warrant, but the warrant was strictly for the usage of the NIT, not running a lewd site disseminating explicit images and video of children.

It’s not even clear if the federal judge that signed the warrant understood the scope of what he was authorizing.

A Motherboard piece detailed this exchange between Judge Robert J. Bryan and defense attorney Colin Fieman, who is representing one of the accused, Jay Michaud:

“Do the FBI experts have any way to look at the NIT information other than going to the server?” Judge Bryan asked.

“Your Honor, they don’t go to the server,” Colin Fieman, replied.

“Where do they go? How do they get the information?”

“They get it from Mr. Michaud’s computer.”

“They don’t have his computer.”

“That’s what the NIT is for,” Fieman explained.

While Judge Bryan didn’t sign the warrant used to charge Michaud, it speaks to the complicated nature of understanding the scope of the malware under broad and vauge guidelines within its request.

There are several additional pages of transcripts that show Judge Bryan attempting to figure out just what this NIT is, and how it was going to be used.

All told, the court spent more than two hours on definitions and descriptions of NIT.

Lack of understanding aside, there are also issues with the warrant itself, most notably, jurisdiction.

Fieman, and Michaud’s other attorney, Linda Sullivan, argue that the warrant “is limited to persons and property in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

Keith Becker, an attorney for the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a hearing, that the warrant, “clearly requested the authorities to deploy to computers wherever located.”

Michaud’s attorneys then proceeded to call into question the legality of the sting operation itself, stating:

There is no law enforcement exemption, or statutory exemption for the distribution of child pornography.

In this case, it’s easy to see that the need to catch a criminal overshadowed the FBI’s desire to stop the flow of information, which arguably, is more important. Sullivan and Fieman argued that the harm caused by the dissemination of child sexual abuse images is summed up on the DOJs own website:

Once an image is on the Internet, it is irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever

The defense used these arguments in a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress the government’s evidence that they feel was illegally gathered.

Update: Both motions were denied .

At this point, the only thing we can be clear about in terms of legality was that we’re really not sure, but it doesn’t seem as if it matters whether the FBI broke any laws.

As Eskew put it, it’s highly unlikely the government would prosecute FBI agents.

Do the ends justify the means?

Leaving the attorneys and judges to decide legality, it’s much easier to debate whether the methods the FBI used to catch pedophiles justified the means.

No one would argue the benefit of apprehending those that are creating and distributing child sexual abuse images and video, but is it ever appropriate to display these images to pedophiles in an attempt to catch them?

Pattis eloquently states:

They claim they do so to draw out defendants, and defeat the market for prohibited images, yet the demand for the images remains the same. Lawmen can’t stamp out desire; they can only join the fray, becoming as twisted as the folks they prosecute.

I spoke with both the FBI and DOJ regarding this matter. According to DOJ spokesperson, Peter Carr:

While [shutting Playpen down] would end the trafficking of child pornography taking place on that one website, it would do nothing to prevent those same users from disseminating child pornography through other means … At no time in an operation like this does the FBI post any images, videos, or links to images of child pornography. Any posting of child pornography images and links are done by users of the website, not by the FBI.

While it wasn’t actively contributing to the cache of images, videos or links, the FBI was facilitating the practice for others who were doing just that. No matter where you stand on legality, this has to bring questions of morality to the table. Is “not actively contributing” enough to negate government responsibility in Operation Pacifier?

McBride doesn’t think so, “taking down 10 perverts does not outweigh the damages of even one image being disseminated.”

It’s hard to argue his logic. If capturing and releasing a sexually explicit image of a child is a crime against the victim, every time it’s viewed and passed on is akin to recommitting the crime, only this time with a new offender. McBride was unwavering in this belief.

In other sting operations, investigations have revolved around enticing users into registration through use of suggestive, but not explicit, images of minors.

Let’s attempt to quantify the success of this operation.

Playpen had a total of 215,000 members. Operation Pacifier collected 1,300 unique IP addresses and led to 137 users charged, meaning, nearly 90 percent of those tracked were never charged with a crime nearly a year after the investigation concluded.

What’s not quantifiable is the reach of these images and just how much the government’s operation, or the facilitation of pedophilia, did to benefit — or damage — child sexual abuse rings.

At the end of the day, you have to weigh the ends, 137 men charged, against the means, being complicit in the dissemination of sexually explicit imagery, and attempt to make a judgement call as to whether becoming a criminal is worth catching one.

Yale Student Found Not Guilty of Raping Classmate in Rare Campus-Assault Trial

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:06 GMT

The Cut

by Lisa Ryan, March 7

Yale student Saifullah Khan, 25, was suspended by the university after being accused of sexually assaulting a female classmate on Halloween night, 2015. On Wednesday, he was found not guilty of rape , following a court trial in which defense attorneys repeatedly attempted to discredit the alleged victim for drinking and not wearing a more modest costume.

As the New York Times reports, the trial against Khan was noteworthy given just how few campus rapes make it to trial — and how rarely these cases involve open court testimony. Although certain cases, such as that of former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner , do see the inside of the courtroom, the Department of Justice estimates that only 4 to 20 percent of female college students who are raped actually report their sexual assault to authorities. The case also highlighted the divide between the legal system and the #MeToo movement.

The complainant testified in the trial that she had fallen asleep on her dorm room bed and woke up in the middle of the night with Khan on top of her as he pinned down her arms and raped her, the New Haven Register reports. According to the Times, attorneys representing Khan tried to discredit the alleged victim, claiming she was the sexual aggressor.

Khan’s lawyers repeatedly asked the alleged victim how much she had to drink and why she was able to remember the assault but not other details. They insinuated that she had been flirting with Khan via text message days before the alleged rape. The lawyers also showed off the complainant’s black cat outfit — her Halloween costume — and asked why she hadn’t worn something more conservative or dressed up like “Cinderella in a long flowing gown.” Per the Times:

“You remember a lot more than you are telling us,” Norman A. Pattis, a defense lawyer, told the complainant. “Hadn’t you sat on Mr. Khan’s lap and kissed him?”

Defense attorneys also accused Yale of using Khan as a scapegoat for the university’s previous mishandling of sexual-assault claims. Yale declined to comment to the Register and an attorney for the alleged victim declined to comment to the Times.

Nurse convicted of killing college student gets new lawyer

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:05 GMT

The Hour

by Daniel Tepfer, September 12

A local nurse, convicted last year after a third trial of killing a 20-year-old college student and scattering her body parts in Trumbull, is now being represented by his fourth lawyer.

Attorney Norman Pattis filed paperwork in Superior Court here to represent Jermain Richards in his appeal on Wednesday.

“I think he has excellent prospects on appeal,” Pattis said as he left the Fairfield County Courthouse.

Richards, a private-duty nurse, was found guilty of murder last September in the death of Alyssia Marie Wiley, of West Haven. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison.

On April 19, 2013, the Eastern Connecticut State University sophomore disappeared after leaving the Willimantic campus in Richards’ car.

After a statewide search, Wiley’s grisly, partial remains were found 27 days later in the woods at the end of Quarry Road in Trumbull, a mile and a half from Richards’ Bridgeport home.

Two juries deadlocked on a verdict in the case before a third found Richards guilty of killing Wiley. Richards had a different private lawyer in each case.

Pattis told Superior Court Judge Robert Devlin on Wednesday that Richards’ mother had hired him for the appeal.

Fotis Dulos’ attorney releases new statement after posting bond

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:04 GMT

Fox 61 - Local News

by Samara Abramson, June 11

Fotis Dulos' attorney released a statement this afternoon after Dulos left court after posting bond.

Fotis' attorney Norm Pattis issued the following statement:

“I am not sure what the delay was in posting the bond. We were retained over the weekend and were able to assemble a bond package in short order.

“Obviously, we’re happy to see him head home. We are also looking forward to the forthcoming trial.

“Mr. Dulos had no motive to kill Jennifer. A recent court-ordered recommendation was that Mr. Fotis share custody 50/50 with Ms. Fotis.

“We will soon address how he is best able to resume his relationship with his children.”

Michelle Troconis also entered not guilty pleas Tuesday morning in Stamford Superior Court. Fotis Dulos and his estranged wife's mother appeared in civil court for a hearing on the custody of the five Dulos children.

Around 3:30pm, Fotis made a $500,000 bond and walked out of court in an orange jumpsuit. As he got into a black Land Rover outside court, Fotis did not respond to multiple questions from reporters. He left Stamford and headed north on I-95.

Fotis' attorney issued a statement in the afternoon that said:

“I am not sure what the delay was in posting the bond. We were retained over the weekend and were able to assemble a bond package in short order.

“Obviously, we’re happy to see him head home. We are also looking forward to the forthcoming trial.

“Mr. Dulos had no motive to kill Jennifer. A recent court order granted him 50/50 custody and called into question Jennifer’s parenting skills.

“We will soon address how he is best able to resume his relationship with his children.”

In a separate civil case, Gloria Farber, the children's grandmother is petitioning to stop visitation on the part of their father.

“His fundamental rights have already been compromised,” Gloria Farber's attorney said of Fotis Dulos. An attorney for the children reminded Fotis that after posting bond, he could have no access to the children.

Gloria Farber's questioned the guardian ad litem and attorney for children, Michael Meehan. Meehan said he has spoken to Fotis only once since Jennifer disappeared. Meehan said that on Saturday, May 25, just a day after Jennifer was reported missing, Fotis asked him, “Have you heard the news?” Meehan asked Fotis if he had alibi, and said Fotis told him he was home in the morning and in meetings in the afternoon, but did not indicate where those meetings took place. Meehan said Fotis’s demeanor on May 25 was “somewhat excited.” Meehan said Fotis also expressed concern for the safety of his children. Meehan did not think the children were in danger and knew they were staying with their maternal grandmother in New York City. Meehan said he has concerns about the children’s contact with their father, whether in person, written or verbal.

Meehan said Farber’s home is sufficient for them for the time being, perhaps not for the long term, but at least for now under the circumstances. He said the children’s caretaker is also there with Farber. Meehan said he was satisfied with how the children were being taken care of, that there was a mental health professional assisting them. Meehan said he has seen the children, they were healthy, they were entertaining themselves, doing a school activity, and they have set up a Skype area in the house where they talk to their teachers and work on schoolwork.

As Dulos swiveled in his chair, Meehan said he does not have an opinion about whether or not monitored communication between Fotis and the children should be allowed at this time. Meehan said, from his understanding, Farber has provided economic assistance to Jennifer and Fotis, has provided housing for the children in the past, supported Jennifer in her move from Farmington to New Canaan, has provided 50 percent of Meehan’s fees during this case and has provided travel for the children, has a Florida property that the children and Fotis have spent time at.

The judge in the case made no decision in court and will issue a written decision.

Troconis was in court for a short time before leaving on the not guilty plea. Her next court date is July 18th. Dulos's next court appearance is August 2nd.

State prosecutors said they found Jennifer's blood on items that Troconis and Dulos reportedly deposited in trash cans in Hartford. The arrest warrant for the two said Hartford surveillance cameras caught two people who matched the description of Dulos and Troconis driving around, throwing things into trash cans along Albany Avenue.

Prosecutors also said that they found new evidence during the investigation. According to the prosecution, Dulos' DNA was found 'mixed' with Jennifer's blood in the kitchen sink of Jennifer's New Canaan home. The two did not live together in the home.

Pattis spoke first to FOX61 when he arrived in Connecticut when he arrived in Connecticut and said he is "not worried about the current allegations" and believes his client has a solid alibi. Inside the court, Pattis said that "They got the wrong guy, and he's going to be [found innocent...]."

Outside court, Pattis said the defense can account for Fotis Dulos's alibi "almost all of the time". Pattis also asked people to 'put aside the easy narrative' of his client.

Both Andrew Bowman, Troconis' defense attorney, and Norm Pattis spoke after the court proceedings:

FOX61's Tony Terzi also spoke to Bowman outside his law office in Westport.

NY Soccer Mom Madam? | Pattis & Paz

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:02 GMT

Dr. Phil - Talk Show

September 12

Anna Gristina made national headlines and was dubbed the “New York Soccer Mom Madam” when she was arrested and accused of running a multimillion dollar prostitution empire out of an Upper East Side apartment. After being at the center of a five-year undercover investigation and spending four months in jail, she's now out on bail, facing one felony count of promoting prostitution; a charge that could land her in jail for up to seven years — or get her deported to her native Scotland — if convicted. In a Dr. Phil exclusive, the 44-year-old mother of four addresses the accusations against her and explains why she says she's completely innocent. Then, Anna drops a bombshell about why she believes she was targeted by investigators — is there a political conspiracy behind the headlines?

Soccer Mom Madam?

Anna Gristina is refusing to help prosecutors, who allege that she has been running a $15 million dollar prostitution ring out of a tiny Manhattan apartment. Following four months in jail, Anna is now out on bail after an appellate court lowered the amount from $2 million to $250,000. She is set to go to trial next month. Wearing an ankle monitoring device, she sits down exclusively with Dr. Phil at her upstate New York home to set the record straight. Why does she believe she’s being targeted by investigators?

A Family Affected

Speaking out for the first time, Anna’s husband, Kelvin, says he’s angry at Anna’s high-profile friends, whom he says have turned their backs on his wife. Kelvin has stood by his wife the entire time and believes she is innocent. But, has the wear and tear of the investigation taken a toll on their relationship? And, how is their family coping with the media attention?

A Fair Trial?

Anna says that she feels it’s going to be difficult to have a fair trial because of the many “mistruths” being printed about her. “People believe the papers a lot,” she says. “I feel I’ve been tried already [in the court of public opinion].”

Hartford gang leader to be retried after hung jury

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:01 GMT

New Haven Register - Local News

by Dave Collins, September 17

A hung jury in a murder case has dealt a blow to Connecticut prosecutors targeting a Hartford man who police say led an unusually violent street gang with a “hit squad” that was involved in numerous shootings and drug dealing in the city’s North End in 2007 and 2008.

Prosecutors intend to retry the case in February against Donald Raynor, 29, for the death of Delano Gray, 22.

A Hartford Superior Court judge declared a mistrial Tuesday because jurors couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict. Raynor remains detained on bail. He faces five other cases involving attempted murder and assault charges, in addition to two firearms cases.

City police allege Raynor, whose nickname was “Amen,” was the leader of the Money Green/Bedroc gang that controlled a nine-block-long area north of downtown Hartford. Police say Gray was a member of a rival gang, The Ave, and was killed in a drive-by shooting in June 2007 in what witnesses told police was a war between the two gangs.

A report released last December in a rare state grand jury investigation found probable cause to charge Raynor and other members of the Money Green/Bedroc gang with murder and attempted murder in several shootings. The report said Raynor apparently “is feared by rival gang members and members of the community, both because of a propensity for violence with firearms and a devoted following he enjoys among Money Green/Bedroc members.”

In one of the worst incidents of violence in Hartford that police can remember, members of Money Green/Bedroc and the West Hell gangs got into a shootout at the end of the annual West Indian Day parade in August 2008, the grand jury report says. Money Green/Bedroc member Ezekiel Roberts was killed and six others were injured, including a 15-month-old girl and a 7-year-old boy. Raynor wasn’t charged in the shootout.

Police say the parade shooting came weeks after Raynor and a fellow gang member tried to kill two West Hell members. An informant told police that after Roberts’ death, he, Raynor and other Money Green/Bedroc members shot several West Hell members in retaliation, the grand jury report says.

Raynor has pleaded not guilty in all the cases against him. His lawyer, Norman Pattis, criticized the grand jury report.

“The grand jury report is an untested joke,” Pattis said in an email to The Associated Press on Wednesday. “No one tested the evidence presented with cross examination.”

Pattis added: “A jury heard what the state regards as its best case and could not convict.”

Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin, the prosecutor in Raynor’s murder trial and the grand jury investigation, didn’t return messages seeking comment Wednesday.

Raynor had drug connections that sent kilograms of crack cocaine and heroin onto city streets and set up a hit squad to take care of rivals, the report says.

One reputed Money Green/Bedroc member, Jose Rivera, is serving a 42-year prison sentence for a 2011 murder. He testified for the prosecution at Raynor’s murder trial, saying he was with Raynor when Gray was killed and hoped his testimony led to a reduction in his prison sentence.

Police say Money Green/Bedroc enjoyed a long run under Raynor, but fell apart after Raynor and other gang leaders were arrested.

Jury selection just the start of the process

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:00 GMT

News Times

by John Pirro, September 24

With his neat appearance, articulate speech and six years of military service, the former nuclear power training officer impressed everyone in the courtroom.

His personal library included works by Tolstoy and Steinbeck, his civilian resume reeked of responsibility and commitment, and his thoughtful, intelligent responses to questions about the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and an accused person's right not to testify seemingly marked him as an ideal juror, potentially even the foreman.

But when it came time for defense attorney Mickey Sherman to accept or reject the ex-Navy man for the Superior Court jury that will decide whether Marash Gojcaj is guilty or innocent of murder, the veteran litigator said, "Excused."

"A born leader, you could see it from across the room," Sherman said later. "Whichever way he went, the rest of the jury would follow."

In a case where a single "not guilty" vote could spell the difference between another chance at freedom through a retrial, or a sentence of up to 25 years in prison if he is convicted, risking Gojcaj`s fate on a defense attorney's ability to sway one specific juror was clearly not a gamble Sherman was willing to take.

Over the past 10 days, nearly 300 area residents, their names culled from a variety of state databases, including voter registrations and state Department of Motor Vehicle records, have filtered through Judge Robin Pavia's small, third-floor courtroom on White Street in Danbury as Sherman and Danbury State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky seek an impartial panel of 16 jurors: 12 regular members and four alternates to hear the case.

Gojcaj, 34, of Greenwich, is accused of killing his uncle and business partner, Joe Vuli, also known as Zef Vulevic, in their Danbury restaurant in 2004.

By the time court adjourned Friday afternoon, 13 jurors had been seated. The process will resume on Tuesday.

Pleading that sitting on what is expected to be a month-long trial would be either a personal or economic hardship, the majority of prospective jurors brought into the courthouse each day were sent home by the judge.

But several dozen have gone through the voir dire process, where they are interviewed individually by the lawyers to ferret out those who have already made up their minds, or who may be predisposed to favor either the state or the defense.

"It's all about bounce. I'm looking for people who are open to what I have to say," said Norm Pattis, of Bethany, one of the state's most prominent defense lawyers.

"I ask questions that are designed to see whether potential jurors are open to the defense and are willing to apply the principles of law as they are instructed by the judge. The real heart of jury selection is trying to get people to talk, and if they don't want to talk about themselves, they are rejecting you," Pattis said.

In addition to the standard inquiries regarding the criminal justice system, whether they have been or know anyone who was ever involved in a trial, and if they believe a person who is charged with a crime is automatically guilty, potential jurors also found themselves talking about books they've read, movies they've seen or television shows they watch.

"You're trying to get a window into the personality of the potential jurors," said James Diamond, a defense lawyer from Danbury.

But like anyone else, in life or in court, prospective jurors aren't always completely honest, he said.

"Very often, they will tell you what they think you want to hear if they want to get on the case, or what you don't want to hear if they want to get out of it," Diamond said. "Then it comes down to your own gut feeling and instinct."

The passage of time has resolved one problem that frequently crops up in many high-profile criminal cases -- the likelihood that prospective jurors may be familiar with the case as a result of extensive news coverage.

The murder that Gojcaj is on trial for occurred more than six years ago in April 2004. It took four years for Danbury police to make an arrest, and another two-plus years before the case was ready for trial.

Only a few of the potential jurors said they even remembered the murder, which attracted wide publicity at the time.

Even when they get that kind of response, lawyers have to dig deeper, said Dave Shannon, a former assistant state's attorney in Danbury now assigned to the prosecutor's office in Litchfield.

"You never want to take an accusatory tone," Shannon said. "But if it's a high-profile case and someone says they never heard of it, then says they get their news from (a local paper), that's when you have to ask more questions."

During his voir dire, Sherman made frequent references to the classic Henry Fonda movie, "Twelve Angry Men," in which a holdout juror eventually convinces the other 11 members the defendant was innocent of the crime.

Sedensky closely questioned prospective jurors who had extensive backgrounds in science or mathematics, a common strategy with prosecutors, according to Shannon, who has tried nearly three dozen criminal cases, including two murders, during his 11 years as a state's attorney.

"The fear is they will expect us to prove something to a mathematical certainty, not just beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

From a prosecutor's viewpoint, the best jurors are "people with a lot of life experience who are invested in the community," generally those over 30 years of age, said Shannon.

"But it's hard to get six people to agree on anything, even what restaurant to go to for lunch, let alone 12," he said.

Court date postponed for convicted killer in 1993 Norwich double murder

Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:34:15 GMT

The Norwich Bulletin

by John Barry, March 1

A court appearance Thursday by a convicted killer on his bid to shorten his 60-year sentence has been delayed at the request of his attorney.

Michael Bernier, now 39 years old, was 15 in 1993 when he shot and killed a Norwich classmate, David Cluny, and Cluny’s mother, Elaine Cluny.

In 1995, Bernier was tried as an adult and convicted. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison for each murder for a total sentence of 60 years.

Bernier appealed his sentence in 2015 as unconstitutional with his appeal based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ban life sentences for juvenile defendants.

But since then, state Supreme Court and Appellate Court rulings and a state law make Bernier eligible for parole after he serves 30 years of his sentence in 2023. The parole hearing would not guarantee his release, but if he is denied, Bernier can reapply for new hearings every two years for the rest of his sentence.

Bernier’s attorney, Norman Pattis, for about the past two years has pursued and is continuing to pursue the possibility that appeals decisions in state courts could apply to Bernier’s case and make him eligible for earlier prison release.

A discussion by attorneys on the issue, originally scheduled for Thursday in New London Superior Court, is now expected to be taken up March 9.

Assistant State’s Attorney Lawrence Tytla said he believes Bernier won’t get out of prison at the earliest until 2023.

“By statute, he’s been made parole eligible,” Tytla said. “The bottom line, I think that’s the only relief he’s eligible for.”

Jennifer Dulos’ family says it’s ‘absurd’ to think she saw doctor in July

Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:34:15 GMT

Stamford Advocate - Local News

by Ben Lambert, October 14

The family of missing New Canaan woman Jennifer Dulos has denied that a medical record cited by defense attorney Norm Pattis could indicate she is alive.

In a Friday filing, Pattis said a billing record sent to his client indicated Jennifer Dulos received “reproductive” services at a New York medical facility on July 7 — more than a month after she disappeared.

“If Ms. Dulos did, as the bill suggests, receive medical services on July 7, 2019, she is obviously alive, if not necessarily well,” Pattis wrote in the motion.

Carrie Luft, a spokeswoman for Jennifer Dulos’ family and friends, responded Monday, saying the document Fotis Dulos received was automatically generated for a quarterly fee and does not indicate she received medical services in July.

“The insurance claim in question, dated July 7, 2019, is for an auto-billed quarterly fee with no connection to in-person services — the Anthem claims summary in Mr. Dulos’s possession lists this same charge every three months,” Luft said. “To allege that Jennifer obtained medical treatment in July is absurd. To allege that Jennifer — together with her family — orchestrated her own disappearance is baseless and cruel.”

“Yet again, the allegations by Mr. Dulos’s attorney blame the victim and inflict pain on her family and loved ones,” Luft added.

Pattis filed the motion as part of an ongoing effort to obtain Jennifer Dulos’ medical records, which he claims could help exonerate his client.

In August, Stamford Superior Court Judge John Blawie denied Pattis’ first attempt to obtain Jennifer Dulos’ medical records , but said he could revisit the issue if he discovered more evidence to support his request.

Pattis claims his client received billing records reflecting “a series of tests, blood work, diagnostic treatment and ‘lab reproductive’ coding” for treatment Jennifer Dulos received in the months leading up to her May 24 disappearance. Pattis said the tests totaled $14,000.

A second nearly identical motion filed in September is still pending.

Pattis has claimed that Jennifer Dulos may have faked her own disappearance , a la the novel “Gone Girl,” and later suggested she might have perpetrated a “revenge suicide” plot .

The theories have drawn sharp rebukes from Jennifer Dulos’ family and friends and “Gone Girl” author Gillian Flynn .

Fotis Dulos, 52, and his girlfriend Michelle Troconis, 44, have each pleaded not guilty to two counts of tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution charges in connection with the disappearance.

Police said surveillance videos show Fotis Dulos and Troconis making a series of stops in a 4-mile stretch of Hartford’s Albany Avenue the night of the disappearance. According to arrest warrants, the videos also show Fotis Dulos dumping trash bags, which were later found to contain his estranged wife’s blood.

Fotis Dulos and Troconis are also accused of cleaning up a 2001 red Toyota Tacoma police believe was used in Jennifer Dulos’ disappearance, according to arrest warrants.

Police say Fotis Dulos was driving the pickup , which was owned by one of his employees, the day his wife went missing.

Jennifer Dulos was last seen around 8 a.m. May 24 after dropping off her five children at New Canaan Country School. After missing several doctors appointments in New York, she was reported missing around 7 p.m. that night. Police said they found blood spatter and signs that Jennifer Dulos was the victim of a “serious physical assault” in the garage of her Welles Lane home.

Troconis is next due in court on Oct. 25, while Fotis Dulos will be back in court on Nov. 6.

Family responds to attorney’s claim that missing mom sought medical treatment in July

Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:34:15 GMT

Eyewitness News WFSB - Local News

by Evan Sobol, Matthew Campbell, October 15

The attorney for the estranged husband charged in connection to the disappearance of a missing New Canaan mother has filed another motion to access the missing mom's medical records.

Norm Pattis believes missing mother Jennifer Dulos received medical services on July 7, more than six weeks after she went missing on May 24.

Pattis says the records are necessary in Fotis Dulos' defense.

In response to Pattis' claims, the spokesperson for Jennifer Dulos' family and friends released a statement on Tuesday saying "The insurance claim in question, dated July 7, 2019, is for an auto-billed quarterly fee with no connection to in-person services—the Anthem claims summary in Mr. Dulos’s possession lists this same charge every three months. To allege that Jennifer obtained medical treatment in July is absurd. To allege that Jennifer—together with her family—orchestrated her own disappearance is baseless and cruel. Yet again, the allegations by Mr. Dulos’s attorney blame the victim and inflict pain on her family and loved ones."

This is the third time Pattis has filed a motion for access to the missing mother's medical records.

Fotis Dulos has been arrested twice in connection to Jennifer Dulos' disappearance. He has been charged with hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence.

Fotis' girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, was also arrested in the case and charged with hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence. They both faced a judge last week .

Alex Jones Reaches Out to Justice Dept. About Jan. 6 Interview

Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:59:26 GMT

New York Times Article

The federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election appears to be gaining traction, with the Justice Department having brought in a well-regarded new prosecutor to help run the inquiry and a high-profile witness seeking a deal to provide information.

Alex Jones, the host of the conspiracy-driven media outlet Infowars and a key player in the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” movement, is in discussions with the Justice Department about an agreement to detail his role in the rally near the White House last Jan. 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol.

Through his lawyer, Mr. Jones said he has given the government a formal letter conveying “his desire to speak to federal prosecutors about Jan. 6.”

The lawyer, Norm Pattis, maintained that Mr. Jones had not engaged in any “criminal wrongdoing” that day when — chanting slogans about 1776 — he helped lead a crowd of Trump supporters in a march to the Capitol as violence was erupting.

As a condition of being interviewed by federal investigators, Mr. Jones, who is known for his rants about the “Deep State” and its supposed control over national affairs, has requested immunity from prosecution.

“He distrusts the government,” Mr. Pattis said.

While convincing federal prosecutors to grant him immunity could be an uphill climb for Mr. Jones, his discussions with the Justice Department suggest that the investigation into the postelection period could be gathering momentum.

Two weeks ago, another prominent Stop the Steal organizer, Ali Alexander, a close associate of Mr. Jones, revealed that he had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury that is seeking information on a broad swath of people — rally planners, members of Congress and others close to former President Donald J. Trump — connected to political events that took place in the run-up to Jan. 6. Mr. Alexander, who marched with Mr. Jones to the Capitol that day, has said that he intends to comply with the subpoena.

Several months ago, the department quietly took another significant step, adding Thomas Windom, a career federal prosecutor from Maryland, to help in the expanded Jan. 6 investigation, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Windom has been working with officials from the national security and criminal divisions at the Justice Department to determine whether and how to investigate potential criminal activity related to the Jan. 6 attack, other than what took place during the assault.

His work complements two teams led by prosecutors in the Washington U.S. attorney’s office: one focused on charging people for participating in the riot and one focused on more complicated conspiracy cases stemming from it, such as the seditious conspiracy case that was brought against Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers.

Mr. Windom is looking into the more politically fraught question of whether a case can be made related to other efforts to overturn the election, a task that could move the investigation closer to Mr. Trump and his inner circle. Mr. Alexander’s lawyers have been dealing with Mr. Windom, for example, in responding to the broad subpoena seeking information about the pro-Trump rallies and other efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office.

Those efforts could extend to issues such as the plan by Trump allies to have seven swing states falsely certify that Mr. Trump won, and then mail those false documents to the National Archives and Congress. However, Mr. Windom does not yet have a robust team of prosecutors, leaving unclear how extensive the investigation might become.

Mr. Windom was described by former colleagues as a diligent, aggressive lawyer capable of handling complex investigations. In his former job, Mr. Windom prosecuted some high-profile cases in Maryland — among them those involving domestic and international terrorism, public corruption and national security.

Mr. Windom, for example, helped to secure convictions against a trio of violent members of a white supremacist group called “The Base,” which had hoped to trigger a race war in the United States. Two of the defendants received lengthy prison sentences.

In another case, Mr. Windom prosecuted Christopher Hasson, a white nationalist and lieutenant in the U.S. Coast Guard, who had plotted to kill journalists, Democratic politicians, professors, Supreme Court justices and those he described as “leftists in general.”

Mr. Windom also charged Tawanna P. Gaines, a Maryland lawmaker, with stealing about $22,000 in campaign funds. She pleaded guilty in 2019 and was later sentenced to six months in prison.

“Thomas is a thorough and creative investigator and an experienced trial attorney,” said Robert K. Hur, a former U.S. attorney in Maryland. “He’s calm under pressure and accustomed to building and trying complex, high-stakes cases. Having tried two cases with him, I know his considerable skill before judges and juries.”

If prosecutors ultimately speak with Mr. Jones, they will encounter a polarizing figure with a broad range of ties to people in pro-Trump circles, including some of Mr. Trump’s aides and advisers. Mr. Jones was closely involved in pro-Trump rallies in Washington on Nov. 14 and Dec. 12 in 2020, working with rally organizers, prominent speakers and far-right militant groups like the Oath Keepers, whose members provided security at the gatherings.

One of Mr. Jones’s top lieutenants at Infowars, Owen Shroyer, also was at the forefront of the mob that stormed the Capitol. Mr. Shroyer was arrested in August and is facing federal misdemeanor charges in connection with the riot.

Even if Mr. Jones does speak with prosecutors, there is no guarantee that he will provide useful information. In late January, after appearing in front of the House select committee investigating Jan. 6, Mr. Jones went on Infowars and declared that, on the advice of a lawyer, he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination “almost 100 times” in front of the committee.

But during the Infowars broadcast, Mr. Jones also revealed that committee investigators had obtained text messages he had exchanged with a political activist, Cindy Chafian, who played a central role in organizing pro-Trump rallies after the election. Ms. Chafian, who was also subpoenaed by the House committee, was among those who had brought in a shadowy paramilitary group called the 1st Amendment Praetorian to serve as event security.

That group, which has ties to Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, often worked to provide security at Stop the Steal rallies alongside the Oath Keepers. On Monday, another Oath Keeper charged in the sedition case released a trove of the group’s internal messages showing that its leader, Mr. Rhodes, enjoyed working with the 1st Amendment Praetorian and called protecting Mr. Jones at pro-Trump rallies “a great feather in our cap.”

During his Infowars show, Mr. Jones went on to discuss his relationship with Caroline Wren, a former Trump campaign aide and fund-raising expert who helped arrange Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. Mr. Jones said that Ms. Wren was among a group of people who led him “to the back of the stage so we could then go and get around the crowd and go lead the march.”

In its letter issuing a subpoena to Mr. Jones , the House committee said that he, Ms. Wren and Ms. Chafian worked with a donor, Julie Fancelli, an heiress to the Publix supermarket fortune, to provide “80 percent of the funding” for Mr. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse. The committee also noted that in the run-up to Jan. 6, Mr. Jones frequently promoted Mr. Trump’s lies about a rigged election and “made statements implying” that he had knowledge of the former president’s plans for his rally.

That day, before Mr. Trump’s speech was finished, Mr. Jones left the Ellipse and marched to the Capitol with Mr. Alexander and Mr. Shroyer, encouraging the crowd around them with a bullhorn. Videos show Mr. Jones shouting chants like, “We’ve only begun to fight” and then receiving word that the building had been breached shortly after 1:30 p.m.

“We got to get this right,” Mr. Jones can be heard telling Mr. Shroyer just before leading the crowd closer to the Capitol. Along the way, the videos show, he led the crowd in chants about “globalists” and declared, “We’re not surrendering.”

The committee has acknowledged that once Mr. Jones reached the Capitol, he told the mob there not to be violent and to gather on the east side of the building, where Mr. Alexander had a permit for a rally, suggesting that Mr. Trump would ultimately meet the group. But Mr. Trump never came to address the crowd and Mr. Jones’s words had the effect of massing crowds on both sides of the Capitol.

The Jan. 6 investigation is only one of the legal troubles Mr. Jones is facing.

On Sunday, three companies affiliated with him, among them Infowars, filed for Chapter 11 protection following his prominent losses in defamation lawsuits in Texas and Connecticut connected to the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, which Mr. Jones had claimed was a hoax.

With Alex Jones set to answer questions under oath, Sandy Hook families’ fight for damages heats up

Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:17:51 GMT

News Times Article

Four months after eight families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting won their defamation case against conspiracy extremist Alex Jones in Connecticut, the fight to determine damages is just beginning.

Motions are flying from both sides in state Superior Court as the families prepare to question Jones under oath for a final time before a jury decides damages in the fall.

The fighting made headlines in January when Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted families permission to subpoena Facebook for records of Jones’ 11 deactivated accounts, and in February when the families requested records of Jones’ talks with Spotify podcaster Joe Rogan .

Much of the fighting in Bellis’ court room centers on the families’ requests for information about the business accounts and practices of Jones and his affiliates, including a limited liability corporation called Free Speech Systems.

“[I]t is clear that cash coming into Free Speech Systems, LLC’s accounts was routed to third-party entities and then drawn down by Alex Jones. As such, the financial and organizational relationships between those entities is directly related to the various ways in which Alex Jones was able to obtain financial benefits from his mistreatment of the plaintiffs,” the families’ attorneys argued in February.

Jones’ high-profile attorney in Connecticut objected.

“The (families) contend that Mr. Jones profited from his ‘mistreatment of the plaintiffs.’ Presumably, they intend to anchor punitive damages either in a theory of Mr. Jones’ net worth or his income and/or draw,” attorney Norm Pattis wrote to Judge Barbara Bellis last week . “This may be the (families’) position; the defendants disagree with it. In either case, the issue is neither material nor relevant at this stage of the proceedings.”

Pattis likened the families’ efforts to a “fishing expedition” and a “collection action.”

“Obviously, the plaintiffs hope for a large judgment. If they obtain it, the time for post-judgment collections will have arrived.” Pattis wrote. “The time will then have come to advance, and to attempt to prove, that the third parties are what they suggest: alter egos of Mr. Jones’.”

The latest round of fighting comes two weeks before the families’ attorneys are scheduled to interview Jones under oath in preparation for a damages trial that is scheduled for the fall.

A similar process is underway in Texas, where parents who lost children in the Sandy Hook shooting won three other defamation cases against Jones.

In both states, judges first warned Jones then sanctioned Jones and then defaulted Jones for abuses of pretrial procedure. Jones called the shooting of 26 first-graders and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax,” and “completely fake with actors.”

Jones made national headlines in 2019 when he was questioned under oath in one of the Texas cases and video of his deposition was made public. In part of that deposition, Jones made a connection about his opinions of conspiracies and “ a form of psychosis .”

“I basically thought everything was staged ... even though I’m learning a lot of things aren’t staged,” Jones said.

Jan. 6 Committee Subpoenas Alex Jones' Security Guard For Phone Records

Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:05:33 GMT

Huffington Post Article

The House committee investigating the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol last year is seeking the phone records of Alex Jones’ security guard, the latest sign that the select committee is ramping up its investigation into Jones’ possible role in planning the riot.

In a Tuesday court filing first obtained by Politico , a lawyer for Jones said Timothy Enlow has been subpoenaed by the House committee for his phone records. Enlow has worked for Jones since 2018 and was notified by AT&T on Feb. 9 that his phone records had been subpoenaed.

The committee previously subpoenaed Jones , the owner of the conspiracy theory-peddling site Infowars, for his testimony and phone records in November. And Infowars host Owen Shroyer currently faces four misdemeanor charges for entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Jones filed a lawsuit in December seeking to block the panel’s request for his own records, and asked in the court filing on Tuesday that Enlow be added to his lawsuit.

Norm Pattis, a lawyer who previously represented Jones in his legal battles with families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, said in the new filing that the committee is trying to get Enlow’s records as a way to get key information on Jones.

“They issued a subpoena for the communications of one of Jones’ employees, Tim Enlow, who they assumed was less financially able to defend himself against the subpoena,” the filing said . “The purpose of this subpoena was to obtain, by third-party disclosure, the communications that Jones had refused to produce to the Select Committee and sought this Court’s intervention to protect his constitutional rights.”

Jones said on his show last month that he met with the Jan. 6 committee but responded to most questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment, Politico reported .

Alex Jones Employee's Phone Records Subpoenaed by January 6 Committee

Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:55:48 GMT

Newsweek Report

The House committee investigating last year's U.S. Capitol riot is seeking phone records and other communications made by one of Alex Jones' employees.

The panel subpoenaed phone records for Timothy Enlow, the security operations manager of Free Speech Systems, a media company owned by Jones, a conservative radio host. The request was made for text messages and phone calls placed between November 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, The Hill reported.

Enlow had accompanied Jones to Washington as his security guard on January 6, 2021, and marched with him from President Donald Trump's rally on the Ellipse to the Capitol before the riot broke out. This past December, Jones sued the committee in an attempt to block a subpoena allowing it to obtain his phone records and requiring him to testify before the panel. Jones now says the committee is targeting his employee to get information it may be unable to obtain from him otherwise, according to Politico.

On February 9, Enlow was notified by AT&T that the House committee had subpoenaed his "communications" records, according to a court document filed Tuesday. In it, Jones asks U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to add Enlow to his lawsuit against the panel.

AT&T didn't release Jones' phone records but said in the filing it would follow the subpoena request for Enlow's records by February 23, 2022, "unless he presented them with a legal filing that asserted his rights against the production."

Jones said the committee went after Enlow because "they assumed [he] was less financially able to defend himself against the subpoena," Norman Pattis, an attorney for Jones, wrote in the court filing.

Pattis also said in the filing that Jones and Enlow believe the subpoena is "merely a back door to obtain Jones' communications in the face of pending litigation seeking to protect those communications from the Defendants' eyes."

Pattis added, "Given the broad scope of the Defendants' investigation and their goals in pursuing information and documents from Jones and Enlow, there is a clear logical relationship between their claims because the Defendants seek to use Enlow as a gateway to Jones' communications regarding the events of January 6, 2021 and suspect Enlow of being involved as well."

Jones also said the committee's subpoena of Enlow's records was intended to obtain his information through a third-party disclosure, according to the filing. The radio host appeared before the committee last month but pleaded the Fifth Amendment "nearly 100 times" and provided "limited documents" in response to a previous subpoena, Politico reported.

Enlow anticipates that the committee will issue him additional subpoenas for documents and deposition testimony in the future, according to the filing.

Jan. 6 panel requested phone records from Alex Jones's security employee

Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:39:53 GMT

The Hill Article

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol requested the phone records of a security employee working for far-right radio host Alex Jones.

The investigative panel issued a subpoena to AT&T for phone records belonging to Timothy Enlow, the security operations manager of Free Speech Systems, LLC, a media company owned by Jones. The committee requested records of phone calls and text messages Enlow made between Nov. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2021.

The subpoena came to light in a court document filed Tuesday by Norman Pattis, an attorney for Jones. The radio host is asking that Enlow be added to the lawsuit he filed against the committee in December that seeks to block the panel from requiring his testimony and obtaining his phone records.

The committee subpoenaed Jones in November . He spoke at rallies on Jan. 5, 2021, and Jan. 6, 2021, and helped facilitate a donation for “80 percent” of the funding for a rally taking place at the White House on Jan. 6, according to the panel.

Pattis argued in Tuesday’s court filing that the select committee “targeted Enlow to gain information and documents that they could not obtain from Jones.”

The attorney also said Jones and Enlow believe the subpoena for the latter’s phone communications is “merely a backdoor to obtain Jones’ communications in the face of pending litigation seeking to protect those communications from the Defendants’ eyes.”

“Given the broad scope of the Defendants’ investigation and their goals in pursuing information and documents from Jones and Enlow, there is a clear logical relationship between their claims because the Defendants seek to use Enlow as a gateway to Jones’ communications regarding the events of January 6, 2021 and suspect Enlow of being involved as well,” Pattis added.

Enlow has worked for Jones’s media company since December 2018, according to the court filing. Pattis said AT&T contacted him on Feb. 9 informing him that his phone records had been subpoenaed by the committee. AT&T said it would comply with the request by Feb. 23 “unless he presented them with a legal filing that asserted his rights against the production.”

According to Politico , Enlow was with Jones in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, and marched with him from the Ellipse to the Capitol.

Jones appeared before the select committee last month. He said he invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges “ almost 100 times ” during the deposition.

The Jan. 6 select committee declined to comment when reached by The Hill.

Riot Panel Subpoenas Security Guard Who Protected Alex Jones on Jan. 6

Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:35:04 GMT

Daily Beast Article

The House panel investigating the Capitol riot seems to have a new area of interest—the people who were closest to Alex Jones on Jan. 6. In a court filing reported by Politico late Tuesday, it was revealed that the security guard who escorted Jones from the White House’s Ellipse to the Capitol that day has been told to hand over his phone records to House investigators. Timothy Enlow, who has protected Jones since 2018, was reportedly told by AT&T on Feb. 9 that the committee had subpoenaed his phone records. Jones, who previously sued the committee to block a subpoena for his own testimony, is now attempting to add Enlow to his lawsuit to prevent the security guard from having to cooperate with the panel. Jones’ lawyer Norm Pattis claimed the new subpoena was “merely a back door to obtain Jones’ communications in the face of pending litigation.”

‘Journalist’ Alex Jones Sues to Fight Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena, Claims Liz Cheney Is Only ‘Purportedly a Republican’

Tue, 21 Dec 2021 20:03:19 GMT

Law & Crime Article

InfoWars host Alex Jones has sued the Jan. 6 Committee and a number of associated politicians. The lawsuit is an attempt to push back against a since-postponed deposition of Jones that the lawsuit indicates was originally scheduled for Dec. 18.

“Jones has offered to submit documents and answer written questions with written responses,” the lawsuit says. “The Select Committee has refused to accept that offer and insists that he appear in person for a deposition in Washington, D.C. on January 10, 2022. Jones has notified the Select Committee that he intends to plead his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.”

In the case, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jones accuses the defendants of launching “coercive secret proceedings specifically designed to satiate a political witch hunt.” He also says the government is trying to “bypass constitutional safeguards” and “hijack the role of the Executive Branch while threatening criminal prosecution against anyone who dares to assert his rights and liberties against its demands.”

Elsewhere, the filing alleges that “House Democrats have repeatedly cast themselves as victims in a tragedy.” It asserts that the Committee’s purpose is merely “revenge on Donald Trump and his political allies” and claims Democrats hatched the revenge plot “while still huddled in a Congressional safe room” on Jan. 6.

“[T]hey clearly contemplated criminal charges against Donald Trump and his allies regardless of whether they had a basis for them,” the lawsuit alleges as to the Democrats.

In the lawsuit, Jones describes himself as a “controversial American journalist, political commentator, activist, and businessman.” He describes the Jan. 6 Committee as “a congressional committee ostensibly organized and operating under cloak of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives.” He calls Rep. Elizabeth L. Cheney , one of the named defendants, “purportedly a Republican” — an assertion upon which the lawsuit elucidates elsewhere:

A question exists as to whether Defendant Cheney is still a member of the Republican Party. The Wyoming Republican Party has expelled her as a member, and Chairman Thompson’s act of appointing her to the position of Vice Chair confirms under House Rules that she is a member of the Democrat party because House Rule XI(2)(d) states that vice chairs are to be members of the majority party.

The lawsuit further alleges that “questions” of voter fraud following the November 2020 presidential election were “all fairly prompted by the first mass mail-in voting presidential election.” It complains that “Speaker [ Nancy ] Pelosi has only appointed 9 members to the Select Committee” despite a mandate to appoint 13 members. The lawsuit explains:

Speaker Pelosi’s actions both flout the requirements of H. Res. 503 and longstanding House practices. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy recommended five Republican members to serve on the Select Committee as H. Res. 503: Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, and Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas. He designated Rep. Banks as the Republican’s Party’s ranking minority member.

Speaker Pelosi did not appoint any of Leader McCarthy’s recommendations. In a public statement on July 21, 2021, she stated that objections had been raised about Representatives Banks and Jordan and the fact that their presence on the Select Committee may impact the “integrity of the investigation.” Instead, she indicated a willingness to appoint Representatives Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls, and she asked him to recommend two additional members. She characterized her decision as “unprecedented.”

The lawsuit goes on to complain that the rules require the Committee to give three days of notice to the ranking minority member before taking a deposition. Since there is no ranking minority member, the lawsuit argues that any deposition sought and taken by the Committee violates the rules.

It further alleges that the Jan. 6 Committee was primarily empaneled to pursue criminal prosecutions — an alleged encroachment on the constitutional powers of the executive branch.

The Select Committee has no intention of preparing reports for the purposes of future legislation, nor does it have any authority to propose and report legislation to the full House of Representatives.

The Select Committee and its members consider themselves and most of the other members of Congress victims of domestic terrorism. They also consider a small minority of Congressmen and Senators as well as Donald Trump to be domestic terrorists.

The Select Committee and its members purport to be investigating “a domestic terrorist attack,” and Select Committee members have littered the public record with comments indicating that they are primarily working to expose matters for the mere sake of exposing them and to secure individual determinations of guilt or innocence – an activity squarely within the providence of the Article II executive and the Article III judiciary.

The lawsuit says Jones plans to invoke his “First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights” to “decline to produce” the full array of documents requested by the Committee. The filing asserts that Jones “engaged in constitutionally protected political and journalistic activity under the First Amendment, that the Fourth Amendment guarantees him a right of privacy in his papers, and that he is entitled to due process and the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.”

The lawsuit then complains that the Committee “has requested virtually every phone call and text that Jones made for the requested time period and data associated with those phones calls and texts” via a subpoena to AT&T.

Jones “seriously considered” cooperating with the Committee, the lawsuit claims, but then suggests that Jones backed down because Committee “members have made it abundantly clear that they are only interested in prosecuting political adversaries.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Committee’s attempt to obtain documents and a deposition from Jones violates Article I, §§ 1, 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the Separation of Powers, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Stored Communications Act 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (with respect to the AT&T records). The suit seeks a series of declarative judgments that would generally stymie the Committee’s work, including a judgment that the Committee “is not a lawfully constituted committee and that its actions to date have been wholly without legal authority.” It also seeks “[a]n injunction prohibiting Defendants from imposing sanctions,” an injunction quashing a subpoena against Jones, and in junction prohibiting sanctions against AT&T. Finally, Jones seeks costs and attorneys’ fees.

Jones is represented by New Haven, Conn. attorneys Norm Pattis and Cameron Atkinson .

Read the 29-page lawsuit and its cache of associated exhibits here .

Alex Jones, Roger Stone and a Trump spokesman were subpoenaed by the House panel probing the Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:18:17 GMT

CNBC Article

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot issued subpoenas to a spokesman for former President Donald Trump, Republican political operative Roger Stone and conspiracy monger Alex Jones, as well as two other people allegedly connected to that day’s events

Taylor Budowich, the Trump spokesman, reportedly helped advertise the rally outside of the White House where the then-president spoke right before the riot, in which hundreds of his supporters broke into the Capitol.

Stone originally had been slated to speak at that event, and the Infowars host Jones reportedly was involved in organizing the rally, the committee said in a press release Monday evening.

The other people newly issued subpoenas by the House panel are Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lawrence, a couple who reportedly organized multiple post-election rallies that pushed the false narrative that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump.

The House panel says the five new subpoena recipients who have been asked for testimony and documents are believed to have knowledge of the plans and funding for the rallies in Washington on Jan. 6 that preceded the storming of the Capitol.

“We believe the witnesses we subpoenaed today have relevant information and we expect them to cooperate fully with our effort to get answers for the American people about the violence of January 6th,” select committee chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in the press release.

In a statement posted to his website, Stone said he has not yet been served the subpoena and has not seen the details of what the committee wants him to provide to the probe.

“I have said time and time again that I had no advance knowledge of the events that took place at the Capitol on that day,” Stone’s statement said. “After the subpoena is served and after my counsel reviews the requests, I will make the determination of how I will proceed.”

Responding to a request for comment, Stone, a self-proclaimed “dirty trickster,” told CNBC: “Sorry I only respond to inquiries from legitimate news reporters. You don’t qualify.”

Jones’ lawyer Norman Pattis told NBC News in a statement that “the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Congress’s attempt to chill ordinary Americans in the exercise of these rights is terrifying.”

“We will be in touch with Committee staff to determine what our next steps will be,” Pattis said.

Stockton and Lawrence in a statement said, “We aren’t surprised by that the committee issued us subpoenas and have been expecting them. We are concerned that the timing during the week of Thanksgiving, while most normal business is closed, is further demonstration that this committee is not acting in good faith.”

“In the many months since January 6th we have granted many reporters and outlets extensive on-the-record interviews because we are committed to getting to the truth about what happened,” the couple said. “We remain committed to that transparency and pray for the opportunity to share our experiences to the public without the taint of misinformation that has become customary.”

The bipartisan House panel is tasked with investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding the Capitol invasion, when Trump’s supporters temporarily blocked Congress from confirming President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.

The committee has sought the cooperation of dozens of witnesses and has subpoenaed a growing list of Trump’s current and former allies and associates.

The panel referred Steve Bannon, Trump’s former senior White House advisor, for contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena to him.

Bannon’s attorney based his noncompliance on Trump’s claims of executive privilege over the information requested by the panel. The full House later voted to hold Bannon in contempt, and a federal grand jury on Nov. 12 indicted him on two counts of contempt of Congress .

Bannon has pleaded not guilty . Trump sued to block the committee from obtaining reams of records from when Trump was president.

The committee has also subpoenaed Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and his former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany , among many others. The panel has threatened to advance criminal contempt proceedings for Meadows , who has refused to comply with his subpoena.

Jones last week was held liable in a civil lawsuit for defamation , filed by family members of victims in the Sandy Hook school massacre. Jones had claimed the event was a “hoax,”

Stone was pardoned by Trump in December for his conviction for lying to Congress.

He had reportedly said he was planning to “lead a march to the Capitol” from the rally for Trump, according to the House committee.

Roger Stone, Alex Jones subpoenaed by House Jan. 6 committee

Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:10:44 GMT

The House Jan. 6 select committee issued five more subpoenas Monday related to its ongoing investigation into the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Two of the five subpoenas went out to longtime informal Trump adviser Roger Stone and InfoWars host Alex Jones .

"The Select Committee is seeking information about the rallies and subsequent march to the Capitol that escalated into a violent mob attacking the Capitol and threatening our democracy," said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., the panel's chairman, in a statement.

"We need to know who organized, planned, paid for, and received funds related to those events, as well as what communications organizers had with officials in the White House and Congress. We believe the witnesses we subpoenaed today have relevant information and we expect them to cooperate fully with our effort to get answers for the American people about the violence of January 6th."

The committee alleged in a press release that Stone was in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, and "was slated" to speak at the rally on the Ellipse preceding the Capitol breach. It also said he "solicited support to pay for security through the website stopthesteal.org."

Stone also allegedly remarked that he planned to "lead a march to the Capitol" from the Ellipse, the Jan. 6 panel said.

"I have said time and time again that I had no advance knowledge of the events that took place at the Capitol on that day," Stone said in a statement on his website. "Any statement, claim, insinuation, or report alleging, or even implying, that I had any involvement in or knowledge, whether advance or contemporaneous, about the commission of any unlawful acts by any person or group in or around the U.S. Capitol or anywhere in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, is categorically false."

Regarding Jones, the panel said the InfoWars founder helped organize the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse, claiming he was told by the White House to lead a march to the Capitol. It also said he "repeatedly promoted unsupported allegations of election fraud."

Norman Pattis, lawyer for Jones, said "the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Congress’s attempt to chill ordinary Americans in the exercise of these rights is terrifying," according to NBC News .

"We will be in touch with Committee staff to determine what our next steps will be," Pattis added.

In addition to Stone and Jones, Taylor Budowich was also subpoenaed. The panel said Budowich "reportedly solicited a 501c(4) organization to conduct a social media and radio advertising campaign encouraging attendance at the January 6th Ellipse rally and advancing unsupported claims about the result of the election."

Also swept into the latest subpoena wave were Dustin Stockton and his fiancé Jennifer Lawrence, who were also involved in the rallies, according to the panel.

"We aren’t surprised by that the committee issued us subpoenas and have been expecting them. We are concerned that the timing during the week of Thanksgiving, while most normal business is closed, is further demonstration that this committee is not acting in good faith," Stockton and Lawrence said in a statement.

"In the many months since January 6th we have granted many reporters and outlets extensive on-the-record interviews because we are committed to getting to the truth about what happened," the couple said. "We remain committed to that transparency and pray for the opportunity to share our experiences to the public without the taint of misinformation that has become customary."

The subpoenas demanded records and testimony by mid-December.

The subpoenas come three weeks after the committee issued six others to Trump associates, including Michael Flynn , who were allegedly involved in efforts to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 presidential election or overturn it.

Alex Jones' CT attorneys call for removal of judge in Sandy Hook case for appearance of 'impropriety'

Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:28:11 GMT

New Haven Register Article

High-profile New Haven attorney Norm Pattis and another lawyer defending extremist Alex Jones against defamation lawsuits from Sandy Hook families want the Connecticut judge removed from the case for “the appearance of judicial impropriety.”

“The evolution of the case, including a threat made against Judge Bellis by an unknown third-party that the plaintiffs somehow attribute to defendants, and the series of subsequent comments and rulings, would lead a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances to question Judge Bellis’ impartiality,” writes Jones’ attorney Jay Wolman in a 28-page motion to state Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis on Tuesday. “Judge Bellis’ rulings …demonstrate a high degree of antagonism towards defendants.”

Pattis agrees in his own 28-page affidavit , submitted Wednesday to Bellis.

“Inconsistent rulings, raising an inference that Judge Bellis is prejudice against the Jones defendants, would lead a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances to question Judge Bellis’ impartiality,” Pattis writes.

The move by Jones to disqualify Bellis and have his Connecticut defamation case moved to another judge follows a two-hour hearing on Wednesday, when Bellis promised to sanction Jones again in November, and consider other sanctions, including entering a default judgment against him.

Bellis responded to Jones’ motion to recuse her by scheduling dates on the court calendar to hear arguments from both sides.

On Thursday, attorneys for the seven families and an FBI agent suing Jones for calling the 2012 massacre of 26 first-graders and educators “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax,” and “completely fake with actors” declined to comment on the effort to remove Bellis.

Jones’ motion to remove Bellis is the latest example of how five defamation cases against him by Sandy Hook families in Connecticut and Texas have been more about fighting court procedure than arguing Jones’ defense under the First Amendment .

Meanwhile a hearing is planned on Monday in Texas, where the parents of two slain Sandy Hook children won three defamation cases against Jones in late September, when the judge defaulted him for “flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules.”

In Connecticut, Pattis and Jones’ other attorney are trying to remove Bellis for three reasons:

Her handling of a threat against her made in the comments section of a news story on Jones’ Infowars website

Her handling of sanctions she imposed on Jones after his “ blood on the streets ” broadcast, which deprived him the chance to pursue a special motion to dismiss that he considers important to his defense

Her handling of defense arguments after the state Supreme Court upheld her sanctions against Jones

“Although the decisions of Judge Bellis were affirmed on appeal, her actions to that point nonetheless created the appearance of bias,” Wolman writes in his motion to dismiss the judge.

Alex Jones' lawyers won't get to question Hillary Clinton in Sandy Hook defamation case. Here's why.

Thu, 05 Aug 2021 20:57:18 GMT

News Times Article

Alex Jones’ high profile New Haven attorney Norm Pattis won’t be allowed to question Hillary Clinton in the defamation case brought by eight Sandy Hook families in state Superior Court, a judge has ruled.

After weighing Pattis’ argument that the families’ defamation case against Jones is “part of a vendetta…directed in whole or in part by Hillary Clinton,” and the families’ attorney’s argument that the request to depose Clinton was “illogical and groundless,” Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis issued a one-word decision.

Denied.

Christopher Mattei, an attorney for the families who in court papers last month called the request to question Clinton “ a publicity stunt in service of a new conspiracy theory spun by Alex Jones,” declined to comment on Bellis’ ruling Thursday.

Pattis, who argued in court papers in July that Clinton, the former Secretary of State and presidential candidate, wanted to silence Jones’ “vitriolic criticism” of her after she lost the 2016 presidential race to Donald Trump, said he still wanted to question Clinton after the judge’s denial.

“We’re calling on Hillary to voluntary appear in Connecticut,” Pattis said. “We have questions.”

Clinton did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.

Jones, an extremist who has previously promoted hoaxes on his Texas-based internet broadcast Infowars, is being sued in Connecticut and in Texas for calling the 2012 massacre of 26 first-graders and educators at Sandy Hook School “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax,” and “completely fake with actors.”

The Texas cases are separate from the two defamation cases in Connecticut.

Jones through his attorneys says he no longer believes the worst crime in Connecticut history was a hoax, and that the First Amendment gives him the right to be wrong .

In an argument filed on Tuesday in Connecticut- one day before Bellis’ denial - Pattis and fellow Jones attorney Jay Wolman accused the families of singling out Jones among “all ‘Sandy Hook Truthers’” because of Jones’ “role in Mr. Trump’s victory over Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.”

“If the true motivation for the instant matter was that the plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of “Sandy Hook Truthers” questioning the narrative produced by the politicization of this tragic shooting, then why are Mr. Jones and related defendants the sole target of the plaintiffs’ fury…?” Jones’ attorneys wrote.

Mattei and lawyers for the families in Connecticut argued in mid July that the request to question Clinton was “frivolous and intended to achieve objectives unrelated to the merits of this litigation.”

“(Clinton) has no relation whatsoever to this case, and her deposition could only be abusive, harassing, and an undue burden - on both Ms. Clinton and the plaintiffs - with no likelihood of producing any admissible evidence,” Mattei wrote.

It’s the latest development in a Connecticut case that’s been in the headlines recently.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Jones’ appeal of sanctions he received in 2019 after he went on the air with Pattis and was accused of threatening Mattei with a “ blood on the streets ” rant.

In June, Bellis threatened more sanctions , including a default judgment against Jones, unless his attorneys turned over long-overdue pretrial documents to the families.

Alex Jones' attorney is trying to subpoena Hillary Clinton in Connecticut court in Sandy Hook defamation case

Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:36:22 GMT

New Haven Register Article

Alex Jones, an extremist who has previously promoted hoaxes on his Texas-based internet broadcast, has asked a Connecticut judge to subpoena Hillary Clinton, claiming she is behind a group of Sandy Hook families suing him for defamation.

Norm Pattis, one of Jones’ attorneys, said Clinton wanted revenge for Jones’ “vitriolic criticism” of her on his Infowars program.

“The defendants in this case believe that this suit was filed six years after the shootings at Sandy Hook as part of a vendetta inspired, orchestrated and directed in whole or in part by Hillary Clinton,” Pattis wrote in state Superior Court. “(It’s) part of a vendetta to silence Alex Jones after Ms. Clinton lost the presidential race to Donald J. Trump.”

Christopher Mattei, an attorney for the families, responded in court on Tuesday with a motion to sanction Jones, calling the request to depose Clinton “frivolous” and “abusive.”

“It appears to be a publicity stunt in service of a new conspiracy theory spun by Alex Jones filed for the abusive purpose of deposing a highly prominent person who has no relation to the case,” Mattei wrote.

Eight families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook massacre are suing Jones for calling the slaying of 26 first-graders and educators in 2012 “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax,” and “completely fake with actors.”

Jones in court papers says he no longer believes the worst crime in Connecticut history was a hoax, and that the First Amendment gives him the right to be wrong.

Jones is being sued for defamation by other Sandy Hook families in separate cases in Texas, but the Connecticut case has been making the headlines recently. In April, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Jones’ appeal of sanctions he received in 2019 after he went on the air with Pattis and threatened an attorney representing the Connecticut families with a “blood on the streets” rant.

In the latest pretrial motion, Pattis argues that Clinton has a direct connection with Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who is suing Jones.

“It is clear as a matter of public record, that Erica Lafferty, the lead plaintiff in this case, was invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Ms. Lafferty was also praised thereafter by Hillary Clinton,” Pattis writes. “The defendants intend to ask Ms. Clinton about her endorsement of Ms. Lafferty in 2016, the factors that led Ms. Lafferty to be invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention, and what role, if any, Ms. Clinton or those working under her direction had in directing the plaintiffs to the same firm in this case.”

Clinton and Lafferty were not immediately available on Tuesday morning to comment.

“Although Mr. Jones made certain statements about Sandy Hook as early 2012, and largely stopped making claims about Sandy Hook in the years thereafter, the plaintiffs in this action waited until 2018 to bring the instant action,” Pattis wrote. “The litigation is brought and pursued in bad faith as part of a partisan effort to silence Mr. Jones for reasons wholly independent of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.”

Alex Jones argues 'blood on the streets' rant against attorney of Newtown families was protected free speech

Wed, 03 Mar 2021 20:48:15 GMT

News Times Article

Extremist Alex Jones has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his “ blood on the streets ” rant against an attorney representing families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting was protected free speech.

Norm Pattis, the high-profile New Haven attorney, calls the sanction Jones received in trial court after his 2019 rant an “unprecedented attack on freedom of speech” and a “direct, frontal assault on the First Amendment itself” because what Jones said did not constitute a legal threat.

“(Jones’) views on the judicial process and the conduct of its various participants are core political speech protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether he expresses them with Shakespearean eloquence or with quintessential American vim and vigor,” Pattis wrote in the appeal. “Courts are not above the Constitution. They can transgress on constitutional liberties just as readily as the legislative or executive branches, particularly when they regulate the speech of those subject to their jurisdiction.”

Jones’ appeal to the highest court in the country aims to overturn a decision by state Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis to deny Jones what he considers a key line of defense in a defamation lawsuit brought against him by an FBI agent and six families who lost loved ones in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

Bellis’ sanction, which was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court in July, came after the Texas-based businessman went on his Infowars broadcast with Pattis and claimed someone had embedded child pornography in Jones’ emails that were turned over to Sandy Hook families as part of the pretrial discovery process.

Transcripts from Jones’ June 14, 2019, Infowars broadcast quote Jones singling out Chris Mattei, one of the families’ attorneys at Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport, and saying, among other things, “[I]f they want war — you know, it’s not a threat. It’s like an AC/DC song. If you want blood, you’ve got it. Blood on the streets, man.”

Pattis argues in Jones’ appeal that his call-to-arms was “overwhelmingly hyperbolic” and “the only threat, if any, that Mr. Jones levied at opposing counsel was that of legal action.”

By Wednesday, the families had not filed a response to Jones’ appeal. Mattei expressed confidence in the lower courts’ rulings.

“Court after court has concluded that Jones has engaged in a ‘whole picture of bad faith litigation’ against the Sandy Hook plaintiffs,” Mattei told Hearst Connecticut Media on Wednesday. “We expect the United States Supreme Court to see it the same way and deny the petition.”

Jones’ appeal is the latest development in a handful of defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by families who lost loved ones in 2012, when a gunman shot his way into a locked Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed 26 first-graders and educators.

Jones, who called the worst crime in Connecticut history “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax,” and “completely fake with actors” has said in court that he no longer denies that the shooting happened.

Jones was last in the headlines in January after the highest court in Texas rejected appeals by Jones to dismiss lawsuits brought by two fathers of children killed in the school shooting.

Jones’ appeal marks the second time in as many years that an appeal involving Sandy Hook families has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In late 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the former gunmaker Remington to throw out a wrongful death lawsuit brought by 10 Sandy Hook families. Less than a year later, Remington was sold off in bankruptcy court.

It was too soon on Wednesday to say whether the U.S. Supreme Court would take up Jones’ appeal.

“[I]f this Court does not intervene,” Pattis wrote, “it will permit litigants to silence the unpopular speakers’ constitutionally protected speech just because those speakers have been sued.”

www-pattispazlaw-com-full-site

What Recent January 6 Case Developments Mean for Federal Criminal Defense

What Is Seditious Conspiracy?

Why This Development Matters

The Importance of Early Defense Strategy

Federal Criminal Law Is Always Evolving

Facing Federal Charges?

What Is the Trial Tax in Criminal Cases?

What Is the Trial Tax?

Why Does the Trial Tax Exist?

What Happens If You Go to Trial and Lose?

Should You Always Take a Plea Deal?

Key Takeaway

FAQs

What Is a Garvin Agreement in Connecticut?

What Is a Garvin Agreement?

How Does a Garvin Agreement Work?

What Happens If You Violate a Garvin Agreement?

What Counts as a Violation?

Why Garvin Agreements Are Risky

Key Takeaway

FAQs

When Can Speech Become a Crime? Understanding First Amendment Limits

What Does the First Amendment Protect?

Can You Be Arrested for Something You Say?

When Do Courts Restrict Speech?

When Do Speech Restrictions Become a Legal Issue?

Why This Matters

FAQs

News Coverage: In-Custody Death at McDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

Content warning: The referenced news coverage may include disturbing descriptions or images.

Appellate Victory for Pattis & Paz: New Trial Ordered for Client

Victory in Bridgeport: Evidence Suppressed Under Plain Feel Doctrine

Ansonia Animal Cruelty Case Suspects Due In Court

Federal judge denies Kosta Diamantis’ request to question jurors

Walked In Facing Charges; Walked Out Free

Prosecution Rests Case in Federal Bribery Trial of Lamont’s Former State Deputy Budget Director

Prosecution Rests Case in Federal Bribery Trial of Lamont’s Former State Deputy Budget Director

“Bribes for influence”

Sowing doubt

Diamantis set to take the stand

Defense Attorney Norm Pattis Takes on Diamantis Bribery Case

Former State Budget Official Kosta Diamantis Prepares for Trial with Defense Attorney Norm Pattis

Ex-CT cop who served 2½ years for sexual assault before court's reversal gets 'unconditional release'

How Reliable Is DNA Evidence? A Criminal Defense Attorney Breaks It Down

1. DNA Reports Have Changed—And Not Always for the Better

From Alleles to Probabilities

2. Complex Mixtures: The Hidden Risk in DNA Evidence

What Are Complex Mixtures?

The Problem with Probability Modeling

3. When Is DNA Too Complex to Be Reliable?

The Case of the Two Guns

4. Challenging DNA Evidence: The Role of a Porter Hearing

What Is a Porter Hearing?

5. Lessons from Polygraph Tests: A Cautionary Tale

6. The Stakes Are High: DNA Evidence Can Make or Break a Case

DNA Evidence Isn’t Always What It Seems

Waterbury Woman Accused of Holding Stepson Captive Wants GPS Monitor Removed

Well-Known CT Attorney Norm Pattis Will Represent Waterbury Stepmom on Appeal of Bail Conditions

Navigating the Complexities of Stalking and Harassment Cases

Understanding Stalking and Harassment Charges

Mental Health and Legal Accountability

Challenges in Digital Evidence Cases

Achieving a Fair Resolution

Why Strong Legal Representation Matters

Pattis & Paz LLC Represents Family in MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution Homicide Case

Trump Commutes 17-year Prison Sentence for Volusia County Proud Boys Leader Joe Biggs

CT Lawyer Who Represented Proud Boys Leader in Jan. 6 Case 'Thrilled' by Trump Pardons

Understanding the Process of Accident Cases

Types of Accidents We Handle

The Initial Steps in an Accident Case

What Happens If a Settlement Cannot Be Reached?

Why Experience Matters in Accident Cases

The Litigation Process: What You Need to Know

Why You Shouldn’t Wait to Take Action

Contact ﻿ Pattis & Paz ﻿ Today

A Guide to Pistol Permits in Connecticut

Pistol Permits

How to Appeal the Denial of a Pistol Permit

How to Appeal the Revocation of a Pistol Permit

Contact Pattis & Paz Today

Contact Pattis & Paz LLC Today for Legal Guidance