KCC Law Firm

9/7/2010
Lauren Garrison

The domestic violence case against a Seymour police sergeant accused of beating his teenage son was dismissed Thursday.

Sgt. John D’Antona’s attorney said Thursday that if his client wasn’t a cop, “he never would have been arrested.”

Attorney E. Gregory Cerritelli of New Haven said this was a parental discipline case, and said it’s sad that parents can’t discipline their children without fear of arrest.

D’Antona was arrested in April on charges of risk of injury to a minor and third-degree assault, after an incident March 28 at D’Antona’s Ansonia home. According to the arrest warrant affidavit, D’Antona’s son told police that his father swore at him, threw him onto a recliner and hit him three or four times in the face.

The charges were later reduced to breach of peace.

In Superior Court Thursday, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Kevin Dunn entered a nolle in the case. He then agreed to Cerritelli’s request for a dismissal.

Cerritelli said that D’Antona only slapped his son once in the face.

Since his arrest, D’Antona and his children have gone to counseling, and D’Antona has attended parenting classes, Ceritelli told the judge. He said D’Antona has gained full custody of his sons.

After the judge dismissed the case, Cerritelli said D’Antona was looking forward to putting this behind him.

“He’s an excellent father and an outstanding police officer who’s enjoyed an unblemished 20-year career,” he said.

6/23/2010
AP

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld a decision overturning the conviction of a doctor accused of fondling female patients, ruling the cases should have been tried separately.

The high court ruled 5-2 Wednesday to uphold the state Appellate Court, which had ordered two separate trials for Dr. Sushil Gupta, a pulmonary physician who was convicted of fourth-degree sexual assault. Gupta, represented by attorneys Hugh Keefe and Tara Knight, was acquitted of charges he sexually assaulted a third woman.

The appeals court said combining the cases was unfair because the jury could use evidence from one case to convict Gupta in another case even though that evidence would have been inadmissible in a separate trial.

The high court agreed, saying combining the cases deprived Gupta of a fair trial.

6/17/2010
James Tinley

A Superior Court judge will decide this week whether to throw out criminal charges against a 61-year-old Ansonia woman accused of abusing her power of attorney to steal her elderly mother’s house and money.

If the prosecution goes forward against Donna D. Kingston, it will be the first time in the state someone was prosecuted for taking ownership of a house, even though a valid power of attorney gave that person the authority to do so, lawyers for both sides said.

Kingston sat silently in Superior Court in Milford as her New Haven lawyer, Tara Knight, and Senior State’s Attorney Charles M. Stango sparred over whether the three counts of first-degree larceny should reach a jury.

In arguing Tuesday in support of her motion to dismiss the charges, Knight said the proper venue for the case is a civil, not criminal court, which is why no precedent-setting criminal cases were found.

“You need to be the gatekeeper to keep a citizen from facing a 20-year felony for an alleged civil breach,” Knight told Judge William Holden.

Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Charles M. Stango said Kingston’s alleged actions fit the elements of larceny, and just because Kingston had the authority to put the house in her name and the ability to drain joint bank accounts she shared with her mother, it did not give her the right to do so against her mother’s wishes.

Kingston was granted power of attorney by her mother in 1981. The power of attorney was altered in 2008 to give Kingston “gift giving” power.

Shortly after gaining that power, and without notifying her mother or two sisters, Kingston transferred the house, appraised at $263,000, into her name, Stango said.

Kingston is also accused of abusing her power of attorney and status as a co-signatory on her then 88-year-old mother’s bank accounts to move about $72,000 into her own accounts in June and July 2007.

Both sisters have civil actions pending against Kingston.

Knight said Kingston has not spent any of the money.

In February, she opted to take the case to trial and rejected an offer to pay back all the money and put the house back in her mother’s name and enter into a probationary program for first-time, nonviolent offenders known as accelerated rehabilitation.

Although there is a past criminal case of someone being prosecuted for draining a joint bank account, only civil cases were found during research by both lawyers and the judge that apply to taking the house with a valid power of attorney.

“Just because a prosecutor hasn’t drafted and signed a warrant before, doesn’t mean it’s not valid,” Stango said.

Knight, however, said there is good reason why this type of case has never been prosecuted, and alluded to the fact that one of Kingston’s sisters is married to John R. Whalen, a supervisory state’s attorney for the Statewide Prosecution Bureau of the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office, based in Rocky Hill. It was Whalen who brought the complaint to the Elder Abuse Unit, based in the same office building.

He has declined to comment to the New Haven Register.

“I just want to give judicial notice that it was Jack Whalen who got the ball rolling here,” Knight said.

This prompted Stango to jump up and say: “Here comes the conspiracy theory again!”

Holden said he will conduct more research and rule by Friday on whether to dismiss each charge individually.

If the case proceeds, jury selection is expected to begin July 15.

6/8/2010
Randall Beach

NEW HAVEN — Seeing problems with witnesses for the prosecution, Assistant State’s Attorney Stacey Haupt Friday worked out a plea bargain with defense attorney Tara Knight for Miguel Rivera-Ortiz to serve five years in prison in connection with the contract killing of Hector Salvania.

The agreement came after two weeks of jury selection for an intended trial that was to begin June 15 in Superior Court. Eleven jurors had been chosen.

Rivera-Ortiz, 27, formerly of 60 Chapel St., was brought before Judge Roland Fasano Friday and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit first-degree assault and hindering prosecution. Haupt agreed to drop the accessory to murder charge as well as a count of conspiracy to commit murder.

Knight said that when Rivera-Ortiz goes back before Fasano July 30, he will receive a 10-year prison sentence, to be suspended after he serves five years.

Asked why Rivera-Ortiz decided to accept the settlement rather than go to trial, Knight said, “He didn’t want to risk a 60-year prison sentence.”

Haupt confirmed late afternoon Friday that she had been concerned about the three witnesses.

“The state had a very difficult case logistically and otherwise,” she said. “It would have been very difficult proving this case and getting a conviction.”

“This is the best resolution,” she added. “The actual shooter, Raymond Barley, is doing four life sentences in Puerto Rico (for four murders). He was our main witness.”

Barley was fighting extradition from Puerto Rico to testify. He reportedly had told New Haven police that Rivera-Ortiz hired him to do the Salvania killing, which occurred July 28, 2007 on Atwater Street.

New Haven police said Barley came forward to implicate Rivera-Ortiz because the defendant failed to pay him the agreed amount for the hit. Salvania and Rivera-Ortiz allegedly were rival drug dealers in Puerto Rico and then in New Haven.

A second witness, Julio DeJesus, who was wounded in the attack that killed Salvania, is in prison in New Jersey. Haupt said DeJesus could not identify anybody in the Salvania shooting.

As for the third witness, Haupt said, “His credibility was questionable. He had changed his story on many occasions.”

Rivera-Ortiz is being held in lieu of $5 million bail.

6/5/2010
Republican American

Seeing problems with witnesses for the prosecution, Assistant State’s Attorney Stacey Haupt Friday worked out a plea bargain with defense attorney Tara Knight for Miguel Rivera-Ortiz to serve five years in prison in connection with the contract killing of Hector Salvania.

The agreement came after two weeks of jury selection for an intended trial that was to begin June 15 in Superior Court. Eleven Jurors had been chosen.

Rivera-Ortiz, 27, formerly of 60 Chapel St., was brought before Judge Roland Fasano Friday and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit first-degree assault and hindering prosecution. Haupt agreed to drop the accessory to murder charge as well as a count of conspiracy to commit murder.

Knight said that when Ricera-Ortiz goes back before Fasano July 30, he will receive a 10-year prison sentence, to be suspended after he serves five years.

Asked why Rivera-Ortiz decided to accept the settlement rather than go to trial, Knight said, “He didn’t want to risk a 60-year prison sentence.”

Haupt confirmed late afternoon Friday that she had been concerned about the three witnesses.

“The state had a very difficult case logistically and otherwise” - she said – “it would have been very difficult proving this case and getting a conviction.”

“This is the best resolution” – she added – “the actual shooter, Raymond Barley, is doing four life sentences in Puerto Rico (for four murders). He was our main witness.”

Barley was fighting extradition from Puerto Rico to testify. He reportedly had told New Haven police that Rivera-Ortiz hired him to do the Salvania killing, which occurred July 28, 2007 on Atwater Street.

New Haven police said Barley came forward to implicate Ricera-Ortiz because the defendant failed to pay him the agreed amount for the hit. Salvania and Rivera-Ortiz allegedly were rival drug dealers in Puerto Rico and then in New Haven.

A second witness, Julio DeJesus, who was wounded in the attacked that killed Salvania, is in prison in New Jersey. Haupt said DeJesus could not identify anybody in the Salvania shooting.

As for the third witness, Haupt said: “His credibility was questionable. He had changed his story on many occasions.” Rivera-Ortiz is being held in lieu of $5 million bail.

6/18/2009
Randall Beach

NEW HAVEN — Elaine and Mark Roslon did not want the young man whose drunken driving killed their 18-year-old son, Christopher Roslon, to serve a long prison sentence and so a Superior Court judge Wednesday granted their request.

Judge Earl Richards imposed a 10-year sentence for second-degree manslaughter with a motor vehicle but ruled the sentence will be suspended after James D. Jordan, 24, serves eight months. He also faces five years of probation.

Jordan, who had pleaded nolo contendere to manslaughter, faced additional charges of driving under the influence, possession of marijuana, use of drug paraphernalia and illegally providing liquor to minors. Those charges were nolled Wednesday.

Dressed in a blue shirt, gray tie and black pants, Jordan was somber throughout the sentencing hearing, during which he apologized to the Roslon family. Richards said Jordan’s remorse was another factor in deciding on the short prison term.

Richards noted Jordan was driving with his friend, Roslon, at about 4 a.m. July 29, 2007 in Woodbridge when Jordan lost control of the car and struck three trees. Roslon was thrown from the vehicle and hit his head on an oak tree.

Police said the two had left a party at Jordan’s nearby home where underage guests were drinking beer and hard liquor.

Richards noted Jordan’s blood alcohol level was 0.194, well above the legal limit of 0.08.

Elaine Roslon, a Shelton resident, was too upset to read her statement. Her cousin, Lee Skalkos, read it for her.

“Writing this letter about Chris is the second hardest thing I had to do in my life,” Roslon’s statement began. “The first was burying my son.”

She said Christopher was her only child. “He was more than a son to me; we were best friends too. ... He gave me guidance and he was my rock. He always told me everything will be OK.”

Defense attorney Gregory Cerritelli noted Jordan’s difficult youth, especially the death of his mother and two siblings in a fire at their Derby apartment when Jordan was eight. His father died of cancer eight years later and his aunt threw him out of her house. For a while he was homeless.

After the Roslons filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jordan, they reached a legal agreement and Jordan sold his home, giving a portion of the proceeds to the Roslons. He must make monthly payments to them for 40 years.

In a quiet, shaky voice, Jordan described “how sorry I am. Not a day goes by when I don’t feel bad for the family. It was a really, really stupid mistake, obviously.”

Richards noted Elaine Roslon favored prison time of just 6-12 months and Mark Roslon didn’t want Jordan to serve any time. He instead wanted Jordan to receive “proper guidance” so the tragedy is never repeated.

As Jordan was being handcuffed and led away by marshals, Richards told him, “You should consider yourself fortunate.” He said if the parents had sought years of prison, “you’d be going to jail for a far longer period of time. You should thank them and you should thank God.”

Mark Roslon, now living in Norwalk, said afterward, “I thought putting him in prison wouldn’t do anything. Jail for a person like that could make a decent person come out hardened.”

Elaine Roslon said she felt sorry for Jordan but that some prison time was necessary.

8/12/2006
Stephen Rosenberg and Karen Kravetz

On October 12, 2006, the Connecticut Appellate Court convened an actual court session in the auditorium of New Haven's Wilbur Cross High School. This special event was the idea of the Honorable Lubbie Harper Jr., an Appellate Court judge who is a graduate of Wilbur Cross.

Students from New Haven's public high schools attended the arguments, which were presided over by a panel consisting of Judge Harper, Judge Chase Rogers and Judge Douglas Levine. The judges heard oral arguments in two criminal appeals, State of Connecticut v. Charlie Santiago, which involved a murder conviction, and State of Connecticut v. Kenneth Wells, which involved convictions for attempt to commit first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault.

After arguments for each case, the judges and court staff left the auditorium to allow the students to participate in a question and answer session with guest panelists Attorney Tara Knight, Professor Ronald Sullivan of Yale Law School, and Professor Timothy Everett of the University of Connecticut School of Law. The students also asked questions of the four attorneys who argued the cases: Lauren Weisfeld, Nancy Chupak, Glenn Falk and James Ralls.

The students prepared their questions with the help of the New Haven County Bar Association and local attorneys, who had visited classrooms on September 27th to teach the students about the court system, courtroom decorum, and the two cases that the Appellate Court would hear on October 12th.

This year, the NHCBA is celebrating over 100 years of serving local attorneys and the community. "Public education is and always has been a very important part of our mission", said Joseph L. Rini, NHCBA Immediate Past President and a member of the organizing committee. The idea for the event was created during Rini's year.

"This is one of the biggest events the NHCBA Public Service Committee has ever hosted and represents a wonderful collaboration between the Bar and high school teachers", stated Carolyn Kone, co-chair of the NHCBA Public Service Committee, event organizer and an attorney at Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman in New Haven.

In preparation for the Appellate Court event, the NHCBA collaborated with the Judge Harper and the Judicial Branch, twenty-six attorneys, fifteen law firms and legal organizations, thirteen high school teachers, professors from Yale, University of Connecticut and Quinnipiac University, and hundreds of students at ten area high schools.

NHCBA would like to thank the entire Appellate Court, and Judge Harper in particular, for providing the students with this wonderful learning experience. NHCBA would also like to thank the New Haven Public School system, the teachers at New Haven's high schools, and the attorneys who devoted their time and energy to this endeavor (see related box).

Finally, many thanks go to the members of the organizing committee, who spent hours pulling everything together: Rini, Kone, Karen Kravetz (Susman, Duffy & Segaloff), Rachel Mandel (Tyler Cooper), Stephen Rosenberg (Murtha Cullina), and NHCBA staff member Martha Messier.

2/1/2006
Dirk Perrefort CT Post

MILFORD - An Ansonia man broke into tears Tuesday when a Superior Court judge acquitted him of charges that he conspired with his wife to embezzle nearly $500,000 from an elderly man.

Wilbert Howard, 56, wept as Judge Brian Fischer ruled there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find him guilty of felony charges that he conspired with this wife, Linda, a home health care worker, to swindle the life savings of Ansonia resident David Seymour.

The prosecution had accused Howard of cashing several checks, worth at least $25,000 each, that his wife had allegedly endorsed the using of a rubber stamp of the victim's signature. Howards's attorney, Tara Knight of New Haven, presented a motion of acquittal shortly after the state rested its case against her client Tuesday.

"The state was unable to meet its burden of proof," Knight said. "There was no evidence presented that my client had any criminal attempt."

Knight described her client as a simple and quiet man who was not involved in the household finances. She said Linda Howard told her husband that the money was advance payment for her services as a home health care worker for Seymour, who was in his early 80s and suffering from Parkinson's disease when he was allegedly bilked of his savings.

Linda Howard continues to face several charges in connection with the allegations,including first degree larceny. The six-member jury is expected to begin deliberations on the case today.

The state alleges that Linda Howard stole nearly $500,000 from Seymour, who died destitute in 2004, at the hospital after all his accounts had been cleaned out, court documents state.

Seymour's niece, Claudia Sinal, testified earlier in the trial that restraining straps were found in her uncle's home, suggesting that Linda Howard had mistreated him. She also told the jury her uncle's house was in shambles.

Deputy Assistant State's Attorney Annemarie Braun, who is prosecuting the case, declined to comment while the case is pending.

6/16/05
Michelle Tuccitto

A triple shooting sparked by a divorce case left few in the legal community surprised Wednesday - as many said family court is vastly more contentious and emotional than most criminal cases.

Retired state trooper Michael Bochicchio Jr. fatally shot his estranged wife, Donna, serious wounded her Waterbury-based attorney, Julie Prozio, then shot himself outside a Middletown courthouse.

The couples' divorce action, filed by Michael Bochicchio in 2003, had been a battleground over issues of child custody, alimony, and protective orders, court records show.

Those in the legal community had few ideas for what could be done to prevent similar tragedies.

Attorney Terry Donovan of Old Saybrook, who practices family law extensively, said family court is extremely volatile, with good people at their worst

"I'm not surprised to see this happen, and you hear of it around the country," Donovan said Wednesday. "I don't have a solution other than outlawing guns, which I doubt will happen."

No attorney is listed on the Judicial Branch website as representing Michael Bochicchio.

According to Donovan, representing yourself in a contentious family or divorce case can make matters worse, the pressure higher

"They can get over their heads trying to represent themselves," Donovan said.

Attorney Tara Knight, whose office is in New Haven, said she believes Wednesday's tragedy is an isolated incident, but she has experienced the high emotions of family court.

While Knight handled family cases years ago, she decided to go with criminal defense instead.

"I feel more sade in the criminal arena rather than family court," said Knight. "The emotions in family court can be overwhelming. Family court is more dangerous in general, because people are dealing with custody, visitation rights and betrayals. Sometimes those factors add up to explosions."

1/15/01
Kellie A Wagner, CT Law Tribune

Criminal defense attorney Tar Knight likes to keep it real. After all, she thinks of herself as somone working to "get regular people out of trouble."

But the attorney from Knight, Conway and Cerritelli in New Haven is anything but your average criminal defense counsel, according to Mickey Sherman and Hugh Keefe, who are often caught in, or step into the spotlight while defending high profile cases like Beth Ann Carpenter, Michael Skakel, or Peter Reily.

"Some say she [Knight] is up and coming," Keefe said. "But she has arrived. She has a golden future in this profession."

Maybe it's Knight's friendly smile or petite figure that makes her so approachable, but those who have worked with her during her 10-year career as a criminal defense attorney don't think of her as just another pretty face in the legal field.

"Tara's problem/asset is that she doesn't look like a criminal lawyer," Sherman said of the 35-year old attorney. "She has to fight every day to be taken seriously. What people have to understand is that Knight is an excellent criminal lawyer, ad detailed persona and a law person - unlike classic hip-shooters like myself."

For all the praise from her male counterparts in criminal defense law, Knight, a graduate of Suffolk Law School in Boston confirmed that getting others to respect her work has been a challenge.

After working for three years with the firm of Nathanson and Cipriano in Hamden, Knight said she started her own firm in an office overlooking reailroad tracks and equipped with only a fax machine and a telephone, in an effort to be more independent and to focus on solely criminal work.

She began talking to bondmen, and going to courts regularly, to get an idea of who might need representation. Knight also requested felony cases as a special public defender, and joined numerous criminal defense organizations

Keefe, who has consulted with Knight on past cases, including the Beth Ann Carpenter case, recently asked Knight to join him as co-counsel again - this time on behalf of Peter Reilly.

Members of the state police continue to examine DNA evidence in the murder of Reilly's mother, Barbara Gibbons, who was killed in New Canaan in 1973.

Public Safety Commissioner Arthur Spada recently sat down with Knight, Keefe and Reilly, who was first convicted then exonerated in Gibbon's death.

"Arthur Spada couldn't have been more accomodating," Knight said. "He went above and beyond his call of duty. I know Peter is very happy with all of the developments."

Although no killer has ever been gound since Reilly was cleared, the now 45-year old musician claims he knows how his mother's killer was. And he has had a tense relationship with state police over the past two years as he has tried to have hairs found in his mother's hand tested by new technology. The department has agreed to have further testing done.

Keefe said he asked Knight to serve as co-counsel for Reilly in part because of her incredible media-savvy. Knight is almost as much a regular on Court TV as "Mickey" Sherman is.

Rikki Klieman, an anchor with Court TV and a criminal defense attorney practicing in Boston, praised Knight's work.

"Tara Knight is one of the most commited people to fight for (her clients)," Kliemann said. "It is a deep-seated commitment that is not a joke."

Meanwhile, Knight is scheduled to make another appearance on national television. She, along with Keefe and Reilly, was recently interviewed by A&E about the unsolved Gibbons murder for an upcoming spot on the cable channel.

11/11/02
Tara Knight

I recently tried a case where a police officer identified my client as the individual who sold her a piece of crack cocaine. She was certain, of course. This was despite the face that the transaction took 30 seconds, part of which time she spent studying my clients feet, so much so, that she could describe to the jury , in great detail, the stitching on his shoes.

She was certain, of course, despite the fact that she was a rookie cop acting undercover in a high crime area and admittedly under a lot of stress. She was certain even though her identification of my client in a photo spread took place three weeks after "the buy."

Implausible? To me - yes. To the jury - no. After all, she was certain.

The "vagaries of eyewitness identification," which were written about by the US Supreme Court in a 1967 decision, US vs Wade, are well known, at least to criminal defense lawyers and to those who study the subject in depth.

Consider the State vs Ronald Cotton, a September 15, 1991 decision from North Caroline. In 1984, Jennifer Thompsonm then a 22-year old college student with a 4.0 grade point average, was raped at knife point. At trial, she testified that during the ordeal she studied her attacker's face, enabling her to identify him from photos at the police station several days later. She was 100 percent positive. No doubt in her mind.

The problem was that DNA evidence exonerated Ronald Cotton after he spent 11 years in prison. Afterward, Thompson not only acknowledged her mistake, she also lectured about her experience.

So what's a lawyer to do when faced with someone, especially a police officer or a sympathetic victim, who is "certain" of his or her observations?

Defense attorneys can and do file the requisite motions to suppress. But unless the identification procedure is set up in an egregious fashion, there are blatant disparities in suspect's appearances or the police are caught on tape coaching a witness, motions to suppress are rarely granted.

Defense attorneys can request cautionary instructions from the judge or special jury instructions from the judge or special jury instructions at the end of the case that explain the weaknesses of eyewitness identification.

Typical jury instructions ask the jury when assessing witnesses testimony, to consider how confident each witness was when makin his or her identification. This instruction actually is contrary to the belief among psychologists familiar with the subject that confidence does not guarantee accuracy.

It is now all too clear that when an eye-witness's identification is the centerpiece of the prosecution's case, the defense must offer expert testimony on the subject. This is more difficult, however, than it should be.

The cast number of trial judges are hostile to defense counsels' attempts to educate juries about the "vagaries" of eyewitness identifications. They routinely exclude such evidence on the grounds that the assessment of the reliability of an eyewitness's identification is within the jury's common knowledge

The problem with eyewitness identification testimony is that what a witness says is true because the witness saw the event with her own eyes is most likely to be believed by juries, yet actually may turn out to be unreliable. During cross-examination, eyewitnesses should be asked: How far away was the witness? Were there obstacles obstructing the view? What were the lighting conditions? Does the witness have poor eyesight? What was the duration of the observation?

What's not as well known is that, according to the scholarly literature, there is no correlation between the confidence a witness expresses and the accuracy of his or her identification. High stress reduces accuracy. And studies show that even if a witness view a suspect for a lengthy period of time, if there are corrupting factors, the witness may not remember it accurately.

Experts have found that there is a decreased accuracy in the identification of a suspect of one racial group by a witness of another racial group. Accuracy also decreases when a weapon is present. And an initial identification by a witness may influence that same witness's later identifications

Susan Haigh - New Haven Register

Contending that the death penalty is unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayer's money, a statewide association of defense attorneys urged Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the state legislature on Thursday to stop this month's execution of serial killer Michael Ross

The 300 member Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association wants the legislature to abolish the death penalty. The group also is asking state residents to contact their lawmakers to act before the scheduled Jan. 26 execution.

"The system is broken. It makes mistakes... This is what's going to happen when we start killing people," New Haven attorney Hugh Keefe said.

Keefe said defense attorneys know firsthand about the mistakes made in Connecticut's criminal justice system. nearly every one of the 50 lawyers at the state Capitol news conference raised their hand when Keefe asked whether they've had an innocent client wrongly arrested or convicted.

But Rell is standing by her decision not to grant Ross a reprieve.

Michelle Tuccito - New Haven Register

A Superior Court Judge on Friday dismissed a disorderly conduct charge against the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had been arrested for obstructing traffic at a Yale University strike in December.

Superior Court Judge Stuart Bear also dropped the charges against two of Jackson's fellow demonstrators, the Rev. Scott Marks and the Rev. William David Lee.

The state's attorney's office had entered a nolle in the cases, which means it didn't plan to pursue the charges, but had the option of reopening the cases within 13 months.

However, Bear granted a defense motion to dismiss the charges entirely.

"In Dr. Martin Luther King's tradition, there are times when you must be willing to use your body as a sacrifice," Jackson said as he was leaving the courthouse.

"Our intent was to eliminate the conditions of the workers, even if it mean serious sacrifice. We were willing to face the consequences. We ultimately were victorious in this round of the struggle." He said.

Jackson and other members of his Rainbow PUSH Coalition were arrested in September after leading thousands of marchers downtown.

Jackson was showing support for Yale University's striking union clerical, technical and service workers, who were fighting for better wages, job security and pensions.

In an act of civil disobedience, the group sat down and blocked the intersection of Elm and College streets. Police then arrested them.

The strike ended later in September, when unions ratified a new contract.

When asked about how many times he has been arrested during demonstrations of civil disobedience, Jackson said "it is in the double digits."

Several courthouse staff members of the public asked Jackson for his autograph and to shake his hand as he was leaving Friday.

Attorneys Hugh Keefe and Tara Knight have been representing the approximately 300 people who were arrested during the demonstrations. Most of the cases have been tossed out.

"I think it takes a certain amount of willpower and panache to be willing to get arrested, get handcuffed, get photographed and get booked - knowing you'll have to come back and face the charges," said Keefe.

"I know the union is very appreciative of all the people who were willing to submit to being arrested," he said.

Bob Proto, president of the Greater New Haven Labor Council and Local 35 of the federation of University Employees, expressed gratitude to everyone who helped out.

"I feel as though hundreds of workers, community and religious leaders made a great sacrifice in support of our cause to get good contracts," Proto said. "We are thankful for that outpouring of support. Rev. Jackson has always come when working people are in a struggle with their company."

With the cases being nolled and dismissed, the question remains - will there be any repercussions if demonstrators are disorderly or block traffic in the future?

Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Davide Newman, who handled the case in front of Bear Friday, could not be reached for comment.

New Haven police capt Stephen Verrelli, the head of the patrol division, said the department views itself as partners with the state's attorney's office and was in "no way annoyed, mildly or otherwise" at the charges being dropped.

"We did what we needed to do for public safety." he said Friday. "The court did what it needed to do."

Angel Pascopella - New Haven Register

Two West Haven youths may be heading for a trial this fall in Milford Superior Court on charges that they participated in a racially charged beating of a black teenager in March.

John Buonomo, 17, of Park Street, and Robert J. Cahill, 19, of Noble Street, appeared in court Tuesday with their attorneys and several family members. Both face charges of assault.

Tara L. Knight, attorney for Buonomo, said she rejected the State's Attorney's Office's offer for accelerated rehabilitation for her client. "He's completely innocent and he wasn't involved," Knight said after the court appearance.

Antonin Buonomo, Buonomo's father and a West Haven city Council member, sat with his son during the brief court appearance. he later proclaimed his son's innocence.

"I think the whole thing was blown way out of proportion," he said. "They got the wrong kids."

Their case was put on a trial list and bother were ordered to return to court on September 10th.

Assistant State's Attorney Kevin Lawlor said earlier that the judge saw enough evidence to proceed with the case. "They can complain all they want but the judge has found probable cause," he said.

The case stems from a March 28th assault on a 15 year old black New Haven boy, who was walking along Campbell Avenue with a 13 year old white West Haven girl. Six youths; four white and two black, were arrested and dace assault charges.

James Stevens, 18, and James Greco, 17, of Cottage Street, also appeared in court Tuesday in connection with the case. their cases were continued to Aug. 27.

The black youth, who has recovered, has claimed Greco used a racial epithet during the alleged beating, but Greco denied the allegations.

Greco, who was with his Attorney Richard W. Lynch Tuesday, was the only teenager charged under the state's hate crimes statute. But local civil rights leaders have said the beating underscores predominant racism in the city.

Stevens said before the court appearance that he never touched the black youth, although he was allegedly nearby.

"I know in my heart I didn't do nothing," he said.

William Kaempffer - New Haven Register

A day after a strip club owner said he'd close his establishment for good, police announced the arrest of a teenager in a slaying that occurred inside the nightspot.

Steven Gary, 17, of 112 Greenwood St. faces charges of murder, unlawful discharge of a firearm and reckless endangerment in the May 21 slaying of Ephraim Gilliard, 28. Te shooting happened at Live Wire, a dance club at 588 Ferry St. in Fair Haven.

Sgt. Bryan T. Norwood, head of detectives, said Gilliard was shot after an altercation inside the club but may not have been the intended target.

Gary was jailed Thursday at the Community Correctional Center in Bridgeport in lieu of $125,000 bond. Hew has been incarcerated since June 16th on other charges stemming from a violation of probation.

Police say Gilliard and Gary were at Live Wire during an after-hours party. Gary and another man allegedly got into a fight inside the club moments before the shooting. Police say Gary pulled out a handgun to retaliate and shot Gilliard by mistake.

"We feel it was unintended." Norwood said.

Announcement of the arrest came a day after Live Wire owner Jermain Fuller withdrew an appeal of a city order that forced him to shut down.

Fuller decided to stop fighting efforts by the city to keep the controversial club closed and hope instead to turn the building into affordable housing.

City officials have maintained the Live Wire's after-hours activities violate zoning laws. The club also has been criticized because three murders have occurred in or near it in the past decade ad neighbors say it attracts prostitutes and drug dealers.

The Gilliard slaying happened three days before a city cease-and-desist order would have closed the club.

Gary emerged as a suspect early in the case and was questioned by police two days after the killing.

Norwood said police secured a warrant for his arrest this week.

During the seven week investigation, he said, Detective Reginald E. Sutton interviewed a witness who identified Gary as the shooter. Detective Raphael Segarra Jr. also interviewed a series of witnesses "who led us to our conclusion," Norwood said.

Glenn M. Conway, whose firm represents the suspect, said Gary maintains his innocence.

Conway's partner, Tara L. Knight, has filed a police internal affairs complaint against the detective bureau, maintaining they forbade her from getting access to her client while police questioned Gary May 23rd.

She stated police "flat out denued me access to my client advising me that my client was not a minor and had not requested an attorney," according to her complaint.

"The continued interrogation of a ... 17 year old boy while counsel, at his mother's request, waited in the lobby of the police station is egregious," Knight wrote.

09/23/2009
City of Derby - Freedom of Information c

Allegations may be corroborated without rising to the level or probable cause that a crime has been committed and therefore not meet the Freedom of Information Act exemption for uncorroborated allegations found in CGS 1-210(b)(3)(G). E. Gregory Cerritelli requested a copy of police reports, affidavits, correspondence and dispatch cards related to a certain complaint from the City of Derby Police Department and its chief. The request was denied on the grounds that the records consisted of uncorroborated allegations that an individual had engaged in criminal activity that would be subject to destruction pusuant to CGS 1-216. Cerritelli appealed to the Freedom of Information Commission that reviewed the contested records in camera.

The FOIC found that the respondents prepared an arrest warrant based on the allegations set forth in the records but that the State's Attorney found a lack of probable cause. The respondents now consider the case to be closed. Looking to the dictionary definitions of "corroborate" and a prior Freedom of Information Act decision, the FOIC found that the in camera records contain accounts of incidents told to the respondents by different individuals and information that tends to strengthen, add weight and support the allegations made. Allegations may be corroborated without rising to the level of probably cause that a crime has been committed. The FOIC concluded that the records at issue did not contain uncorroborated allegations within the meaning of CGS 1-210(b)(3)(G) and were not permissibly exempt from disclosure under that provision. The respondents violated the disclosure of CGS 1-210(a) and 1-212(a) by denying the complainant's request and were directed to provide a free copy to the complainant.