Log In


Reset Password
Archive

Appeals Court Disturbed By State Court Practice

Print

Tweet

Text Size


Appeals Court Disturbed

By State Court Practice

By John Christoffersen

Associated Press

NEW HAVEN — A federal appeals court says it is disturbed by allegations that some prosecutors have long denied low-income defendants their right to arraignment and free legal representation when they first appear in court.

An attorney for an immigrant who objected to the practice says it results in many defendants failing to appear for their next court date, leading to more serious charges that are then used as leverage to pressure them into pleading guilty.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the attorney’s case last week, ruling that prosecutors have immunity.

“Not withstanding the foregoing rulings, this court is disturbed by the allegations of prosecutorial conduct at issue and by the state of Connecticut’s ostensible refusal in its brief and at oral argument to admit that were those allegations true, the practices would be, if not unconstitutional, likely illegal and certainly improper,” the court wrote.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he was pleased the court dismissed the case against prosecutors and was seeking information from them regarding court procedures in Bantam in Litchfield County where the case originated.

The appeals court ordered Blumenthal to report within 30 days on what steps have been taken to address the practice and “to ensure that they not continue in the future.”

The case involves Fortunato Garcia, a Torrington resident and legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic who discovered a wallet on Thanksgiving Day 2006 in Torrington. When Garcia learned the wallet belonged to a police officer, he turned it into the station but was arrested on a larceny charge, according to his attorney, Gabriel North Seymour.

When Garcia appeared in Bantam Superior Court on December 4, 2006, he was summoned to the office of a prosecutor who spoke to him briefly in Spanish and then sent him home, his attorney says. He never appeared in court for arraignment and was not told by a judge of his right to apply to be represented by a public defender, according to his attorney.

The prosecutor said she did advise Garcia to get a lawyer but did not recall if she told him of the availability of a public defender, according to Garcia’s attorney.

After Garcia left, the prosecutor called his case in court and adjourned it to January 5, 2007. Court records falsely indicated he was present in court, that he pleaded not guilty, requested a jury trial and was told by a judge to return January 5, according to his attorney.

When Garcia did not show up on January 5, his $1,000 bail was forfeited and a warrant was issued for failure to appear in court with a new bail of $5,000. Had Garcia appeared in court for his arraignment, he could have been represented by a public defender who would have made clear to him when to return to court and protected him from being arrested again, his attorney argued.

Garcia’s attorney quotes a prosecutor in a deposition saying that judges had directed him not to arraign first-time offenders in court to reduce their workload. His court papers quote a court clerk saying the practice had been going on for 17 years.

While the case focused on Bantam Superior Court, Garcia’s attorneys accused Connecticut prosecutors of overusing failure to appear charges to win plea deals, especially against low-income minority defendants. In 2006, there were 6,539 convictions for failure to appear in Connecticut, compared with only 444 prosecutions in New York state, they said.

Comments
Comments are open. Be civil.
0 comments

Leave a Reply