Brien McMahon Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Bridgeport. Brien McMahon Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Bridgeport. Courtesy photo

Legal experts said Monday the plaintiffs who filed a federal lawsuit against Chief Court Administrator Patrick Carroll III over the alleged preference given civil cases over criminal cases during the current health pandemic have a great shot at winning their case.

"The plaintiffs have a real decent case here. The key will be the explanation the Judicial Branch offers. It will have to be a real good explanation because there are constitutional rights at stake," said Quinnipiac University School of Law professor John Thomas. "I don't know of any other states that are treating civil cases more liberally than criminal cases. It should be the other way around because there is a constitutional right to a speedy trial."

Plaintiffs attorney Robert Berke, a solo practitioner out of Bridgeport, filed the federal lawsuit Friday. The other plaintiffs are Shelton attorney James Ruane Sr. and criminal defendants Miguel Castro, Richard Brown and Juan Vasquez. The three defendants face different criminal charges and their cases have all been delayed.

The frustrating aspect of the case, Berke said Monday, is that civil matters have been ongoing in the state courts while criminal matters have not. Berke is seeking to have criminal matters held via video conferencing as civil matters are in state court. In addition, Berke noted, criminal cases are held via video conferencing in federal court in Connecticut and in many other states.

"I have no idea whatsoever why the superior courts in Connecticut are not doing what the federal courts and other states are doing," Berke said. "I have no idea why Connecticut has been so unprepared. We are 13 weeks into the pandemic and we are still not doing criminal matters in the state courts."

Berke said he spoke to "dozens of criminal attorneys" before filing suit and said they back him 100%.

"They are frustrated with the process," Berke said. "They are angry that civil matters are thrust open while criminal matters are cast aside. And, from a selfish perspective, they are angry that they have not earned money in 13 weeks."

Berke is not seeking monetary damages. Rather, the lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment stating the Judicial Branch's policies violate the "plaintiffs' due process rights under the Constitution of the United States."

The lawsuit states, "The Connecticut Judicial Branch was not adequately prepared to address a pandemic or prolonged closure."

The lawsuit also seeks to have a special master or a panel of special masters make recommendations regarding modifying the Judicial Branch's policies to allow for video conferencing of criminal matters.

In addition, the lawsuit also calls on the Judicial Branch to change its policy requiring private attorneys in criminal matters to appear in court in person for hearings when those matters do take place in criminal court. The latter is needed, Berke said, because some attorneys, such as Ruane, are over 65 years old and have medical conditions that can be compromised if they contract COVID-19. Ruane referred all comment to Berke.

Judicial Branch spokeswoman Rhonda Stearley Hebert said the branch would have no comment since the case was pending.

Thomas said he feels the plaintiffs' requests for relief are fair.

"They are asking for modest relief," Thomas said. "They are not asking for millions of dollars. They are simply seeking changes in the process to allow criminal cases to move forward like civil cases."

The lawsuit cites numerous states that have been conducting criminal matters via video. They include New Jersey, since March 16; California and Texas, since March 24; and Florida and New York, since March 22.

The matter is scheduled to be heard before U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley.

Related stories:

Connecticut's Federal Courts Preparing To Reopen Monday, June 15

4 Superior Courthouses Scheduled to Open in June, Bringing Total to 13