Attorney, Criminal Defendants Sue Connecticut's Chief Court Administrator Over Alleged Priority Given to Civil Cases
A federal lawsuit filed Friday seeks to have the Superior Court system in Connecticut hear criminal matters via video conferencing, just as civil matters are now heard.
June 15, 2020 at 05:38 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Connecticut Law Tribune
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
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readAttorney Sanctioned $9K for Revealing Nude Photos, Other Info in Court Filing
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250