Bridgeport Lawyer's 'Deficient Performance' Leads Judge to Vacate Conviction, Sentence
A Superior Court judge ordered a new trial and vacated the 14-year prison sentence of Lacelles Clue, convicted of a violent home burglary.
October 09, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
A Tolland Superior Court judge found a Bridgeport defense lawyer provided ineffective counsel to a client facing robbery, assault, larceny and other charges. The judge then ordered a new trial and vacated the 14-year prison sentence of Lacelles Clue, convicted of a violent home burglary.
In a 10-page ruling after the habeas corpus proceeding, Judge John Newson wrote that attorney Eugene Zingaro of Zingaro & Cretella should have called two alibi witnesses to the stand during Clue's 2011 trial.
"Notwithstanding the great deference generally given to defense counsel with respect to decisions on the theory of defense and which witnesses to call, the court believes it was deficient performance for attorney Zingaro not to have called Kelly Clue (his wife) and Robert Mabowicz as alibi witnesses during the criminal trial, and that that decision prejudiced the petitioner," Newson wrote.
Newson found it "objectively unreasonable" for Zingaro not to have presented testimony from Clue's wife and Mabowicz as alibi witnesses who could have testified that Clue was at his recording studio at the time the crime took place. In a case with only circumstantial evidence against the defendant, the judge found it would have benefited Clue to have witnesses place him at different locations around the time of the offense.
Zingaro declined to comment.
According to Newson's decision, Zingaro testified during the habeas hearings that he decided not to call Clue's wife as a witness at trial "on the generalized theory that a jury would find the petitioner's wife providing him with an alibi as suspect."
With regard to Mabowicz, who owned the recording studio that Clue often visited, Zingaro testified that he had interviewed the potential witness before the criminal trial, but decided against having him testify. Mabowicz disputed this, and said no one associated with Clue's defense contacted him before the criminal trial.
Mark Dupois, spokesman for the Office of Chief State's Attorney, said the office would appeal the ruling.
Clue was sentenced in 2011 to 14 years in prison, and then 10 years of special parole. He remains in prison, pending a new trial.
Daniel Lage, a Shelton-based attorney with Ruane Attorneys at Law, represents Clue. He said the home invasion victim, Dorothy Bogues, was a friend of Clue's family, and his client had no reason to rob the 78-year-old woman of her possessions, including a laptop. The judge's synopsis of the case showed the perpetrator was wielding a knife, and wearing a black mask and black hooded sweatshirt.
The judge, in his decision, pointed to another suspect Ricky Lee, "an individual who had a reputation for being involved in drugs and other criminal activity, and that he possibly had an active criminal case pending against him at the time of the petitioner's arrest." In addition, Newson noted that at the habeas hearing, Mabowicz testified that this suspect had tried to sell Clue a laptop computer after the home invasion. Mabowicz had also testified that Lee "had what appeared to be a stain of blood on his shirt."
Lage said his client ended up with the stolen laptop because Lee had sold it to him. He said Clue was a "mentor and big brother to Lee."
"We believe the laptop that Ricky Lee had was the same laptop stolen from the woman's home," Lage said.
Lage said that Clue's wife would have testified at trial that she was with her husband the evening of the burglary.
The attorney said he plans on visiting Clue in prison within the next week.
"He has a right to invoke his right to a speedy trial," Lage said. "I want to have that conversation with him in person."
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 AllPatent Disputes Over SharkNinja, Dyson Products Nearing Resolution
Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
DC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
- 2People in the News—Jan. 8, 2025—Stevens & Lee, Ogletree Deakins
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Avoid Getting Stuck in a Moment,' Says Federico Cuadra Del Carmen of Baker McKenzie
- 4Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
- 5Spalding Jurors Return $12M Verdict Against State Farm Insurance Client
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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