Faced with the question of whether to affirm the continued commitment of a man acquitted of arson in 1992 by reason of insanity, the Connecticut Supreme Court turned to Webster’s dictionary and the laws of physics for answers, in State v. James Harris, which will officially be released Feb. 28.
Assistant public defender Richard E. Condon Jr., who is Harris’s appellate attorney, claimed that Bridgeport Superior Court trial judge John P. Maiocco applied the wrong standard of dangerousness when he decided to grant the state’s petition for Harris’s continued commitment in 2002 for a five-year term.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
