When the State’s Attorney’s office argues before the Connecticut Supreme Court, the justices want those arguments to be consistent. And apparently the justices take a dim view when a state’s attorney tries to “finesse” the court.
That’s what happened to Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Timothy Sugrue, who in January argued a position before the court that was in direct contradiction to a stand his office took on another Supreme Court case only a few months earlier. And despite Sugrue’s assertion that his stand on the matter was the official one of the State’s Attorney’s office, Chief State’s Attorney John Bailey has informed the court in writing that that’s not true.
This content has been archived.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]
