Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1056)	2/11/2002 12:21:06 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 2/6/02 - CT State's Attorney: Letter asking FOIC to reject Proposed Final Decision of Second Hearing Officer STATE OF CONNECTICUT DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN MICHAEL DEARINGTON STATE'S ATTORNEY PLEASE REPLY TO: STATE’S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CAREER CRIMINAL DIVISION 234 CHURCH STREET SUITE 402 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 TELEPHONE (203) 789-7801 FAX 789-7849 Freedom of Information Commission 18-20 Trinity Street Hartford, CT 06106 February 6, 2002 Docket #s FIG 2001-147; FIG 2001-131 To Whom It May Concern: The State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice submits that the Commission should reject the Proposed Final Decision of the Second Hearing Officer dated January 23, 2002, and adopt the Proposed Final Order of the Hearing Officer dated August 28, 2001, for the following reasons: 1. The Second Hearing Officer was not present for the evidence in this case. For one who has not had an opportunity to observe the witnesses to reject their testimony based upon an ambiguous statement in a letter not written by the witness is a gross abuse of discretion. 2. The Second Hearing Officer bases his conclusion that Lieutenant Norwood's testimony is not credible on a single sentence written to the New York City Police Chief stating that the New Haven Police Department is "cooperating with" private investigators. Norwood's testimony was not contrary to that statement. He did testify, however, that the New Haven Police Department had not supplied any documents to the private investigators. Nothing in the record contradicts this statement. Finding 20 (docket 2001-131) (finding 19 of docket 2001-147) is unsupported by the record and clearly erroneous. 3. There is no reason supported by the evidence for the Second Hearing Officer to overrule the first Hearing Officer, who actually heard the testimony. In the absence of such evidence, the decision is arbitrary and unsupportable, and should be rejected by the commission. 4. Finding 19 (docket 2001-131) (finding 18 of docket 2001-147) castigates the Respondent for failing to catalog the documents at issue properly, therefore requiring the Second Hearing Officer to read through all of them independently. Whether or not the Hearing Officer should do so in every case is beyond the scope of this letter. If, however, a reason for a complete reversal of Officer Hausen's original well-reasoned opinion is to punish the Respondent for inadequate cataloging, that decision is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore should be rejected by the commission. The State of Connecticut adopts the arguments presented to the Commission by the New Haven Corporation Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, in addition to the arguments set forth above. The undersigned will not be able to attend the Commission hearing on February 13, 2002, as I will be presenting testimony in a murder prosecution. Sincerely, [signature] James G. Clark Assistant State’s Attorney CERTIFICATION Service is certified in accordance with Practice Book §14-10 on February 6, 2002, to Jeffrey Mitchell, Ralph G. Elliot, Esq., and Donna Chance Dowdie, Esq. [signature] James G. Clark Assistant State’s Attorney