JUD Committee Hearing Transcript for 01/12/2005

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Take a seat, please. We will get started here, please.

REPRESENTATIVE LAWLOR: Good morning, again. Although our first order of business is a public hearing on judicial nominations, normally committees are taking today and this week to have our organizational meetings. We will be doing that later on, when we complete the public hearing and just before we vote on the judicial nominations before us today.

A couple of things ought to be said now, so that members of the committee are up to speed because we, unlike other committees, we are getting right into the meat of the session on the first day.

So some general information. First of all, welcome to all the veteran members. And we have quite a few newcomers this year, and they are welcome. I am honored this term to be co-chairing the committee with Senator McDonald, my good friend and colleague on many issues. I think we had a very good relationship last year, and we are able to maintain the tradition of this committee, which, I believe it is fair to say, is the most bipartisan committee in the Legislature.

We are asked often to tackle the most contentious issues. And I think we have earned the reputation of at least attempting to do that in as fair and open-minded way as possible, so that we can try to sort of vet all of these issues as they come before us and try to recommend to our colleagues in the House and Senate the most thoughtful resolutions to those contentious issues.

And I am also happy that we are joined by our two veteran Ranking Members, Representative Farr and Senator Kissel. When the time comes for an organizational meeting, I think that each of us has a few things we would like to say, but I would like to welcome them together with our two Vice Chairs, Senator Handley and Representative Spallone.

Representative Spallone was a member of our committee the last two terms. And Senator Handley, I think you are a relative newcomer. And the best news of all, unlike the previous two years now, we have a majority of lawyers on the committee, once again, by a margin of 22 to 20. I am very happy about that.

As for today's proceedings, we have quite a few nominations before us. We do anticipate that this will go on for a number of hours, at least. It's more likely than not that the votes will take place late this afternoon. And for members of the committee that are not familiar with this judicial confirmation process, I have just a couple of words of how it goes.

We have nominees for Worker's Compensation Commissioner, State Referees, and then quite a few Judges of the Superior Court. It's our intention to take these up one at a time, as they appear on the agenda. Each of the nominees will testify under oath and will respond to questions from members of the committee.

Typically, we have afforded each of the nominees an opportunity for an opening statement. And members of the committee are entitled to and encouraged to ask whatever questions are important to them to make a decision on a particular nomination. You should also be aware that each and every one of these nominees for a judgeship has been through a lengthy process before arriving here today, including being approved by the Judicial Selection Commission. And this includes the judges here for being re-upped, in effect.

In other words, they are not new judges. They are coming for a new term. They have all recently been through the Judicial Selection Commission, which is a rigorous process of vetting and scrutiny. And following that, each of them has been nominated by the Governor. And so the final step is to come before the Judiciary Committee for this public hearing and, finally, go on to be voted on in the House and Senate.

The committee has two options with each of these nominees. One is to recommend their nominations favorably; the other is to recommend it unfavorably. Taking no action is not an option for our committee, under the rules that have been established. Once each and every one of the nominees has testified, then there is an opportunity for members of the public to testify for or against any of these individual nominations. There is a sign-up sheet for that purpose, and a few people have signed up, not very many, but it is at the end that that will take place.

It has been our tradition in recent years because some judicial nominations have been relatively contentious, involving, I guess, for want of a better word, allegations of misconduct. If people are going to testify about specific factual events, the committee reserves the right to put them under oath, since the judges are testifying under oath as well. So if it comes to that, we may exercise that option.

And finally, over the years we have had a few very contentious nominations, and when that happens, there may be facts and circumstances which come out during the initial testimony or during the testimony of a member of the public. If members of the committee would like to postpone the vote so that we can obtain additional information, that is something we have certainly accommodated in the past.

It's our intent to get as much information as necessary to make an informed decision. So if any member of the committee feels like they need more, I would just encourage you to bring it to our attention during the afternoon. We've attempted to anticipate questions people might have, and we do have quite a bit of information available to us on these nominees today, so you need only ask.

I would encourage you to do it informally at the outset because we can probably get it into your hands very quickly. I think those are all the major points. Senator McDonald, would you care to say something?

SEN. MCDONALD: Welcome back, everybody, and welcome to the new members of the committee. And welcome to the new members of the Legislature. Let me say that we have a full agenda today, so I will reserve my remarks for our organizational meeting, which will actually take place after the public hearing.

Unless the Vice Chairs or the Ranking Members want to say something now, we will hold off on those comments until the organizational meeting.

REP. DYSON: Mr. Chair, you did indicate whether the Vice Chairs and the Ranking Members have to say anything. Does that mean rank and file does not?

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Dyson, the intent was to actually, because there are so many nominees here, to just start the public hearing process, and then members of the committee would have introductory remarks at the organizational meeting, so we can move it a little more efficiently and effectively.

REP. DYSON: So there is an issue of time?

SEN. MCDONALD: We expect we will have a full afternoon here.

REP. DYSON: So in the process of each candidate coming before us, questions are going to be posed to them. I have already raised a question with the staff based upon what do we know about any of them. And I was given a performance summary on the candidates before us, and it is a cumbersome document.

I don't know whether people have them yet or not. I do have them. It is a cumbersome document. And in being able to digest what is here is kind of difficult to do in a short timeframe. Yet, we are going to take them up, and I am not about to make a case not to do something. I am just pointing out what the shortcomings are as we are about to move through this process.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Dyson, what we normally do is to allow nominees to come forward, make any opening statement that they wish about their background and experience on the bench. Each of the members of the committee have before them the questionnaire submitted by the committee to the nominees that have been submitted in advance of this.

And in addition, as you indicate, the performance evaluations, which are provided to the committee, are available in the committee room. They have been available for inspection by members of the committee. In fact, many members of the committee have availed themselves of the opportunity to review those evaluations in advance of this public hearing today. Representative Lawlor, did you have anything to add?

REP. LAWLOR: I think, excuse me, I forgot to mention a couple of other things that we have.

You see these very thick files. We have such a file on each and every one of the nominees. All of these nominees have been before us before. It contains the transcripts of their other appearances before the Judiciary Committee, all of the forms they have filled out over the years in pursuit of a nomination. So it is a rather complete file. It is available and, generally speaking, publicly available with a few minute exceptions. And these are always available in the committee office.

Since they do contain some confidential information, for example Social Security numbers, home telephone numbers, that type of thing, if you would like to see them, we have them all here today for these nominees. Beyond that, we have a file cabinet and our Committee Administrator, Diane Caliendo, can give you access to that, if you are a member of the committee.

Also let me just emphasize, if at the end of today's proceeding, there is additional questions or information that members have, then it would not be unprecedented to postpone a vote on a nomination to a later date in order to make sure we have all the information.

And in fairness both to the nominee and whomever else, to allow everybody to say what they have to say and obtain whatever information they want to obtain.

However, this year, slightly complicating the problem, many of the nominees appearing before us today, their terms as judges expire on January 28. And if they are not confirmed by both the House and Senate prior to January 28, then they are no longer Judges of the Superior Court.

And the only way they could get back on the bench would be to go through the entire process an additional time. They have to be nominated by the Governor, come through the Legislature again, but in the interim they would no longer be judging. They would no longer have the power, they would not be paid, and they would have to start from scratch.

So the 28^th, I believe, is two weeks from today. Is that right? Two weeks from Friday. Monday is a holiday. And the current plan is to vote on whatever nominations emerge from the committee today on Thursday, January 20^th. I believe that is the current plan, subject to change. So we are up against that deadline as well. So that is kind of the situation at the moment.

SEN. MCDONALD: Having said that, the--

REP. DYSON: Is that over for me?

SEN. MCDONALD: --did you have another question?

REP. DYSON: Yes, yes I did.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, proceed.

REP. DYSON: I am trying to ascertain really what the culture of the committee is, and what is it I can do and not do. And given the timeframes you said you are operating under, so timing is an issue here, so I think implicit in your comment was that you would prefer that the committee keep it's questions down in order to be able to move through this. If that is not the case, then I am glad I am wrong.

SEN. MCDONALD: And I am pleased to tell you, you are wrong.

REP. DYSON: [inaudible]

SEN. MCDONALD: [inaudible]

REP. DYSON: --an opportunity to do that either.

SEN. MCDONALD: Any member of the committee is free to ask as many or as few questions or no questions as they deem appropriate. Obviously, we ask members to be cognizant of the fact that other members have questions as well, but every member will have a full opportunity to ask as many questions as we can fit into our timeframe.

REP. DYSON: I assume you will make that known, but let me just ask this question. I have a report here that was done by the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the Criminal Justice System. Is that a document that I can reference in posing questions to members that come before this committee? Can I do that?

SEN. MCDONALD: Assuming they have the ability to answer the question, you certainly have the ability to pose the question.

REP. DYSON: I would like to pose it, and we will find out if they have the ability--

SEN. MCDONALD: There you go. All right. Thank you very much. The first nominee we will take up will be to be a Worker's Compensation Commissioner. And I would ask Scott A. Barton of Seymour to please come forward.

Good morning, Sir. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: I will.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, be seated and welcome. Sorry for the slight delay in the beginning of the public hearing. As I believe you have probably heard, we welcome all nominees and welcome them to provide an opening statement to members of the committee. We may have questions after your opening statement.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Thank you. Chairman McDonald, Chairman Lawlor, members of the committee. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address you here this morning.

I want to take this time to thank Governor Rell for this nomination and her profound support in my ability to serve as a Worker's Compensation Commissioner. I am inspired by the depth of her courage and grateful for her confidence.

Furthermore, I would like to thank and recognize Chairman John Mastropietro for his skilled leadership, guidance, and professional support since my interim term began on November 17. Because of your confidence and support, I have had the opportunity to serve in this most dignified and respected position.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my service and enjoy going to work every single day. I have come to further understand and appreciate the awesome responsibility this position commands. During my participation in the Commission's mentoring program, I have had the honor and the privilege of working with several talented, hardworking, and dedicated commissioners; talented in their abilities, hardworking in the day-to-day operation of their offices, and dedicated to preserve the integrity of the Commission. I have learned and developed from them important skills and knowledge.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of these fine public servants. If successful, I look forward to continuing to serve with this respected group.

To date I have observed well over 300 hearings. In addition, I have myself presided over 100 hearings, including informals, pre-formals, and stipulations in Middletown, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Waterbury offices.

On January 27, I am scheduled to begin my full-time assignment in the New Haven District, where I will begin hearing, in addition, formal matters. It has truly been my honor and privilege to sit as a Worker's Compensation Commissioner. My parents taught me a long time ago that the measure of a person's success in life is not in what he has achieved or what position he holds or aspires to, but in the ability to help others without expecting anything in return.

This basic human value has served me well in my life, especially during my service as First Selectmen for the Town of Seymour. I am confident it will, along with hard work, dedication, humility, and integrity, serve me well as a Worker's Compensation Commissioner. Thank you, all, again, and I will answer any questions you have of me.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Barton. I probably should have announced this at the outset. We are, obviously, a large committee. There are a number of members of the public here as well. Please, if you have a need to have a conversation, please show the courtesy of having it outside the committee room. And please, make sure you turn off cell phones or at least turn them on to a vibrate function. If you need to take a phone call, please do so only outside the committee room. Do any members of the committee have questions? Senator Kissel?

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Commissioner. As I recall from the hearing that we had just a few months ago, your background did not have a tremendous amount of worker's compensation experience in your background, although you had many other qualities. How have you viewed your learning curve, and what can we glean from what has occurred with you over the last several months?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Well, since I began, I began in the mentoring program, which allowed me to watch and observe several hearings. Very quickly I approached the Chairman and said I was ready to go, so to speak. Within 10 or 12 days of my service, I began hearing my own hearings. In fact, the Chairman was kind enough to have dockets prepared for me, so that I could preside over hearings in the different courts to get a feel for that particular district.

I worked extremely hard to obtain a command of the statutes over the last several months. In fact, my kids have often commented, when is daddy going to get his head out of the book when he comes home from work?

And I have worked extremely hard to uphold this job that I am now serving. And I will do everything in my power to make sure I am ready to go, so to speak, on January 27. And I am proud of the fact that the Chairman had the confidence in me to allow me to preside over my own dockets. And, in fact, yesterday and Monday I was in Waterbury Court with my own dockets. And I think I have gained the necessary knowledge and understanding to be able to go off on my own.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. And I also note that Chairman Mastropietro is here in the audience. And I think he is here tacitly supporting your nomination, so I think that speaks well. Thank you very much.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And some of the new members of the committee may not be aware that we have a variety of people who are interim appointments. We just saw them a few months ago, and now you are coming back for a full term. You testified before this committee just a few months ago.

And I think you are aware that, in the interim, since that happened, the committee received some letters from, I guess, folks of Seymour, where you had been Mayor in the not too distant past. And I think you have been provided with copies of those letters.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Yes, I have.

REP. LAWLOR: One of the questions you were asked during the last hearing, is there anything you are aware of that we weren't aware of at the time that would potentially embarrass the appointing authority of the Governor or the affirming authority of the General Assembly. And one of the letters indicated that when you said there was nothing else that there actually were some things. And it recounted a variety of, I guess, criticisms that these individuals had of you from your time as Mayor of Seymour.

And I have reviewed the letter, and I know you have. And based on that letter, is there anything else you would like to amend from your earlier testimony or would you like to at least enlighten the committee of your point of view of these things?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Well, I did have an opportunity to read the letter that was provided to me through your committee, and I thank you for that. Serving in any community as a Chief-Elected Official is an extremely difficult job. When I started for the Town of Seymour back in 1999, we were faced with a tremendous financial crisis, which led to my Board of Selectmen, including myself, having to make very difficult decisions.

Our first two, probably three, years we had to make decisions that were able to bring our community back out of our financial despair into where it is today, which is thriving again. And we had to make these decisions all the time. And there are many people within the community that were probably not happy with some of these decisions.

The gentleman who provided the letter to you has been a person in the town who has written many, many letters to the editor, has been very unsupportive of the Board of Selectmen when I served, and is presently so today. A lot of the allegations that were contained in the document are just completely untrue. And if you would like me to speak to any of the particulars, I would be more than happy to do so, Chairman.

When you serve as a First Selectmen, the Chief-Elected Official of the town, you are going to run into problems. You are going to run into decisions you have to make that are difficult decisions, and people are going to disagree. This is a gentleman who has disagreed on many levels during my service to the town, and I stand on my statement that there was nothing in my past that would cause any embarrassment to the Governor, to myself, to this committee. And, again, if you would like me to respond to any of the particulars of the document, I would be more than happy to.

REP. LAWLOR: In reviewing the letter, this is a confirmation for a nomination for Worker's Compensation Commissioner. So I guess the only thing that would be relevant would be specific allegations of unlawful conduct. I mean, obviously people have disagreements on policy issues and style, etcetera, etcetera. But the only thing contained in that letter that seemed to me at least an allegation of quote, unquote, illegal conduct, is the allegation that you attempted to change the salary of First Selectman during the actual term, which I think we all know is not one of the options available to us as policy makers. Did you care to respond to that?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. After I won re-election back in 2001, one of the Selectmen, Selectman Paul Rosebrock, approached the other Selectmen, not me, with the idea of voting in a raise for the Office of First Selectmen. Any Selectman can ask that any item be put on the agenda. Mr. Rosebrock asked for the item to be put on the agenda, which was to increase the salary of the First Selectman from $52,000 up to whatever they were thinking about.

When the agenda item was reached, and I had no conversations with the Selectmen during that time period, when the agenda item was reached, I left the room. I was not part of the conversation, I was not part of the discussion, and I was not part of any vote that took place thereafter.

The Selectmen voted for the raise, a legal issue was raised, for which our Town Council did some research on. They felt it was a gray area whether you could raise a Selectman, an elected official's, salary after the new term has begun. There was an issue about whether it was the town meeting form of government versus the aldermanic style of government.

And the Town Council and myself felt the need to resolve the issue by scheduling a town hearing. It was through myself and the Town Council that we scheduled a referendum on the issue that was ultimately voted down. I am sure no one is surprised about that.

I had no knowledge whatsoever that Selectman Rosebrock was going to raise this issue. He asked that it be put on the agenda. I left the room during the agenda. I was not part of the discussions. I did everything in my power to keep myself away from the issue. And the gentleman's allegations in there are, in my opinion, are just completely inappropriate and improper.

REP. LAWLOR: And did the initiative that we are talking about only relate to the salary of the First Selectman?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Yes, that is correct.

REP. LAWLOR: And it is your testimony that you had no prior knowledge that they were going to try and do that?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: No prior knowledge. Selectman Rosebrock raised the issue with a couple of other Selectmen. They asked me to put it on the agenda because I am the person who typed the agenda as one of my many other duties. I put it on the agenda at their request, and then I left the room during the discussion.

REP. LAWLOR: I guess my question is if this only related to a raise for you—-

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: That is correct.

REP. LAWLOR: --and it is your testimony under oath that prior to the time they came to you with this addition to the agenda, you had no idea this was going to be on the agenda, no discussions had happened ahead of time.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Well, I think, they have always talked about raising the salary for First Selectman. They have been talking about that for years and years and years. I think any community, in any state government, it is very difficult to raise the salary of the Chief-Elected Official. It becomes, for lack of a better phrase, a political hot potato.

They had talked about it, probably throughout, even before my administration and during my administration. People constantly talk about that idea, but it wasn't until Mr. Rosebrock, Selectman Rosebrock, raised the point to me, that the item even hit the agenda. I had done no research whatsoever on the issue. I wasn't even involved. Again, I left the room during the discussions.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: You are welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Yeah, more in the nature of a comment. You know, when nominees are before us, we will often ask questions based upon somebody's letter, someone's comments, and newspaper articles. And I think it has always been the position of this committee, if there are allegations out there, no matter how baseless they are, this is the forum they ought to be addressed.

And so what I think we have done here, and we will do with other nominees, for judicial nominees as well, if there are allegations out there, we tend to want to believe this is the forum they ought to be addressed. We are not going to just ignore them because it is more embarrassing to everybody if, subsequently, we find something that we should have asked a question about that we didn't ask.

So I don't think you ought to take this personally, as if someone is trying to attack you on this, but we did get a letter, and we are simply asking questions based upon that.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Thank you, Sir, and I agree. I think that is completely appropriate to ask that question and inquire. I didn't include that in my opening statement because I wasn't sure how it would be addressed or whether it would be addressed. I thank you for your comments.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Representative Farr, for that comment. I appreciate it. Senator Meyer?

SEN. MEYER: Commissioner, in paragraph 11 in your answers to the questionnaire, it refers to the fact that you represented only claimants in the workman's compensation cases that you've had. And I wonder how many cases you have had where you represented only claimants.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Well, I was practicing for a small firm in Seymour, [inaudible], for a period of about a year and a half. And we probably had, at the time, maybe about five to ten cases that were pending, which I would go to the various commissions on. Waterbury and New Haven were the two districts where we practiced.

However, having said that, as First Selectman for the Town of Seymour, I was a respondent in many cases in the area of worker's compensation. So I gained quite a bit of knowledge in that regard, but I was purely a claimant's representative when I was practicing.

SEN. MEYER: And does the fact that you represented only claimants affect in any way your ability to be impartial as a commissioner now?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: I do not believe so at all, Sir.

SEN. MEYER: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? I am sorry, Representative?

REP. O'NEILL: Thank you. We have this provision for reappointments. I am not quite sure if an interim appointment qualifies for a reappointment. I know you have only been on the job for a short while. Have you done any formal hearings?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: No. I am scheduled to begin a full-time assignment in New Haven on January 27. And at that time, I believe Chairman Mastropietro has told the office in New Haven to start to schedule me for formal hearings.

REP. O'NEILL: Okay. So, in effect, the answer for question 12 would be sort of pointless, which is how many formals versus informal and how many your office resolves and that sort of thing?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: I was instructed to fill it out as an interim appointment, Representative O'Neill, and to leave that item blank.

REP. O'NEILL: Okay.

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Chairman Mastropietro, I believe, has filed the report of the various districts with the other nominations.

REP. O'NEILL: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee?

COMM. SCOTT BARTON: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is William L. Wollenberg of Farmington. Good morning. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I do, so help me God.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, be seated, and welcome back to the General Assembly.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Yes, it's nice to be here. There are a lot of things going on, and I wish I was taking part in some of the debating that might be going on. I am anxious. I watch you on TV a lot, so stand by, you may hear from me. Some of you have, by the way. I watched John Wayne Fox at 11:30 one night and called him, and because he was dozing, I didn't want his constituents to know.

Just a brief opening statement. I was 72 years old in July, and since that time, I have been doing juvenile work. For a few months, I stayed in criminal. For two and a half years I have been doing juvenile, one of the three judges here in Hartford. I work every day.

You only pay me $211, so it is a deal for you, but don't take it away. My wife thanks the Governor, and she thanks you, for keeping me busy. She appreciates it very much, so I don't hang around the house, and that I am doing what I am doing. I enjoy what I am doing.

I graduated from Middlebury College in 1950. I went into the Navy for about five years, flew with the Navy. I ended up, after 37 years of Reserve duty, as a full Captain. I went to the University of Connecticut Law School. I got out of there in 1967.

After the Navy, I had five kids, went four nights a week for four years, got a degree in 1967. I went into practice, came to the Legislature in 1982, was Chairman of this committee. In the temporary buildings, by the way, not in these plush digs. In 1984, I was relieved of this duty, and in 1986, I was appointed as a judge.

The judge business has been mostly criminal, GA work at first, came to Hartford, did some GA work there, Bristol. I came back to Hartford from New Britain to do the murders, when they had 72 murders, and 4 of us were sent back to Hartford and did 10 murders in 6 months. And then went to New Britain as Presiding Judge for criminal. Stayed there for another two years, until time ran out on me, and I became 70, and, of course, we retire at 70.

I retired, and stayed there for a couple of months, and came to Hartford and did juvenile, an extremely interesting business. If any of you get a chance to come over and sit down for a few hours, I think it will open your eyes to what is going on. Just one pitch, and I make it wherever I go, whether anybody likes it or not, but we have no place, ladies and gentlemen, for sentencing young ladies, 11-, 12-, 13-, 14-year-old girls. And we have no place for them, no adequate place. They serve in shelters. Talk to me about it. Anyway, I am yours.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Are there any questions from any members of the committee? Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Good morning, Your Honor. First of all, I want to welcome you here. I had the pleasure of serving with you, as you well know, in the Legislature. And you were an outstanding Legislator, and you have been an outstanding judge. I think that, a couple of questions.

One is as much for the committee and myself. What are the differences between your powers now, as a referee, and your powers as a judge? My understanding is in the non-juvenile cases that you don't necessarily get jury cases unless the parties agree to it. What happens to--

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I can do anything, accepting heavy criminal cases where the defense attorneys can opt you out, and that is what has happened to me. Some of the defense attorneys have said, we would like to have you try the case, Judge, but you are a little too firm in the sentencing, which is probably true, and we would rather not have you do the case.

So rather than hang around there, I wanted to do something, not particularly civil, and so on, and family.

I never did any juvenile. And since I have done that, I have enjoyed that. And I think you don't sit above the people. It's all on the same level in juvenile. In both the abuse and neglect and the delinquency, you are very close to people. You are dealing with people every day.

I think I had 52 kids yesterday on the delinquency calendar, and these things you just can't make up, an 11-year-old that is 3 weeks pregnant.

And I try to talk to them, ask them where they go to school, and how old are they, and what are they doing, and these kinds of things. And you can do that. It's like you and I. And on the other side, the abuse and neglect side, you are dealing with mothers and dads. I took a look, and I did about 30 terminations last year. And that can be one child or about two or three, I think, in each instance.

When there is consent or when I am finished with these things, I take three, four or five minutes to talk to the parents and tell them, if it is a consent, that they did the right thing for the child. That, of course, is one of the criteria that they have done the right thing and how hard it was to do it. It is really a folksy business.

REP. FARR: There is a proposal that will be before us to open up the Juvenile Court system, as far as the neglect petitions, to allow that to be public. And I wonder if you had any thought on that process? The theory is that if the public understood, if people could see what is going on, maybe there would be some change, more resources, other issues that might come up.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: As a judge, Representative Farr, I will do whatever you pass. Do I have opinions? You know better than that, but I don't think today is the time to tell you what my opinions are on that or anything else.

REP. FARR: Well, what resources, besides the fact that you don't have any place to send young girls? What other--

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: You have to build someplace, folks.

REP. FARR: What other resources do you think are lacking in Juvenile Court?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Oh, gosh. Build for the girls first, and then look at all the other stuff.

REP. FARR: Well, what do you do then with an 11-year-old girl that you find delinquent? Where do you place her?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: She is in detention right now. We have a nice detention facility right now. It's new. There is a little kitchen there, most of the restaurants downtown would envy the kitchen, and the food is real good. And they have a lot of activities, and the Hartford School Board has an education program.

You see kids you never thought, they are sitting there with a book in front of them. I don't know if they are reading. They are certainly doing something. And it is a good program. I think this morning we had probably about 80 kids over there, and some of them are there too long. We don't have places for them. Some of them are there three or four months, and they shouldn't be. That is what we have to deal with.

REP. FARR: Okay. Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. I am actually going to follow up on Representative Farr's question, which you demurred on. If the Juvenile Courts were open to the public, in your opinion, would that hinder your ability to do your job?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: One of the things I like about the Juvenile Court is that it is confidential, and you can talk to people. I think, if it were open, probably, my feeling at least, some of the things I say I might not say them. And I think some of them should be said.

I don't know if I would go into any extent to commend someone for giving up their child because it is the best interest in the child if the court were open. I think that would be a little more dramatic than the world needs to know. I think it is not too dramatic for the parent to know, and how a judge feels, someone who just took their child away feels about it. But I am not sure the world needs to know because people cry a lot.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Dyson was next.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wollenberg, good to see you.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: It's nice to see you, Sir. We are both on the right side of the grass.

REP. DYSON: Yeah. I hope we keep it that way. You have indicated earlier that a question was put to you, you thought you would much rather not offer your opinion. I indicated earlier to the Chair that I wanted to ask questions of individuals coming before the committee regarding a report that has been done about racial and ethnic disparity within the criminal justice system. And the exchange you were just having kind of touches on it slightly.

What I wanted to get from you is your opinion, but you have already indicated you are kind of unwilling to offer your opinion, but I wanted to pose the question to you, if you have seen the report, for one.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I have seen it, Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Two, do you agree with the essence of the report, that it does exist, the disparity?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: All I can tell you is what is happening in my court. And this was a question back in '96 about me, as you might remember. I am sure Representative Farr will remember, and Representative Lawlor remembers those days. Maybe Representative Staples and the rest of you as well.

It was a question of whether I could be fair because of some of the stands I had taken as a Legislator. You remember that, you were here, you were with me, we talked. I said, yes, I can. And I believe that I have lived up to that.

And I think that is all I can tell you, what I know about the people who come before me and how they are treated in my court. I understand a study has been made, and I respect that study. I can tell you, in my court, I am doing this in Hartford in the Juvenile Court, and there is no disparity in my court, and there hasn't been in my Criminal Courts.

REP DYSON: Let's assume there is no disparity in your court, but there may be disparity in other courts. There is, and I don't think you disagreed with the findings that are here, the point that is being made, that disparity does exist within the system itself.

What I wanted to elicit from you was your opinion about how we might rectify that disparity, not as to how we got there. We recognize that it is there, but how do we rectify it? Would you offer an opinion as to how we might do that?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, in the first place--

REP. DYSON: Now, let me tell you why I do that. You have been on both sides of this. And I am not talking about the grass. And because you have been on both sides, and you are willing to offer your opinion, and you have some years experience within the judicial system itself. You have witnessed a lot of things taken place, even though it may not go on in your court. You have some idea about what we might be able to do to change that.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Representative Dyson, I don't go into other courts on a daily basis. Very seldom will I go into another judge's court, probably because I don't have the time in juvenile. It's a very busy schedule. And when I was a PJ in New Britain, a Presiding Judge in criminal, I wasn't in and out of other people's courts. I have never been in and out of other people's courts to any extent at all.

So if you are asking me to agree with a report, I will read a report, and I will take a report, and is there a contrary report out there? I don't know that. Has anybody contested this report? I don't know that, but as far as I am concerned, I can't attest to this.

I understand what they are saying. I understand also that the judges have a seminar every June for a couple of days. One of the topics, and I understand that Judge Ment is going to have a series on it, is this report, and that is going to be given to all the judges, and it is going to be discussed in an open forum if need be. A discussion of this report is on the agenda for discussing. So I may learn more from what if going on in the whole system.

REP. DYSON: Let me just say to you now, I am not trying to take you to task at all. I am trying to elicit from you comments that might direct me. And I do so because I think highly of your opinion. And if I am not able to secure from those who are involved in that process, then from whence is it that I am able to get information as to what remedy might be, if you aren't offering an opinion. And I assume now, that I get the notion that people are looking here, that it might not be a question I should be asking you, and so the next question for me is who will I ask?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I have no problem with you asking me the question, Representative Dyson, but if I dance, forgive me because I don't think this is the forum for me, on re-nomination, to be discussing anything outside of what I am doing in the court. I deferred with Representative Farr, and I think that is all I am going to do here today, and I am going to step aside.

REP. DYSON: I got that, and I appreciate that, but let me just pursue this a bit further, you know. I am going to have an opportunity to have about 15 or so judges come before this committee today who are important players in that judicial process. And if I take what you have just given to me, that this may not be the place by which those questions are raised, then now I have to ask myself the question, then who do I raise that question with? Where do I get an answer?

I am not asking you to answer. I am not asking you to answer, but that is the dilemma that I have. See, you are going to senior status, but there are people who are coming before us, is going to be how long, eight years, and I don't get another chance if I don't do it now. So I need to take advantage of this opportunity now. [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to 1B.]

--to everyone when they come along because I don't get this chance again. So I appreciate your answer, and I appreciate the position you are in. And if it made you a little uncomfortable, forgive me for that. I am throwing this question out there because I feel it is a valid one, and I hope to be able to get some response from somebody. And I suspect the others that are listening now, probably are crafting some response for me, when their time comes, and they are going to be sitting there. Thank you.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: You haven't embarrassed me at all.

REP. DYSON: I didn't intend to.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: And, Representative Dyson, I always think of what you said once on the floor, other than there is a 900-pound gorilla in the room. And you are getting a sense of that now.

REP. DYSON: Oh, yeah, there is a gorilla here.

SEN. MCDONALD: I believe Senator Coleman was next, and then Representative Hamm.

SEN. COLEMAN: Good morning, Judge, good to see you.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Senator.

SEN. COLEMAN: I have a question that has to do with the criminal process. For the last couple of years, there has been a lot of attention directed to the bail-bond practices and process in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. You hang your head, but you indicated that you did work or you did preside over criminal courts, and I am interested in your response to an example that I want to throw out.

If there is in fact a defendant who has made arrangements with a professional surety bond person to post bail in his or her behalf, is there any reason you feel that you need to know, as a judge, the nature of the transaction between the defendant and the professional bondsperson that is posting the bail?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: In what context? For what reason?

SEN. COLEMAN: Well, let me be a little bit more specific. I suppose there has been attention that has been focused on the practice on discounted bail-bond fees or credit arrangements between the accused and the bail-bonds agency. So in my example, let's say that the bail-bondsperson is familiar with the accused family, and the accused on the day the bail-bondsperson comes to post bail with the clerk doesn't have whatever money the bondsperson is requiring. And the bondsperson says, well, I will collect it from you next week or within the next two weeks. Let's say that that is the scenario.

Is there any reason for a judge to feel like he needs to know or inquire concerning the transaction between the accused and the bail-bonds agency?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: As a judge, I set the bond, whatever I think is appropriate. How the bond is posted, I sometimes did find out, and I was not particularly pleased with some of the things that happened, but that is not my job.

My job is to post whatever bond I thought was necessary to obtain this person's presence in court or the security of the community is also considered. Those were my considerations. Ability to make bond, that wasn't my job, I didn't think. It was the security of the community and whether or not there was a serious reason for flight.

SEN. COLEMAN: You mentioned security of the community, so I guess that leads me to follow up. Are there any circumstances that you can think of where preventive detention in the bail-bonds process might be appropriate?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Preventive detention?

SEN. COLEMAN: In other words, setting probably a extraordinary high bond in order to almost guarantee the accused is not released while his case is pending.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, that would be security of the community.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are the any other circumstances where you think that would be appropriate?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I can't think of any. If I have somebody murdering people, I will put a $5 million bond on him. I don't think he ought to be out in the community. It is one of the reasons I am not doing criminals. I am opting out. Go ahead.

SEN. COLEMAN: Well, based on your experience having done criminal, let me just say to you one of the reasons I am concerned about what has occurred the last couple of years, there has been a focus on some bail-bonds agencies. And it seems there was a judicial response to those practices, which I am not sure was appropriate. You may have a different opinion.

But given that they did occur, my comment is that it seems like the party that has suffered the most in respect to the judicial response to the practices of the bail-bonds agencies was the accused. And it was the accused, the defendants, who were often left in the position of not being able to post bond.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: If what you are saying is because I felt the bail-bondsman was going to do it for 3% rather than 7%, did I place a higher bond? No, because I placed a higher bond probably in the beginning than most. I did it on the other basis, and not on this basis at all.

SEN. COLEMAN: And understand also, I am not talking about you specifically. Let's say, in some of the Hartford Courts that I am somewhat familiar with, the judicial response was to opt or place or to order cash bonds only. I guess the thought was to just take the bail-bonds agents out of the whole process, but in doing so, the end result was that people who otherwise would have made bond were unable to post bond because the cash bond that was set was a little higher than would ordinarily be the case.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I never did that. I did require cash bonds from time to time, but it was an equation. It wasn't they can't make it. If I posted $25,000 surety bond as opposed to a $25,000 cash bond, that is not my thinking. I might post a $100,000 surety bond and a $25,000 cash bond.

SEN. COLEMAN: Given this discussion, I will go back to the original question. Is there any reason for the judicial authority to want to know what occurs in the transaction between the accused and the professional bondsman?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I didn't, maybe some judges do. That didn't bother me. That again, I think, is your place to do something about that if there have been abuses in that area. That is for me just to follow along as to what I do. No.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Hamm was next.

REP. HAMM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your Honor, I am interested in the fact that you are serving in the Hartford Juvenile Court and have for a couple of years, particularly your comment relating to girls and your comment about needing a secure facility. In your experience in Hartford, what would you say is the percentage of young woman who are coming before you, who are sentenced?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: What percentage?

REP. HAMM: Of the cases you see, the delinquency or the FWSN cases that relate to young girls--

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: FWSN is a whole different thing.

REP. HAMM: Well, we will get to that. So when you say sentenced, you are talking about what?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I am talking about when I have someone in, who has been there several times--

REP. HAMM: For criminal conduct?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: --It has been decided, and it is an agreement that there is going to be 18 months--

REP. HAMM: And what do you believe is the appropriate placement for that young woman, with the benefit of your experience?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: A facility that will be able to accommodate the needs of this child, this 12- or 13-year-old in the proper manner.

REP. HAMM: Including the Connecticut Juvenile Training School?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Pardon?

REP. HAMM: Including the Connecticut Juvenile Training School?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, I shouldn't say it, but really the last one I had, she is ready to go out of state. And I am [inaudible] with you. I was ready to put a pack on her back and send her to the training center. And I know you passed a law that said you can't have girls at the training center, but I was going to put her on the steps and say, you abandoned me, I am here. A place--

REP. HAMM: To the extent that you are able, would you share with us the behavior that caused you to make a decision that the training school would have been the appropriate placement for that young girl?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, I am not sure it would have been the appropriate place. It would have been a place.

REP. HAMM: Well, that is the problem, isn't it?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: No other place. At least there they do have some programs, I guess, from what I hear.

REP. HAMM: Are you aware that there are a number of members of this General Assembly and now, I am happy to report, the agency as well, who are concluding that in fact it is usually an inappropriate place to build a facility for girls.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: It is what?

REP. HAMM: That it would be an inappropriate treatment to build a secure facility for girls. Are you aware that that is the agency's current thinking, and that we are not planning to build a secure facility for girls?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, I was not. I am not surprised, but I was not, but then the alternative is they have to go out of state.

REP. HAMM: Could I explore that with you? I think I completely disagree, and I am interested in the benefit of your experiences and the kinds of services that would be appropriate for that young girl, so that she wouldn't have to go out of state.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: You have got to understand. If we put her at the children's place, she is going to run. And I have one now who said, I told them that I was going to run, Judge, and I did. Isn't that silly for them to put me there? And I said, yeah, I guess it is. And then you put them in a secure facility, they are so disruptive that the facility says, we can destroy the whole facility, if she stays, and she is back in detention.

REP. HAMM: That brings us to the runaway issue, which makes status sentencing, what I want to talk to you about.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: No, it's just that she is a sentenced delinquent. DCF is now in control of that child, not the judiciary as we are in detention. And now the last resort was, nobody wanted her, Stepping Stone, all these places. They were going to send her to Riverview. No, they weren't, not in my court.

REP. HAMM: Now, before I let you go, talk to me about whether you believe we should be putting into detention status offenders or FWSNs who violate either probation or court orders?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: It depends upon the circumstances and what they violate and how they violate it.

REP. HAMM: Curfew, running away from home, not reporting in.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, it depends upon what part the parents take and what conditions they will agree to take them back home.

REP. HAMM: And do you believe it is an appropriate ability, an authority for juvenile judges to have to be able to incarcerate runaways?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Put them in detention?

REP. HAMM: Yeah.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, I would rather DCF had a place for them. We can OTC them, of course, from the bench, which we do. And that means DCF steps in and takes them. Now, DCF has to place them. The mother says, I am not taking her home. She is 12. I am not taking her home. We have to place them.

REP. HAMM: I will commend to you, I think December 30 there was a Girl's Steering Committee Services report that has just been sent to us, to the General Assembly, relating to what we need to do for girls. And I think your input would be very helpful, so I hope you will get a hold of that.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: We closed the assessment center after about two weeks, didn't we?

REP. HAMM: There were good reasons.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I know, I was there. Thank you. You owe me a call.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. The list of Legislators enquiring of Judge Wollenberg is getting almost as long as the number of nominees still to be questioned today. So do keep in mind that we have 17 additional nominees after Judge Wollenberg. Having said that, the current order of Legislators is Senator Newton, Representative Powers, and then Representative Walker.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Senator, how are you doing?

SEN. NEWTON: I am doing well. And the only reason, I know you are out of the criminal aspect of the court, but because you have served there, I think it is important from your wisdom that you have served there. I am going to ask all the judges, so, you know, it's not biased. Are you familiar with this report from Program Review that came out on bond-bailsman in December, 2003?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I may have seen it, but I am not that familiar, Senator.

SEN. NEWTON: The only point I want to point out to you, and I want to follow up about what Senator Coleman asked you on the bail-bondsman, was that it was alarming to me, and it is on page 66, and I would hope the judges would read this. Because of unfair practices between the bail-bondsman, judges are setting bond amounts partially in an effort to regulate the bond-bails industry.

And I felt that kind of outrageous because it's not in my thought process, it is not judge's job to regulate what we are supposed to regulate. And would you have any comment to your knowledge?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I can't agree more, and that is what I was getting at with Senator Coleman. I think that is the political aspect of it, for you to do that. Evidently, it has been identified as far as I am concerned, we don't bond in the Juvenile Courts. I am out of that business.

But when I was in that business, as I told Senator Coleman, that wasn't my program. My program was to do what I thought was in the best interest of the community. If the safety of the community and the flight risk were there, they were essential to what I did. And that is why I set bonds the way I did, not because I thought some bondsman was waiting to give him a 3% bond or a 5% or 7% or whatever.

SEN. NEWTON: Now, excuse me if I am ignorant to the fact, and I am not sure if there is a code that judges all take, as police officers take, but in your service in the criminal aspect in setting a bond, had you ever heard that some judges were setting more outrageous bonds?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I can't say that I have, Senator. I can't say that I have. I have heard it talked about in the report and things, but I can't say that I have.

SEN. NEWTON: But to your knowledge you haven't heard--

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I have never done it. I don't know of any judges who have said to me, that is the way I handle it. I have heard about it in the report and so on. I don't know.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, thank you so much for the work you do in the Juvenile Court. I am very, very glad you are there. I will say, though, the level of debate has decreased since you and Toolasano used to have your debates on the floor of the House.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I miss that.

REP. POWERS: I personally miss them, and I know you certainly educated this freshman when you all would have the major-issue debates on the floor of the House.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: There are some exciting things coming up, [inaudible].

REP. POWERS: Okay. So maybe we can have your side of it, but thank you very much for your work in juvenile. I know that is an area this committee has looked at a number of times. We have tried different things, and hopefully, with some recommendations from you, we can fix some other things as well. Thank you.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Thank you, Representative Powers.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Sir, or good afternoon, Sir. I am going to make mine very brief. I have been looking at the program called Juvenile Review Boards. And you have sat down and talked about a lot of the youth in your courts that probably should not be there for a variety of reasons, one because of the fact that they were mostly truant and not because of deviant behavior.

Do you feel that many of our major cities should be exercising Juvenile Review Boards because we do not have any, as you know, in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, or Waterbury? And those have some of the highest number of kids going through the delinquency system. So do you feel that we need to look further at the possibility of establishing or the need to establish those types of programs?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, let me tell you, we have the FWSN program. When we get people in, and these people become 16, there is not much we can do. There is not very much we can do. And the parent is saying, I am going to sign he can leave school, she can leave school. I am not going to keep him in. If he doesn't want to stay, I am not going to do it.

Runaway's, things of that nature, there isn't much we can do in the court. You could take a long look at that, and get some input on that, but the law itself should be looked at.

REP. WALKER: Well, OPM did a report twice on minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. And both times, they identified the fact that the behavior of the children, both minority and white, was not different, but it was the way they were introduced into the judicial system. And many of them used the Juvenile Review Boards as ways of addressing the behavior when they started in the elementary and junior high areas to address their behavior. And it also engaged the families and the parents to address it also.

So my question is, we are spending a lot of money to put our children in detention centers and to put them in out-of-home placement, but we are spending very little money to provide them with services to prevent this behavior before we get to that point. So something like a Juvenile Review Board and more community services would probably be a much better way of appropriating out funds. And I am wondering if you see that happening in your court?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: My opinion on that is the FWSN doesn't really work that well. If you can do more in the community, you are welcome to it, and it will probably be more effective because we don't put kids in detention because they disobey these orders. All the time, it depends on what it is, if they go out and shoot somebody, but just on the basis of that.

We do have cases where nobody wants to take them home, and you have to give them a place to sleep that night. And sometimes the places, I don't like the name shelter in my courtroom for a 12- or 13 year-old child. We had one girl who spent three months at Marshall House, 13 years old. I just found it out.

So the FWSN business should be handled more locally. And it was a law that was passed, and I was probably in on that. I don't know, but it may be time to take a long look at that.

REP. WALKER: Thank you. Are there any other members of the committee? Representative O'Neill, and then Representative Cafero.

REP. O'NEILL: Just very quickly, good to see you again.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Good afternoon, Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL: In the course of hearing what sounds like a very heavy juvenile docket, have you run into any cases where the reason why the person is before you on a juvenile charge of some sort relates to them being home schooled? I have heard of at least one case, and I was wondering if that is an isolated episode.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I don't recall. Once in a while, you have a home-schooling situation, but she was on the abuse side. You get delinquents from everywhere occasionally, but the only ones I have had home schooling were on the abuse side, abuse and neglect.

REP. O'NEILL: Educational neglect or actually physical abuse?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be physical, but it has been physical, yes.

REP. O'NEILL: Okay, thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Good afternoon, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Your Honor, I join Representative Powers in saying thank you for your service, and I too miss the level of debate you brought to the House during your tenure. It was truly some magical moments, and I certainly miss it.

You heard earlier, Representative Dyson asked the Chairman as we began, as an attempt to find out some information. He wanted to know what the culture of the committee was in regards to this Judicial Committee selection process.

And I thought it was an excellent question because I believe, as a member of the committee, that the culture has changed. It changed approximately about ten months ago. And I give that as a lead in, somewhat apologetically, but as I ask you this next question, but I intend on asking it of every nominee that is before us.

And that is if you have had any professional assistance, accounting, legal service, or otherwise with regard to your preparation to appearing before us or your reappointment process?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Did I have what?

REP. CAFERO: Did you have any professional services rendered for you in preparation of your appearing before this committee, accounting assistance in preparing your application, attorney assistance, any profession--

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: I understand some of that is available. Did I?

REP. CAFERO: Did you, yes?

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: No.

REP. CAFERO: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.

JUDGE WILLIAM WOLLENBERG: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Judge A. William Mottolese of Stamford. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members of the committee.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please raise your right hand. So you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I do, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please have a seat, and welcome to the Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Thank you very much for your invitation.

SEN. MCDONALD: It is one we plan to extend every eight years to you, Your Honor.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I hope.

SEN. MCDONALD: And happily so. It is good to see you here.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: If you would care to make an opening statement to the committee.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I thought I might just bring you up to date about what I have been doing over the last eight years, since the date of my last appointment. Since that date in February of 1997, I served as the Juvenile Judge for Stamford-Norwalk, until September 1 of that year, when I became the Presiding Judge for Civil in Bridgeport.

And I served in that capacity until January of 1999. From then until September of 2001, I was assigned to civil jury and non-jury in Bridgeport, whereupon I was transferred to Bridgeport Juvenile, where I served for a year. From September 2002 until the present, I have been the Juvenile Judge in the Norwalk District.

During all this time, I continued to do affordable housing land-use appeals, whenever assigned. In addition, I have served on the faculty of the Connecticut Judges Institute a total of seven times since I have been a judge, but since the date of the last appointment, a total of four times, '97, 2000, 2002, and 2004. And I took senior status August of 2003.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. And on a personal note, you probably have no reason to recall this, but you were the first judge before whom I appeared, when I was admitted, when I practiced law in the State of Connecticut. It is an honor to still be appearing before you on a regular basis.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I hope you cherish that memory, Senator.

SEN. MCDONALD: Oh, I didn't say that I won. I just remember it was you. Let me ask you, however, in some of the background materials we have been provided from the Judicial Review Council, we have been informed that a number of complaints have been filed against you, all of which have been dismissed by the Council. There were four complaints.

Without necessarily going into the allegations complained in the complaints, were they filed by litigants or by attorneys?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Well, one of them was filed by an unhappy mother in the late '90s, and she wasn't happy with the fact that I took some rather stern measures with regard to her daughter, who was out of control and truant. I think generally she was just unhappy with the way things went in the juvenile system.

SEN. MCDONALD: When was that complaint, Judge?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I think '97 or '98. The only other one I am familiar with, as I indicated on my questionnaire, I have no knowledge of the other two. The only other one I am familiar with is, I believe, that Nancy Burton made a complaint against me before the Judicial Review Council.

SEN. MCDONALD: And for members of the committee, who might not know who Nancy Burton is, Nancy Burton was at the time an attorney.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Yes, that is correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: She has since been disbarred by the Supreme Court.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: That is correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: In fact, if I recall correctly, you disbarred her at the trial court level.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I did.

SEN. MCDONALD: And that was appealed to the Supreme Court, and your opinion was upheld by the Supreme Court.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: And that was one of the complaints.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I believe it was.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions from members of the committee? Representative Powers, followed by Representative Dyson.

REP POWERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome before us again, and thank you for the work you are doing. I have worked with you as the Town Attorney of Greenwich, and we were all delighted when you went on the bench, and thank you for the long years of work you have put in for the state. Thank you very much.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Thank you, Representative Powers. That was quite a few years ago.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Dyson, followed by Representative Cafero.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And how are you doing, Sir?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Well, thank you.

REP. DYSON: You probably heard some of the exchange between Mr. Wollenberg and myself relative to a report that has been issued by the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparity, and I want to pose to you the same question.

One, if you agree that the disparity does exist? And if so, if so or not, I think the report suggested it does, what recommendation or suggestion would you offer to improve upon that situation, to make it better than what it is?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Representative Dyson, I am not familiar with the report you are referring to, but I am familiar with the issue. In fact, I believe it was in 1996, I attended a two-day symposium in New Jersey on the very same issue. The entire symposium was devoted to overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile system. I attended that with Judge Levine and with the then Chief Administrative Judge for Juvenile.

In fact, that symposium, as you would expect, was instructional. I remember very well we were required to put on skits. Judge Levine and I put on a skit. And the skit we put on related to a minority person who had been held in detention, and we had to incorporate in that skit the various considerations we would have given that child before we decided to detain him.

And one of the things I learned is that, in attempting to address the issue, one has to learn about the culture that that particular minority belongs to. Also I learned from that that every time a person from a minority, I am going to keep in mind, and do keep in mind, that that person is to be treated with exactly the same standards and rules as everyone else who appears before me.

It is unfortunate that in many of these instances, as Judge Wollenberg pointed out, there is no other alternative, but to temporarily detain children for the simple reason there is no home to which they can go. Either because the home is totally dysfunctional or because the sole remaining parent, usually the mother, refuses to accept the child back into the home.

REP. DYSON: You responded as it related to juveniles. I am concerned about the entire system and the overrepresentation that is there. And as I indicated with Mr. Wollenberg, I am at a loss being able to secure from people who have an important role to play in the system itself providing me with some insight into how you might be able to change that situation somewhat.

He was initially reluctant to offer his opinion, and then later on he offered his opinion for someone else. And I am not going to feel slighted because he offered two other opinions to two other people, but not necessarily to me. I am concerned about how do we rectify this situation, and if there is something you have seen in your years in the system itself that is going on, that needs to be changed.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Well, I can't say there is anything I have seen in the system. I want you to know I haven't sat in a Criminal Court since 1995, probably. And the only exposure to criminal since that time is on the delinquency side of the Juvenile Matters Court. But I would say that the principals that I try to apply in juvenile, I would try to apply if I were sitting in the adult Criminal Court.

And that would be to probe deeply into whether the defendant has any real ties to the community that would justify allowing that person to be released on bail, on a reasonable bail, subject to house arrest and certain other conditions, such as electronic monitoring. So that, as I do in juvenile, I would try in adult court to try to find ways to maintain that person in the community, before I incarcerated that person, either for not making bail or otherwise.

REP. DYSON: Okay. Thank you very much, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Cafero, followed by Senator Newton.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Good afternoon, Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Your Honor, I pose to you the same question that I posed to Judge Wollenberg, and that is, in preparation in coming before us or in the process of your reappointment or appointment as Senior Judge, have you had any professional services rendered to you by an attorney, an accountant, what have you?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: No, Sir. I have done it all myself.

REP. NEWTON: Empire and, like some Legislators, I understand, we feel like, you know, where judges feel like their court is their domain. Have you had any experiences with other judges going or crossing that line as far as having the decorum and dealing with the public, how you talk to them, treating them as, yes, you may be before our court, but I don't have to treat you--

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I know what you are referring to. I haven't had any experience with that with other judges at all. Where I sit now, I sit alone. I don't have a lot, I am out of the loop, if you will. But I have sat in districts like Bridgeport that have 20 or 25 judges, and I have never heard of that sort of thing happening. Although I remember in practice coming before judges that I thought were a little bit like that. And I don't know, maybe I am perceived that way. It's hard to know how lawyers perceive you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. And I understand that Senator Kissel does not have any further questions. Are there any other members of the committee? Representative Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Thank you for your testimony. Over the last decade, we have created more specialized courts in Connecticut or specialized dockets, and I want you to comment on this question.

You are certainly someone with experience now. Your first appointment was in 1989, so you have seen a lot over the last 16 years. Do you think it is more important for judges in Connecticut, where judges are expected to take on a number of different tasks, to strive to be an expert jurist versus an expert in a field of law?

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: I would say the former. I think that a judge in Connecticut must approach the responsibility by attempting to be as proficient as he or she can in whatever assignment he or she is given. Whether it's civil jury or family or juvenile, I believe there should be general proficiency with regard to everything. And I don't believe in the specialist system, personally.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. And I would tend to agree with that assessment myself. Thank you, again.

SEN. MCDONALD: Any other members of the committee have any questions? Seeing none, I thank you for your attendance.

JUDGE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Marshall K. Berger of Canton. Good Afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Would you please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please have a seat, and welcome to the Judiciary Committee.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Good afternoon, all, and thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: You probably know the routine by now. This is your opportunity to tell us what you have been doing and your outlook for the next eight years.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I will be quite brief. I was appointed to the bench a little over 16 years ago with Judge Mottolese, who was just in front of you, Elaine Gordon, who you will see shortly, and my good friend, Andre Kosay, who is no longer with us. He would have been here today.

I spent my first two years in a criminal assignment between Hartford and the Enfield GA's. I then spent about a year and a half presiding in Housing Court. And for the last 12 years, I have been sitting for civil assignments in the Hartford and New Britain Courthouses. I have certainly appreciated the opportunity to serve the people of Connecticut, and I would enjoy doing so for the next term. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much. Judge Berger, it is always a pleasure to see you. I can't believe the last eight years went by as fast as they did. I am sure you feel the same way. And I know that back from my experience when I was a practicing attorney, prior to becoming a State Senator, I can state for the record that your demeanor and judicial temperament and professionalism in Enfield are certainly outstanding.

I do have a question though. I note that as you have overseen the civil docket in Hartford, the backlog has gone down considerably over the last several years. And to what do you ascribe that positive accomplishment?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: The notion of judicial management of cases has changed, certainly in the State of Connecticut, from where I was practicing, indeed, when I first went on the bench. I think it is fair to say there is a more proactive role by the judiciary in the management of cases. While I am not in that position now, I am just hearing cases, I know we have gone from approximately 24,000 maybe 23,000 cases in our civil jury inventory to somewhere under 13,000 or over 13,000.

The result of which is something we should all be proud of because in this state there is really no, maybe in a couple of different areas, but, by and large, there is no backlog. That is to say, the litigant files their case, and in almost all circumstances, they can get to trial as soon as they want, as soon as they are able. Our courthouses are way ahead in that regard. So to get a case done within year is not unusual.

I have certainly been involved in cases that have only been pending for a few months. So, you know, there has been a more proactive role, that means lots of status conferences. That means working with lawyers to try and resolve issues. It means the date is certain, this is when you will go, and the date is a date that all parties pick, so there should be no disagreement on that. And then the role of us, of the judiciary, is to provide the judge in the courtroom on that day. And we have done a pretty good job doing that, I think.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. Just as a follow up, I don't believe it was as a result of influx or an addition of financial resources to the Judicial Branch. So I am wondering where did that change of philosophy or [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to 2A.]

--the top most reaches, the chief core administrator. Was it your role overseeing the civil docket, and is it something we have seen across the board in the State of Connecticut or is it something more from the Hartford County area?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I wouldn't suggest it was just Hartford. I would start at the top. I think it was the input of the Chief Justice, those that were sitting, of course Justice Sullivan because it goes back a few years. I think it starts with Judge Menton, Judge Lubin, and Judge Pellegrino, and those that are sitting in that role. The role of the Administrative Judge Civil, a lot of folks, just the culture of the courthouse is changing. So it is the work of a lot of people.

SEN. KISSEL: All I can say is, from my experience in the civil side, is that whatever took place was certainly advantageous to all concerned. I think that the axiom of justice delayed is justice denied is probably more suited to the criminal side, but certainly there were a lot of frustrated civil litigants under the old system. So whatever is taking place, I certainly hope continues. And I want to thank you personally for your efforts on that behalf. Thank you very much.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Farr, followed by Representative Dyson.

REP. FARR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. First of all, I just want to say, we have an opportunity to review the evaluations done by attorneys, and I understand the judges do that as well. And certainly, in your case the evaluations have indicated that you are doing an excellent job there.

I take them a little with a grain of salt because obviously some disgruntled attorney can give you negative evaluations that are not warranted, but, still, there is no indication there is any problem in terms of your performance.

And certainly, all the comments that I have heard is that you are doing an excellent job. But I do notice, I believe, that you had six complaints filed, all of which were dismissed.

I understand the process, and there are a lot of reasons that people have filed these complaints, but I wonder if you could just give us your observation as to what it was that generated six complaints against you. Were you sitting in a particular courtroom that generated these or why did you have six complaints against you?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Four of those, with the exception of one, I believe, all of those complaints were by pro se litigants. One was a prisoner who did not like my transferring the case to another [inaudible] because that is just where it belongs. And I was grieved because of that. Others dealt with decisions of mine, again, by pro se litigants not familiar with the process.

Certainly, I think they used it in lieu of an appeal. They weren't familiar with the notion of an appeal, and so they didn't like my decision. I obviously ruled against them, and I got grieved because of it.

REP. FARR: Was this on the civil side?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: It was all on the civil side.

REP. FARR: I don't know what we do about this problem, but I know there is a problem that is similar to what happens with attorneys who get grieved with, you know, certain practices. Family, you tend to have more grievances than certain other areas because people are dissatisfied, and for some reason there is a perception out there that this is part of the normal process. And so I see cases where the judge issues a negative opinion against a pro se, and then they get a complaint against them, and then they get sued by the pro se. I don't know if you have been sued.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I have been sued.

REP FARR: You have been sued, and I think there is another judge before us that had 14 complaints and five suits against him. They were all dismissed, and they were all without merits. And I think there was one complaint, I don't know if it was the one against you, where they had a complaint because the flag was improper in the courtroom. It had a gold bunting on it, and they said it wasn't proper.

Another judge was complained against because he signed an order with only his last name and not his full first name. Totally inappropriate complaints, but I don't know how to control those. I don't have an answer, but, unfortunately, when you get the complaints being made without any merit at all, it tends to degrade the system and people think less of complaints. And then, when there is a serious one, it may not be taken seriously.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I know that we all take them seriously. Whenever you get that certified letter from Judicial Review that is sitting there, it tells you a complaint has been made, and it tells you the committee will be reviewing it on such and such a date, but we don't appear.

We aren't part of that process, and they decide whether there is probable cause or those things. We just sit and wait, and we don't tell our sides of the story. I don't know how you change that either. I mean, people do file grievances against us when they don't like our decisions. We don't always please everyone in this business, and that is 50% who don't like it.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Dyson, followed by Senator Newton.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much. Good to see you, Sir. Question I have asked others, have you had a chance to see this report?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I will be perfectly honest and tell you that I saw this report while Judge Mottolese was testifying. A copy was passed to me there. I saw the front cover. No, I have not seen it.

REP. DYSON: That's cool. Now, the next thing would be, are you aware that there is a situation regarding the disparity within the system itself?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I was certainly cognizant of the fact that there is nationwide high percentages of minority folks in our prisons. There is no question. And I know that, as Judge Mottolese said, we are putting on a seminar on this at our upcoming session this spring. I look forward to reading that. I am aware of that.

REP. DYSON: And even though you referenced that you are aware nationally, are you aware that Connecticut is kind of unique in that regard?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I don't know that. One of the things I said is, I have been sitting on the civil side for about the last 12 years. I really don't go into the Criminal Courtroom, but for maybe, as I did a few weeks ago, as a substitute basis during Christmas week. And I handled four cases or something. It is just not something I deal with on a regular basis.

REP DYSON: I gather that from Mr. Wollenberg, when he said he doesn't go into other courts, so obviously he doesn't have an opportunity to see. I assume your comments are essentially along the same lines that you don't. I am really at a loss here to try to find someone who does.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I am pretty familiar with things that go on in the civil side, but not on the criminal side.

REP. DYSON: Just another question to follow up with that. The personnel involved in the system, that are employed by the State, do you see diversity among them in your experience on the civil side?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: On the bench, I do.

REP. DYSON: I don't go to court, but do you see diversity there, with prosecutors, PD's, you don't see those either?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I don't deal with PD's either. I just have private attorneys. And I can tell you the face of the Bar has surely changed since I was admitted back in '74, which is about 30 years ago. And the face of the Bar has changed, that is a great thing. In terms of the State-supplied public defenders and prosecutors, that is not something I deal with.

REP DYSON: The entire thing, you haven't witnessed that?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I have witnessed that we have far more minority lawyers, female lawyers, than when I became a lawyer.

REP. DYSON: Now, in your opinion, this overrepresentation, do you have any opinion about that, as to why that is?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: No. I mean, you are asking me to comment on a subject that is unbelievably important that I haven't spent the time thinking about.

REP. DYSON: I agree with you, Sir.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I don't want to give, it is clearly important, and I know that is one of the reasons we are going to spend some time on it.

REP. DYSON: Right. I agree with you. You ought not give a flippant answer on a subject that is so important as this one. My dilemma is, when I go through the people who have gone through, most of them, at least three don't have an opinion, not really. So if you have the most important player in the system not having an opinion as to why a particular situation exists in their system, I am really at a loss as to whom I would get some information from.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I hear that, but I think there are people from the Judicial Branch that would, in the right time, would probably be happy to talk to you.

SEN. MCDONALD: And Representative Dyson, I guarantee you that there are some people on this list who are well-versed on this subject that are coming up.

REP. DYSON: I am going to wait them out. We will see.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Anything further, Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: No, I am fine. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Newton.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honor. And I recognize that some of us are new to this committee, such as Representative Dyson and myself. The only time that judges used to come before us was to vote them up or down. So we have an opportunity to ask some questions. And because you haven't, maybe correct me, done a lot on the criminal side--

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: That is correct.

SEN. NEWTON: --I need to ask you then, and I didn't ask the other judges, and I apologize for not asking it, because a lot of my concerns are on the criminal side. In your thought process, help me understand in your mind, what makes a good judge?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: We've got to listen, and we've got to be patient. We have to treat people fairly. Those are three. We've got to work hard. So it's a combination of all of those things. This is not an easy job. You know, we tell this to jurors when they come in. They don't want to be there, but at the end of the case, they're amazed at this role where one has to listen to everybody and then make some decisions. But you've got to be patient.

SEN. NEWTON: And just a closing point, I looked at the complaints that were filed, and I recognize that whenever you're in an authority position, that you have to make tough decisions or you have to make fair decisions as far as judges are concerned. I'm not too concerned, you know, why people file complaints because, you know, people get upset when we make decisions. The only difference is they have the right to vote us in or vote us out when those kinds of things happen.

I'm more concerned, as being on this committee, on the temperament of judges. I've been in some courtrooms, and I'll save that for another day, but I'm glad to hear you say some of the things you said about being fair, listening. Those are the kinds of things I would like to, you know, expound on at another point. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Senator Newton. Are there other questions? Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I've heard Senator Newton and Representative Dyson indicate that they are new to this committee. They could have fooled me. I'm tied for rookie of the year so far.

Your Honor, welcome, good afternoon, and congratulations on your nomination. I would like to ask you what I've asked the previous nominees. That is, in preparation of appearing before us, have you had any professional services rendered to you, such as accounting services, legal services, etcetera.?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: No.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? If not, I just have one, sort of as a follow-up to some of the prior questions. You indicated that there have been approximately six grievances filed against you. You take each and every one of them seriously, perhaps frustrated by the process because you are, well, you're the subject, but you don't have an active role in it. Is that fair?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: That is fair.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. Have you, as a judge, ever had occasion to reprimand attorneys or to file official charges of misconduct against attorneys?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: And what goes into your thought process, your consideration, before you, as a judge, would file an official action against an attorney? And I'm not talking about somebody who has been presented to you, you know, for misconduct. I'm talking about an attorney who may have, through the course of litigation, you've come to find out that something isn't quite kosher in the way that they've conducted themselves.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: In what I did in a couple of cases was to simply refer it over to, I'm not sure about the new name of it, but the Attorney Grievance Group. I sent a transcript with a cover letter, and I let them handle it. I had believed that someone had lied to me, so I sent it over to them to let them deal with it, as opposed to my dealing with it or referring to it for any contempt proceedings.

SEN. MCDONALD: I mean, I assume that you would not have taken that action lightly.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I did not.

SEN. MCDONALD: Did you try to resolve that type of situation--

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I did.

SEN. MCDONLAD: --short of that referral?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Absolutely.

SEN. MCDONALD: And only after that process was exhausted, if you will, did you take that action.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: That is correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: Have you done that frequently, do you know? Have you referred attorneys to the Grievance Committee?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Just once.

SEN. MCDONALD: Just once?

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: I think just once. Is it possible I've done it twice? It might be, but I only sort of remember just once.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? Seeing none, I appreciate you being here, Judge Berger.

JUDGE MARSHALL BERGER: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is John Boland of Pomfret Center. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please have a seat. Welcome back. It hasn't been that long.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: No, it hasn't been.

SEN. MCDONALD: We assume you haven't gotten into too much trouble since we approved you on an interim basis.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, I haven't had enough time.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, tell me.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, good afternoon, Senator and Representative Lawlor, and members of the committee. Since you have a long agenda today, and I did appear before you two months ago, I'm going to make a very brief opening statement.

To refresh your recollection and for the benefit of any new members who were not here in November, I had worked 27 years as an attorney in private practice prior to completing my practice in November. My office was in Windham County, and my practice covered the entire range of civil matters with an emphasis upon family law and mediation.

However, I was also Town Attorney for five towns, in four of those cases, for over ten years each. I served on the Pomfret Board of Education for eight years. I was on the Board of Finance for 14 years, including 8 as Chairman. I was also extensively involved as a board member of local nonprofits, two of which I served as President for multiple terms.

I'm a graduate of the University of Connecticut, which has awarded me a bachelor's and master's degree, as well as a mediation certification, and also of Georgetown University where I earned a jurist doctor degree. Since late November, I have had the privilege of sitting as an Arraignment Judge at GA 21 in Norwich.

I think it's a great location for a first assignment, as it's large enough to be quite busy, but small enough that a single judge can attend to all the matters that normally appear on a GA Docket, including housing and infractions.

Further, the staff, both of the State's Attorneys and the Public Defender's Office comport themselves professionally and interact civilly, which makes for great efficiency and improved service to both victims and accused. I would be happy to answer any questions any of you might have for me.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there questions from members of the committee? Representative Farr, followed by Representative Dyson.

REP. FARR: Good afternoon. Just one quick question I'm always curious [inaudible - microphone not on]. Sorry. We wanted to get your reaction to the training new judges are given. Have you been through the training program?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Yes, I have. In fact, it commenced the morning of November 9^th. It was approximately two weeks in length, and I thought it was excellent. The pattern was that we would either spend three or six hours with a judge in a different location, and we moved all over the state. I think the judges selected tended to be experts in a particular subject. We got to observe them in court, in most cases, and then come back and digest what had happened. Obviously, in two weeks, you can't learn an awful lot, but it was an exposure to some of the real masters of the craft.

REP. FARR: And did you have a chance to give input back later as to what the shortfalls turn out to be?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, at the end of the two weeks, we were asked to fill out a little form rating the different judges we had met and so on and so forth, but that was fairly perfunctory. It was one to five on that scale, and tell us what you thought of them.

REP. FARR: I think it might be helpful if they asked you, you know, two months later what was it that you should have had in training that they forgot to tell you about. In other words--

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: In an informal sense, that occurred because we had one holiday in that two weeks, so we met again between Christmas and New Year's for our last day of training. I think at that time, all of us had been on the bench for a month, and we were able to give a little bit of feedback as to the earlier process.

REP. FARR: Good. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Your Honor. Are there other questions? Representative Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, Judge. I wanted to ask--

REP. DYSON: Mr. Chair, for the sake of the slate, I think I was next, but I'm happy to let the Vice Chair go.

REP. LAWLOR: Okay. I'm sorry.

REP. DYSON: I just didn't want you to do that and not be made aware.

REP. SPALLONE: I would defer to Representative--

REP. DYSON: No, no. You go ahead.

REP. LAWLOR: I'm sorry. Senator McDonald left, and I just picked up. I apologize.

REP. DYSON: Don't worry about that.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Your Honor, I wanted to ask, in follow up to Representative Farr's questions, was there anything, especially since you're a new judge, and eight years from now you'll be a veteran judge, was there anything that was very different than what you expected in the experience of becoming a judge that was just, you didn't expect being a judge to have this quality to it?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, let me be perfectly candid, if I may. One of our days included a visit with Judge Wollenberg at the Juvenile Court in Hartford. I practiced in a rural county. I did civil practice for 27 years. Being there in that Juvenile Court and seeing some of the problems affecting 12- and 13-year-olds was quite a sobering experience.

REP. SPALLLONE: Thank you very much.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much. How are you doing, Sir?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Okay, Mr. Dyson.

REP. DYSON: I wasn't here and dealt with you previously.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Right.

REP. DYSON: So it is all new for me. You probably heard me pose the question to other members who came before this committee about this report.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Yes.

REP. DYSON: The fact that this report clearly states that there is an initial disparity within the system itself, I'm really trying to elicit from people who play an important part in that system, do you have any thoughts about what it is we can do to rectify that?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, let me answer that. I have not read the report. However, I do remember reading summaries of it in the Hartford Current when it was first published. I found its conclusions fairly shocking at that time. Keeping in mind that I'm a rookie, I think the first level of response would be, what is my personal reaction or my personal involvement in that problem?

All I can say is that I go out of my way, I think, to be neutral as people come before me, not only based upon their race, but upon their gender, and how they're dressed, and how they present themselves in court, and all those factors.

Obviously, I'm not in a position to comment about whether the system has a problem that is epidemic, nor do I have any power to change the system. Certainly, if I were in my courtroom and saw any overt act of discrimination, I would bring it to the attention of the person who committed it. Whether I observed it with another judge and reacted to it, I don't know what my privileges are in that respect.

REP. DYSON: And I can appreciate that. I think, based upon the comments that you've made, I'm prepared to trust your conduct in the courtroom, that it would be one in which you are going to be as fair as you possibly can be. However, that doesn't necessarily do it.

I would imagine that most people there think of themselves as being fair, yet we are still ending up with a problem that clearly is a mark on this state.

I think it conveys a message loud and clear across this place that justice delayed is justice denied. For people who may be in the system for all the reasons, that may not matter at all. I think we need to take a look at a system where an inordinate number of people are ending up in it compared to others. Yes, you were shocked, but for others, it has been an everyday thing.

So I'm interested in wanting to do something about it, and not just have it there. I thought the first thing to do would be to go to those people who would be familiar with it and have them give their view about what could be done to make it better. So that is my reason for posing the question.

It's being done to you specifically, and to others who have come, and to others who will come, but it's rhetorical, and it's going to a wider audience. I'm going to hammer on this issue as much as I can, so somehow it will get some attention, and that maybe we can change the culture of the place that results in this taking place in the first place.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I think it's an important question.

REP. DYSON: Thank you, Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there other questions? Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on Representative Dyson's comments and your response there too, Sir. First of all, welcome, good afternoon, and congratulations. One of the things Representative Dyson asked you with regard to disparity in courtroom, your response was to look upon everyone as equal that appears before you. I appreciate that.

I just find it necessary to comment, and it means no disrespect or slight to your response. One of the things I do is I'm an Expulsion Officer for the City of Norwalk public schools. In that capacity, I sit as trial [inaudible] in those particular cases. I received an incredible education in doing this over the past 12 years.

I could have two students before me, one right after the other, for the same offense. One is from upper-middle class families, accompanied by two parents, wearing a three-piece suit that they probably bought the day before. On the left side is an attorney. On the right side is a psychologist. They present their case on behalf of that individual.

The next case might be that of a minority student from a broken home, an indigent probably wearing more casual attire, maybe more ratty attire. Maybe they are alone because there is no parent present or that parent had to work. Obviously, the presentation that they are making before me on the same issue, defending themselves, is far different than the previous student that had the assistance.

It's something that I know I have to be cognizant of as I try to be fair to both those students and treat them equally, realizing that they are coming from different perspectives, different backgrounds, different life experiences.

I'm sure you will encounter the same kinds of experiences probably far, far more times in your new role. I just offer that by way of a comment. As you start your new judicial career, Sir, you indicated that for 27 years, you were primarily in civil practice. Is that correct?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: That is correct.

REP. CAFERO: Did you do any criminal at all whatsoever?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I appeared in the GA 10 or 20 times perhaps over that span of time. I have some indirect involvement with the criminal justice system as a Town Attorney because we had several cases in which town employees were charged with various offenses. I would have to work with the State's Attorney as a victim representative, so to speak. So I'm not entirely unaware of the procedures of the system.

REP. CAFERO: I'm presuming in the latter part of your career, you did not frequent Criminal Court or GA Court.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: That is accurate.

REP. CAFERO: Do you have any expectations as you go forward for an eight-year term to serve as a judge in a Criminal Court?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, I'm serving in a Criminal Court now, in the GA. A question was asked earlier as to whether it was wise to have judges involved in different areas of the law. I might have said in November, well, I don't think I should be in a GA because I don't have experience.

I have to tell you, it's a broadening of the mind that I very much welcome.

Once you learn the alphabet soup of programs and things like that and the 500 statutes and all their penalties and so on and so forth, I can't say I'm an expert on that, but I'm certainly learning. It's very different from the civil practice. I think it allows me to make decisions very quickly, and there is an art there that I want to learn.

REP. CAFERO: I have to imagine, though, that you might not have voiced it when you were assigned Criminal Court right off the bat. You probably took a deep gulp and said, oh, my gosh, what am I getting into?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, actually, we were told that was the expectation, so I knew going into training that was probably where I was going to wind up. Like everyone else, if you had said to me, where do you want to go, I probably would have given a preference for something I'm more familiar with, like family law, which I did extensively. Now that I'm not there, I don't miss it, to tell you the truth.

REP. CAFERO: In the eight years you have ahead of you, do you have an expectation to preside in Family Court?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, it's interesting you should say that. Several judges, I think, very eagerly have asked me if I'm going to sign up for Family Court next August when I get a choice. I don't know whether the Judicial Administration would put me there or not, but I think to some extent the feeling is, if I'm there, they're not. I think, for a while, I don't want to get lost in that one area and never get out of it again. I'm 56, so I don't anticipate having a 25-year judicial career.

REP. CAFERO: Do you see it as the role of a judge being appointed to the Superior Court to go where they are asked to go?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Absolutely. I don't view myself as a prima donna. I'll go where I'm sent.

REP. CAFERO: And where are you currently presiding, Sir?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I'm in Norwich.

REP. CAFERO: In Norwich.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: In the Arraignment Court in Norwich.

REP. CAFERO: And your hometown is in?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: It's in Windham County. It's Pomfret. It's about 32 miles or so.

REP. CAFERO: Do you have any expectation of remaining in Norwich throughout your eight-year term?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I doubt strongly that I would be there for eight years.

REP. CAFERO: Why do you say that, Sir?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, because there has been no history, to my knowledge, of any judge in the GA remaining in there for more than a few years. I think it's typical that there be a rotation. I expect that at some point, I'll be back in Windham County, but even there, I don't think I would be permanent.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I'm the only judge in Windham County, by the way. I've already had the State Police at my house at 11:00 on a snowy night. That certainly provides a service that I'm there.

REP. CAFERO: My last question, similar to what I've asked others. In preparation of appearing before us, actually also in November, did you have any professional assistance rendered to you, professional service, such as attorney at law or accounting service or otherwise?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: No, I did not.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much, Sir.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: You're welcome.

REP. LAWLOR: Senator Newton.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. Good afternoon.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Good afternoon, Senator.

SEN. NEWTON: I don't know if you're familiar with this bond-bailsman study that came out from Program Review, one of our committees, that basically said that judges are setting bonds as if only to regulate bond-bail industry. There is some question if it's legal or right for judges to be setting to regulate another institution. What has your practice been?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, that is not a factor in my mind in setting bond.

SEN. NEWTON: Okay.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Most frequently, I'm not even aware of the individual's ability to make bond or not make bond. I set the bond based upon the crime, based upon the circumstances, and, of course, if it's a felony, whether there is a risk to evict them and those kinds of factors. I don't take into account how much it's going to cost to buy the bond. I don't know 98% of the time.

SEN. NEWTON: Okay. Just a follow-up question. I asked this of all the judges. You're going to be reappointed. What would you say the temperament or what makes a good judge?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, I would join Judge Berger with the three adjectives he listed. I think I would add one more, and that is compassion or empathy with the persons that come before you, whether it's criminal or civil. I don't think anyone or hardly anyone comes to court in a happy manner.

They are usually there because of some stress, whether it's a criminal charge or whether it's a civil matter. Understanding that they are going through that distress, I think is helpful for the communication between the court and the person standing before them.

SEN. NEWTON: My last question, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on Representative Cafero's comparison of using two students, one not fluent, and the other one coming from an Afro-American background where two separate decisions are made for the same situation. Two people have the same situation, but one seems to have gotten a different verdict, if you want to call it that, than another one. What is your feeling on that? The law is supposed to fit everybody equally.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Sure. If you were asking what my response would be to that having happened, I would say it's unfortunate. If you're asking what my response would be to prevent it from happening, my role is more significant in that I can try to prevent it from happening in the first instance.

REP. LAWLOR: Sorry. Representative?

REP. WALKER: Thank you. Good afternoon, Sir. I'll pick up on Representative Cafero's questioning. He asked you about during your eight years, that all the judges are required to rotate, correct?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: That is correct.

REP. WALKER: Are there any instances where some judges basically stay in the same location for an extended period of time for a variety of reasons?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Well, I can only speak anecdotally about that. My experience has been that most of the Superior Court Judges that I've observed over like 27 years of practice do move around. They may be five years in a particular location. Perhaps in the fifth year, attorneys may think they have been there forever. They nevertheless do rotate.

When they achieve senior status, I think there is a different rule. They tend to be close to home and not move around, but that is not what we're talking about.

REP. WALKER: But there are circumstances where there are judges that have stayed in one position for more than the standard?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Five years, I think is the--

REP. WALKER: Is the maximum.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: --is the maximum.

REP. WALKER: Okay. My other question, earlier I was talking about the Juvenile Justice Review Boards they use. Are you familiar with those?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: I'm not familiar with that.

REP. WALKER: You're not familiar with them?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: No.

REP. WALKER: Okay. Thank you.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: You're welcome.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there other questions? Judge, just in the sake of completeness, there was one thing that you had actually brought to our attention, and I just wanted to ask you on the record.

In your first appearance before the committee a few months ago, one of the questions we asked, is there anything about you that might come to light and would embarrass you to the Governor or the Legislature as a new appointee.

You did point out, in what was clearly an overabundance of caution, that you have been subpoenaed to testify in a matter in the State of Massachusetts based on when you were an attorney as a material witness. Is there anything about that that you're aware of that would ultimately prove embarrassing?

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: No. I think that what I did, the question was so broad, that I attempted to exercise the widest caution and answer it in the affirmative rather than have this come to anyone's attention later.

I would just point out that since I submitted my questionnaire, the deposition has actually been scheduled for a Saturday, so I don't have to take a day off from court. I've also been told through the grapevine that they subpoenaed or noticed the depositions of almost everyone involved in the case. It is a sibling rivalry that has been going on for a generation.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Judge.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: You're welcome.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there any further questions? If not, thank you very much.

JUDGE JOHN BOLAND: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: And congratulations, again. Next is the Honorable Peter L. Brown of Hamden. Good afternoon, Judge.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Good afternoon.

REP. LAWLOR: Would you please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: I do.

REP. LAWLOR: Or testimony, I should say. Please be seated. Your Honor, as you're aware, it is our custom to allow you to begin with an opening statement. Please proceed.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Thank you. Representative Lawlor, members of the Judiciary Committee, it is an honor and privilege to be with you again this afternoon. Once again, I would like to thank Governor Rell for her nominating me to serve on the Superior Court bench.

Since November the 24^th, 2004, it has been my honor and privilege to serve in the Criminal Court in the City of Waterbury, also known as GA 4. My primary responsibility has been to handle arraignments, guilty pleas, and pretrial matters.

I am fortunate to be sitting in a courthouse with several outstanding judges who have been providing me with guidance and advice as I continue to acclimate myself to the criminal process in the context of being a judge. Of particular note, I would like to thank the Administrative Judge Salvador Agati, the Presiding Judge for Criminal, Frank Iannotti, and Judges Bill Cremins, Bill Holden, Eliot Prescott, Tom O'Keefe, and Jim Janakio for their advice and assistance.

I would also like to give a special thanks to attorney Mary O'Conner of the Deputy Director of the Division of Continuing Education for the Judicial Branch who is responsible for guiding the recent class of judges through pre-bench orientation. She did a fantastic job, and I would like to publicly thank her for her efforts. I also wanted to thank my wife, Cathy, for all of her love and support over the years and particularly the last few months.

Our whole family has gone through this transition period. I enjoy the challenge presented by service on the bench. I believe that I'm doing a good job, and I ask for an affirmative vote from this committee so that I may continue to serve the people of the State of Connecticut. I thank you all for your time and attention. I am available to answer any questions that you might have.

REP. LAWLOR: Well, thank you, Your Honor. I can say, speaking as a politician, we respect people who begin by thanking all the folks who they work with and have helped them get where they are because that is typically the way we start our speeches. It is certainly appropriate and appreciated, especially their spouse.

In any event, Judge, since you've been assigned there, aside from all the wonderful people who have been working with you that you've mentioned, is there anything about the experience that came as a surprise to you once you were on the other side of the bench and dealing with these complicated cases?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: I think, Representative Lawlor, just the feeling of responsibility. I think it's one thing to know before you actually take the bench that you will have certain responsibilities for individuals' lives and the outcomes with regard to the case. It's quite another to sit there on a day-by-day basis and make these decisions.

What has been impressed upon me, as long as I've been a judge, and I've talked to those members of my class just coming through the process, is that we realize that we do have an awesome responsibility as we sit there. Some people say, you know, if someone ends up entering a guilty plea in a particular case and getting sentenced to, you know, 30 years, that is a big deal. Certainly, 30 years is a big deal, absolutely a big deal.

There is also a lot of power and it creates a lot of concern, in my mind, when you realize that you have the authority to sentence anyone for any particular time. One day of incarceration is a very big deal. I take that responsibility very seriously. So whether it's an arraignment situation, whether you're talking about setting bail, whatever the situation is, I take the situation very seriously, and consider that every day as I take the bench.

REP. LAWLOR: It's interesting you mention that, Judge, because a few hours ago, the United State's Supreme Court struck down the federal sentencing guidelines as they apply to defendants in federal cases on the theory that judges should not be applying guidelines developed by Legislators and enhancing sentences for factors which weren't found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

It's analogous to a controversy, which has been sort of brewing here in Connecticut, although I think it's fair to say Connecticut doesn't have a sentencing guideline scheme similar to the federal one. Nevertheless, we do have minimum mandatories, which we enact here from time to time. Some of them are a source of controversy at the moment.

Based on the few months' experience that you've had already, do you sense that you are constrained in the sentences you are allowed to impose because of minimum mandatory sentences applied by the Legislature? If so, do you have any advice for us on how to maybe modify those, so you can do a better quality of justice in individual cases?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Again, given the length of time that I have been serving, I don't think I have that breadth of experience to really give an opinion on that. I would say, at the moment, no, I have not felt in any of the cases that the mandatory minimums have been applicable that I have felt constrained in any way in coming to a fair decision.

Now, to be fair, in all of those cases so far, they have been guilty pleas where the individuals have entered into the plea after advice with counsel. So these are pleas that, arguably, they've decided it's in their best interests to accept. They haven't been cases where I, as the judge, have imposed a sentence after a trial. Having said that, no, I have not had a circumstance yet where I felt constrained in any way by the statute.

REP. LAWLOR: Now, you're in the GA in Waterbury now.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: That is correct.

REP. LAWLOR: Are the sort of plea negotiations, do they take place in your chambers at all or is that not the system in Waterbury at the moment? Do you get involved in these discussions?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Yes, I have. Just recently, really for the past month, from November 24^th until the end of December, I was assigned to the Arraignment Court. At the beginning of this month, I began handling the pretrial docket. It is now that I'm having counsel come to my chambers, and we're beginning to have discussions concerning various guilty pleas. We started to do that now.

REP. LAWLOR: Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Yeah. First of all, I wanted to thank you for your comments about being impressed by the power that you have and recognizing that responsibility. I've always said one of the most important things we as a committee do, probably the most important thing, is confirm the nomination of judges. You have the power over, you know, the power of life, liberty, and property. You can take away somebody's property and their life.

While we are constrained because we're only part of a process, you can make that decision. While it's true, somebody can always appeal it, often times that is not an effective remedy. If you make the wrong decision, people may not have the resources to be able to do that or the Appellate Court may defer feeling that you had a better view of what was going on in your courtroom.

I do want to just reflect the fact that I think it is our responsibility to keep an eye on the members of the bench and to make sure that you always take that responsibility seriously. One of the things that we ought to be very careful about is to make sure that judges don't abuse that power, just because it's an awesome power you have.

So far, I think you're doing a great job. You haven't gotten into any serious problems yet. Keep up the good work. I'm looking forward to, I suppose, you'll be here in eight years when he comes back.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: I hope that you're here. Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. Good to see you.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Good afternoon, Representative.

REP. DYSON: You've heard the question. Before I start, I'll make a comment regarding Representative Farr's comment about keeping an eye on the judges. I've always been taught that there is a balancing act between the various branches. There is a certain amount of scrutiny that Judicial will provide to the Legislature in terms of what it is that they do. You'll probably acquire that experience somewhere down the road, and some time in office will probably permit you to be able to engage in doing that.

Now, the question I want to raise follows on that. It is around the issue of racial and ethnic disparity within the criminal justice system. Now, I have asked others, and I'll ask you. I must especially ask you because I can't let your short time allow me not to ask you the question. I must ask you this.

Now, do you have any thoughts or ideas as to what can be done, recommendations as to what can be done and needs to be done to rectify this situation regarding the ethnic and racial disparity within the criminal justice system? Do you have any thoughts on that?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: The only thought that I have, Representative Dyson, is that my personal opinion is that I, myself, as a judge, have to make sure that every time I take the bench that I'm treating everyone who appears before me fairly and equally, regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, what have you. I think that is my number one responsibility. I think if every judge does that, that is how we address the problem. That is my opinion on how to deal with it.

REP. DYSON: See, the difficulty I have is that if we make the assumption that all of them are, and people can believe that they are acting [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to Tape 2B.]

--in a kind of skewed situation. Obviously, fairness may not necessarily be the issue all within itself. The other elements are there. So I'm trying to find out, and I understand if you haven't had any experience yet, but there may be other things beyond just in how you approach it as something in which you deem yourself to be fit.

It may be something else, and you may see that. I'm kind of hoping that other people who have come before this committee, and will come, will have seen some evidence of some other things beyond the fairness of it that may need some rectifying.

So if you have any thoughts on that, I would certainly love to hear what those thoughts are. If you don't have any now, you know, granted it's like the others I've heard already. They probably don't care to render an opinion.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Well, I think the opinion that I've rendered, Representative Dyson, is the one that I have at this point.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Senator Newton.

SEN. NEWTON: Good afternoon.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Good afternoon, Senator.

SEN. NEWTON: Yeah, I know. And to just maybe take you back a little bit, I listened to your testimony during the summer. I guess you were before the committee earlier--

JUDGE PETER BROWN: In November, yes, Sir.

SEN. NEWTON: In November, and I got an opportunity to watch, you know, your confirmation. Being in the Legislature as long as I have, I think the first Afro-American judge, and, Bill, you tell me if I'm right, was Curtissa Cofield. Judge Glass had already been there in the Supreme Court, but I think Curtissa Cofield was the first one that we got an opportunity to appoint.

I heard you talk about fairness. As an Afro-American judge, do you feel that it's more pressure on you, being an Afro-American judge, having to render decisions?

Now, if Waterbury is anything like Bridgeport, 90% of the people that come before it are people of color in Waterbury or Bridgeport or New Haven. You have to use the interpretation of not being looked upon to be easier on minorities, and I have to be tough.

That frightens me if that is the perception that Afro-American and Latino judges are taking, and I can't say it is because I haven't, you know, had the privilege of sitting in courtrooms where Afro-American and Latino judges are. Your perception of how you interpret the law, are you afraid that if you're more lenient towards Afro Americans and Latinos, you'll be looked upon as, you know, a soft judge?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Thank you for the question, Senator. I understand the question. The answer is no. I do not treat any defendant who comes before me any differently. No African American or Latino defendant that would come before me would get any sentence any different than any other defendant.

I look at the facts. I look at their background and history. I look at the case law, the statutes, and make an appropriate decision as to what needs to be done. So I do not feel that there is any additional pressure on me to treat that individual one way or the other based on race or ethnicity. No, Sir, I do not. Thank you.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you very much. Are there other members of the committee? Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Good afternoon, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Your Honor, forgive me. I missed the early part of your testimony. Are you currently sitting in Criminal Court?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Yes, Sir, GA 4, Geographical Area 4 in Waterbury.

REP. CAFERO: And prior to your sitting there, in your private practice or in your prior experience, have you had much Criminal experience?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Many years ago, Sir. For the past 11-1/2 years, I've served in the Attorney General's Office, working in the Department of Health and Human Services, and now, Heath, Human Services, and Education. Prior to that, I was in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, and I had a year of criminal experience under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but no criminal experience on the state side.

REP. CAFERO: Are you somewhat apprehensive to start your judicial career in Criminal Court?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Not at all. Not at all. First of all, I think, as one of the other judges mentioned, Judge Boland mentioned, we knew full well there was an expectation that we would all be going into criminal to start because most of us don't have a criminal background.

So I was aware that that probably would be the case. I had no apprehension about that. In fact, I was quite interested in learning the law in that area and the procedures in getting started. I've found it a very enjoyable experience.

REP. CAFERO: During your orientation, was it shared with you as to why that is the process, wherein someone who has little or no experience in a certain area would actually be placed in that area? Was there a rationale behind that?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: My understanding of the rationale is for the very point that the individual doesn't really have the background, and the best way to get that background, to make sure that judges are well-rounded is to put them into an area where they really don't have the experience.

I think, over time, as the judge continues in that assignment and as the needs of the Judicial Branch warrant, they will probably be moved, for myself and for others. At this time, I'm certainly content to remain in criminal, and I think I'm doing a good job.

REP. CAFERO: Judge, I understand you're currently sitting in Waterbury. Is that correct?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: That is correct.

REP. CAFERO: Did you request that locale?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: I did not request it, but I like it.

REP. CAFERO: How does that work with regard to where you're assigned?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: I don't really have an answer for you, Representative Cafero, in terms of exactly how the decisions were made for the [inaudible] appointments that came before this committee originally in November. I really don't know. There may have been some sense given to the areas where the individual resides, but I don't know that for a fact.

REP. CAFERO: And lastly, Sir, as I've asked others, did you have any professional assistance regarding preparation in appearing before this committee, any professional services that you retained for preparation of being before us?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: No, I did not, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Nor in November?

JUDGE PETER BROWN: No, I did not, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any other questions from members of the committee? If not, I thank you very much, Your Honor.

JUDGE PETER BROWN: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is John Cronan of Wallingford. [GAP - 5 seconds] Good morning, Your Honor.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Good morning.

SEN. MCDONALD: Would you please raise your right hand? Good afternoon, I should say. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Have a seat. It's good to see you back here, Your Honor. Feel free to provide any opening comments to the committee that you choose to.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: It's enjoyable to be back with you with two hands, compared to my last visit here where I had only one working at that time. When I was here the first time, I was humbled by the appointment. I'm more humbled sitting in a room with 120 people in a courtroom, all of whom are staring at you, waiting for you to make a decision.

And until you have that experience, you don't really understand the role of a judge or, unfortunately, a day where I heard that a police officer was killed in a domestic case, the thought that actually upset me was, was it a domestic violence case that I had anything to do with? In that case, it was not. For days, I was upset. And that is the nature, I believe, of being a judge.

I am in New Britain the [inaudible] but doing primarily arraignments, though this week, or next week actually, I am being transferred to the jury list. I'll be doing criminal jury cases next week. But it has been a great experience. The training has been excellent.

My colleagues, the six of us who kind of go through basic training, boot camp together, have bonded. We're on the phone with each other. Hey, what are you going to do with this? What are you going to do with that? And even the other judges in my building, in my JD, are always there to help you. It's quite an organization, and I'm very proud to be a part of it.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Jack, we're delighted you're back here with us. We missed you, and especially now that there is a new session has started. We have some exciting things before us. So if you have any words of wisdom as we go along, please call.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I thank you.

REP. POWERS: Thank you.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I would still like to show up on your JF deadline date.

SEN. MCDONALD: Do you want to take my place?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: No.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Senator Newton, followed by Representative Dyson.

SEN. NEWTON: Good afternoon.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Good afternoon, Sir.

SEN. NEWTON: I've asked this question to mostly all the judges. What makes a good judge, in your mind?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Patience, courtesy. I had a situation, and with six weeks of experience, I can't really say it's a wealth compared to the other people here, to have an individual who was a deaf-mute, not speaking English, and trying to get through two, not one, but two interpreters, two people signing for this person. And it was complicated, and it was really very time consuming, but this person deserves his day in court. He deserved all the time that he needed. I'm not saying I'm a good example, but you have to have patience. You can't say, oh, this is wasting our time. You can't say that.

The individuals who come before you, you have some veterans, people who have been there probably more than the judge in a lot of cases, but many times, it's their first time in. As I said, it's a frightening experience, and I try to keep people as comfortable as possible, particularly in Criminal Courts. It's not often the result that they want, but if you can create this level of comfort, I think it makes for a better courtroom.

SEN. NEWTON: A last thing, and I showed mostly everybody on the Bond-bailsman Report that came from our committee, just one question. Do you think it's the role of judges to regulate bond-bail industry?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: This was asked in my first hearing. And I think there might be kind of a balance-of-powers situation where this might be better first in the Legislative than the Executive Branch of government. I am of the opinion that bonds should strictly be to ensure someone is coming to court at the next court date. I don't think it should be punitive. I did have a case where it was a violent, once again, a domestic violence case where the person went out on a written promise to appear. He came back to the household that he was prohibited by the Protective Order to go into, threatened his wife and child. Another judge put a relatively high bond, which he made himself. It was not an assurity bond, he made it himself. He came back to the house, threatened to kill her, rape her, and kill their son, arrested again, the third time.

The stakes go up with that type of scenario. It goes from coming to court, it goes from the violation of the Protective Order to threatening someone. I think you have to measure all of these elements. I am very impressed by the Bail Commission's Office. They provide you, as a judge, with a great deal of information. When I first started as a prosecutor many, many years ago, the Bail Commissioner would say, well, I spoke with the defendant, and he or she, one, they didn't do it. Two, they aren't going to do it again, and they don't have a record. The individual probably had a parking space next the judge they had been in court so often. Everyone in court knew that this person, that this was not their first time.

But now the Bail Commissioner, at least in New Britain, I think New Britain has worked with Central kind of like a state university to develop a better method of getting bail information. The Bail Commissioner will tell the judge, Mr. Jones has been arrested four times in Connecticut. He has no prior failures to appear, which is a big point. He comes to court. He may be arrested, but he comes to court. And that goes into the decision-making process. Here is his record. Here is his record in other states. Here is a federal record.

So you are making a balanced decision based on information in front of you. That information was not in front of you or me 20 years ago when I was a prosecutor. So you can make a knowing decision under those circumstances. So that's one big change I've noticed from, I'd say, the '80s to now, as far as the information that they give the court, they give the judges, for purposes of bond and bail. As I said, I do believe it is to ensure a person coming to court and not punitive.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Dyson, followed by Representative Cafero, as he rejoins us.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Sir. Good to see you, Mr. Cronan.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Thank you.

REP. DYSON: You are a little different. Let me tell you why I view you as a little different. You come from the prosecution end of things. You have been, over a period of time, familiar with that end of things. You are familiar with the kind of personnel best employed in the prosecution end. You're probably familiar with the fact that over the years, that you have not had a very diverse population of people under your employ. I think that—

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: That is correct.

REP. DYSON: Fair. I don't want to be accusatory in any way by saying that that reality has been [inaudible] my comments about this report. This report represents an overrepresentation of disparity within the system, the system in which you have been a part of. What I'm going to do here is do what I've done to others, ask their opinion. Now, this states there is a problem. Your experience would give you probably greater insight than others. It's a judgment call as to whether or not it has a role to play in what we are confronted with today. So I'm prepared to kind of put all of that aside and give you the opportunity to give to me your thoughts on what can be done to make this better.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Going back to my experience, particularly with the General Assembly over the last 20 years or so, the report was done by the Justice Education Center. I have the greatest respect for them, the work they do. The statistics were drafted by, I believe Eleanor Ryan, the person they usually employ to do statistics. There was input from my old office, and from the Public Defender's Office, and many other people in putting this report together. However, it is still a report.

Being up here and working with the various committees, working with various reports, being in charge for a couple years of the Racial Profiling Study, there is always going to be some doubt that this report was done by number punchers. Even though there were people on the committee, people who are in the know really may not have been part of the final product. The consultant was paid to put this together. However, as you read the report, monitoring expenditures, education, these words keep coming back and back on the recommendations. I would say from my experience, and I'm different, if you were to take this report, bring the judges in from Hartford, New Haven, from Bridgeport, in New Britain, it's more of a Hispanic population, it's probably the largest minority population, bring the judges there, bring the Public Defenders, bring the State's Attorneys there, and say, all right, what should we do now? What should we monitor? What should we study? Let's make this work.

Right now, it's a quasi-academic study. What can we do to make it work? I think if members of the General Assembly decide that we're taking this seriously, it's not a report that is going to gather dust with thousands of reports up in the library, but make this a working document. I can think of someone who might want to do this. I'm saying, bring the people back in. If the report is over, bring the petitioners back in and use that as the springboard to make this a result project, rather than a project that will be up on the fifth floor ten years from now.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. I can appreciate that. There is a need for us to engage in the very thing that you suggested and recommended. It's a beginning. You know, I can appreciate that. A couple of other things that I did kind of allude to along the way that I'll step out on this limb and say that probably has a part to play. That is, when I talked about diversity of the entity in which you were part of and the absence thereof of the diversity there, it kind of suggests that it may play a role. You know? I think, obviously, I feel strongly about that particular segment of it because it implies that in the administering of justice, that implicit in that, it's better left to particular people to do. That is wrong now. You know? Implicit in that, yeah, certain people apply justice better than others, just my thoughts.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I value that, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Thank you.

REP. CAFERO: Welcome. Congratulations.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Thank you.

REP: CAFERO: A couple of questions for you. Obviously, I know what you did prior to becoming a judge. What would you say is the area of law that you are probably least familiar with?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Well, as I said in my first appearance before the committee two months ago, I absorb. Just standing around here for 20 years, you absorb a lot of things that probably would help me. But if Judge Pellegrino said, you're going to Family tomorrow morning, I'm not sure what I would do. It's only because, speaking with other judges, Family is a tough, tough area because of the very volatile nature of the people you're dealing with. I talked to judges that said that Juvenile Delinquency is very close to Criminal, the segue is pretty easy there.

The negligence, as I brought to the committee earlier, is a tough, tough area to get used to. Civil, while working with the State's Attorney's Office, I have had the opportunity. I've been teaching at a number of the colleges for years. I've taught a lot of the business law courses, so I kind of keep my hand in contracts, and tort, and, you know, some of the issues, administrative, to a degree. I would be more comfortable, I think, if my call tomorrow morning would go to Civil Court. As I said, Family seems to be an area where I would need a lot of work.

REP. CAFERO: As you start your career as a judge, do you have an expectation of remaining in the Criminal side for the entire eight years?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I hope not. No, I hope not. I was pleased to talk to the Presiding Judge. She told me that she was moving me from the so-called Arraignment or First Appearance Docket to the Jury Docket. You do something, and then sometimes you learn something else. So I would, hopefully, have the opportunity to see, actually, all four of the areas before I finish.

REP. CAFERO: So you've been in Arraignment Court. You're currently in Arraignment Court.

JUDGE JOHN CONAN: New Britain is a different situation from a lot of other courts because New Britain, they kind of merged the A and the B. The GA and the Part A pretty much follow the same path, so any case that comes in, goes into the Arraignment Court, so called. If there is a not-guilty plea, then it goes to court for pretrial by the presiding criminal judge. If she doesn't work out a deal, it then goes literally down the hall to one of the two judges who will try the cases that haven't been resolved in the Pretrial Court. So I will be moving into one of those two positions this week.

REP. CAFERO: Is that something you requested?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: No.

REP. CAFERO: You were just assigned that.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Yeah.

REP. CAFERO: How long have you been in?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Six weeks.

REP. CAFERO: Six weeks.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: A judge who has been there longer told me the only thing she puts on the wall is a calendar. Don't get too settled. They explain that to you when you're going through the education process.

REP. CAFERO: What's that?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: That you could be one telephone call away from being somewhere else the next day and to accept that. Do not become a prima donna and say, hey, I'm not leaving this place. That is not going to happen. Seniority would have some say later on, but when you're relatively new, you go where they send you.

REP. CAFERO: And, again, the question I've asked to others, in preparation for appearing before this committee, both today and back in November, have you had any professional services rendered to you to assist you in preparation?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: No, not at all.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Any other questions?

REP. LAWLOR: I just wanted to ask you one question, Your Honor. In your previous life, you had the opportunity to spend some time here in the General Assembly, and I think you're aware that one issue that came up from time to time relates to the prosecutors in training and things like that. Representative Dyson was asking some questions earlier on, which I certainly think they are extremely appropriate. It seemed to me that one thing that we had discussed a number of times, maybe you're uniquely qualified, especially now that you're a judge seeing it from the other side of the bench, is this issue of training for prosecutors analogous to what you've just gone through as a new judge or what the Public Defenders apparently go through on a regular basis. In the hopes that issues like racial disparities can be addressed, and geographical disparities can be addressed, and that type of thing, do you have any thoughts on that now that you've had some time to—

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I've come full circle. I think the two weeks I spent with the training from the Judicial Branch has helped me clarify some of these thoughts. I don't think it's out of the question that there probably should be some type of continuing legal education requirements for attorneys who represent the State of Connecticut, not just prosecutors, Public Defenders, probably Attorney Generals, anyone whose full-time job is serving as a representative of the state. They should probably have some mandatory hours of training every year.

REP. LAWLOR: And do you recall, for new prosecutors, for example, and maybe it's changed in the last few months, I'm not sure, but from your recollection, new prosecutors, is there any sort of formal statewide training program where they are sort of brought up to date on what standard practices are, best practices, shall we say?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: There is now a handbook, relatively detailed, probably 300- or 400-page, handbook that every new prosecutor gets. That was actually put together by one of our prosecutors who is in Meridian who is a longtime very experienced GA prosecutor, who put everything, here are the forms, here are the procedures, and so on. That is given to all brand-new deputy assistant State's Attorneys when they are sworn in. Usually, they go back to wherever they are going to be working, and they are given a mentor of sorts in that place. They tell them, well, follow them around for a few days, and then they are kind of on their own.

There is a mandatory, well, I can't say it's mandatory, for the last two summers, they've had a two-day program at the National Guard Camp in Naugatuck. That is a requirement for new attorneys to attend that two-day training period, and then it is elective for everyone else. When I was involved in that, we tried to make it as interesting as possible, but barely half of the prosecutors for free training decided they weren't going to go those days. And it was an arraignment-only day, so there was no courtroom requirement.

REP. LAWLOR: So only about half of the prosecutors that were—

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I think we had 109 last year. They had 109 last year out of about 225 prosecutors.

REP. LAWLOR: Wow. And issues such as the ones we're discussing, the reality, I mean, the empirical evidence is very clear. There are racial disparities. First of all, who is in prison? The percentages are pretty shocking. Whether there is justification for that is a separate discussion, but empirically, it's there. So is there any formal process by which prosecutors sort of compare notes around the state and talk about that and other similar issues?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: I would say it's very parochial to wherever you are assigned. So the GA in Hartford, I'm sure those prosecutors will discuss matters, but there isn't that much interaction. As you know, there is a Prosecutors' Union under collective bargaining, but they are mainly involved in the bargaining process. Other than I think one time, we gave a presentation on new legislation to the group, but that is really an employment area. It is not an education area.

REP. LAWLOR: Now, when you came through the so-called judges school, right after you were sworn in as a judge just a few months ago, in the context of that training, I guess, as I understand it, there is some basic book learning kind of stuff, and then you are also moved around to various courts and get a sense of how different things work in different locations, is that right?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Yes. You had an overview, they call it Civil 101, and Family 101, and Juvenile 101 where you given usually the Presiding Judge for that area of the law who will explain how that works. Then, in my case, I was sent to New Haven where I sat with Judge Esposito in Arraignment Court in GA 23 for a day, just to kind of sit next to him and make sure you're in the right part of the courtroom, you know, how to come out the right door. Then the following—

REP. LAWLOR: Like driving school, you're sitting next to—

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Yeah. The following week, I was assigned to the Waterbury Court. Actually, I second-chaired the driving school with Judge Iannotti, and he said, here, they're yours. So when you're kind of faced with that, you hope you don't mess up too badly. So they give you the academic aspect, but then push you right out to observe, and then finally to do it on your own. The last day before we finished, Judge Carol and another judge came up to the training center on Washington Street, and they made us go through the opening canvas of the court. We each had to give our opening canvas to the rest of your class. And they critiqued you as to how well or bad it was, probably in my case. So when you walked in that first day, I spent one day with Judge Boland for a half a day. He said, oh, you know what you're doing, and went to another court. They try to get your feet wet through a gradual process.

REP. LAWLOR: And is that two weeks? Is that right?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: It's two full weeks.

REP. LAWLOR: And at any point during that two weeks, is the issue of racial disparity raised at all? Is it discussed? Is it brought to people's attention?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: In general, there is a presentation given by, first of all, Judge Pellegrino is there almost every other day. Melissa Farley from the Judicial Branch is there to discuss the legislative aspect of what you may run into. So I cannot say it was high on the list of things we covered, but it was discussed in context with the places you're going to work and the defendants you're going to be dealing with.

REP. LAWLOR: Well, maybe that would be a good idea, not that you put together the curriculum, but since it is such a hot topic in our state, maybe it should be addressed in the initial training phase for new judges, just to give people an opportunity to think about it and understand how significant that is in the minds of many people in our state. Sensitivity on that issue, at a minimum, is to be expected.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: As Representative Dyson said, I'm probably a little different in having the exposure here for a number of years and being familiar with these issues in working with the General Assembly.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: And I have to tell Representative Dyson, I have gone into other judge's courts, but I'm usually in disguise. I'm only trying to learn some of the things that they are doing. Some of the things are more complicated that I'm doing, so I sneak in the back when I get a moment to.

REP. DYSON: I do that sometimes myself. I go in, but I usually don't have a problem. The other thing I'd like to mention, if I might, I've raised a question about the division from which you come, what your experiences have been. I don't mean to suggest that the problem, in my view, only resides there. I see it in other places. I see it in parole, you know, and I see it in probation. I see it in other places. For me, it has a lot to do with attitude. You know, I would love to be proven wrong. God, would I love to be proven wrong.

The reality is that there is a problem. There is a problem. And if we're going to be serious here, that needs to be remedied. There needs to be a willingness to engage in trying to find a remedy, and that requires changing the culture, you know, how you approach these things, how you deal with them. And that means people have to think differently, need to be willing to think differently about this.

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: Thank you.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? If not, thank you, Judge. Congratulations. I'm sorry?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

SEN. MCDONALD: Judge Cronan, do you recall if Representative Cafero asked you any questions?

JUDGE JOHN CRONAN: He did. He asked me a few questions.

SEN. MCDONALD: He did, a few questions, okay. Thank you, Your Honor. Next is the Honorable Frank M. D'Addabbo, Jr. of New Britain.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. You know it's customary to begin with an opening statement, so please proceed.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary committee. I initially want to express to you my strong feelings of the honor and privilege in appearing before this committee as a nominee to continue to be a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court. I also thank Governor Rell for nominating me for reappointment to be a judge of this court. It is a position I have aspired to throughout my professional career, and a position that has been rewarding, and one that I have thoroughly enjoyed over the past eight years.

Briefly reviewing my background, I was born and raised in New Britain and presently reside there with my wife, Diane, and my daughters, Kate and Sarah. I graduated from Providence College in 1975 and went to New England School of Law in 1980. I began practicing law in 1980. My previous employment history included a period of time as an Assistant State's Attorney and as a principal in a multi-lawyer law firm. During the past eight years as a judge of the Superior Court, I've had the opportunity to be assigned to Geographical Areas and Judicial District Courts. I've enjoyed the challenges presented in each assignment.

Just briefly, those assignments were the Hartford Judicial District for Juvenile Matters, Geographical Area 13 at Enfield, Geographical Area 12 at Manchester, as a trial judge in the Waterbury Judicial District, Part A Criminal Matters. As a note, I was assigned to that judicial district for five terms and had the opportunity to preside over many serious Criminal jury and court trials. Presently, I'm assigned to the Geographical Area 14 at Hartford. During my term, I've also been an instructor at the Judicial Institute. I prepared materials in conjunction with that position.

I am presently appointed by Chief Justice Sullivan as a member of the Superior Court Rules Committee and the Judiciary Criminal Instructions Drafting Committee. I'm a member of the New Britain district of Unigo National Incorporated, the New Britain Boys' and Girls' Club. As I have indicated previously, I believe the position of judge at the Connecticut Superior Court to be a significant honor and one in which I have cherished. Over the past eight years, I have strived to be a fair, competent, and impartial judge on every matter that has come before me. I assure you that this commitment will continue. I appreciate your attention to my comments and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have.

REP. LAWLOR: Well, thank you, Your Honor.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Congratulations on your reappointment. I think you've heard some of the questions asked of the other nominees. Of the questions that you've heard already, is there anything you are anxious to answer or that you thought you might be particularly useful in providing insight, before we ask you? I'm sure it will be asked again. I'll just give you the opportunity to start off.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I'll leave it to you members to ask me any questions that you desire.

REP. LAWLOR: That's the spirit. Are there any questions? Senator Coleman?

SEN. COLEMAN: Good afternoon, Judge.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Good afternoon.

SEN. COLEMAN: I think you and I have a fairly good history of speaking candidly to one another. I'm looking for some assistance from a person like yourself to help me understand why it may be that a judge or judges may be interested in the transaction that may occur between an accused and a bail-bond's agent in the posting of bail in response to an order from a Superior Court judge in a Criminal case. I ask the question because I've engaged, over the last few months, in some discussions on the topic of bail-bonds and the process in the State of Connecticut.

I recall a particular comment by a judge of the Superior Court to the effect that there was a particular individual who appeared before her, and she set a bond. At the next court appearance, she was surprised to see the defendant come from the audience rather than from the lockup. She thought she had set a bond that was beyond his reach. I don't know if this is what she was suggesting, but it sort of indicated to me that she was misusing the bond process. She was setting a punitive bond. Be that as it may, in as much as the individual was in court and came from the audience, why would a judge have concern about that?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Well, Senator Coleman—

SEN. COLEMAN: I ask the question because it seems to me the purpose of setting bond is to assure the defendant's appearance in court at all future dates for which the case is pending. That apparently seems to be what this defendant was doing. He was reappearing in court.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Senator, you are correct, obviously, when it comes to the primary purpose of bond. It is to ensure the appearance of a particular defendant in court. As you probably know, I can't answer for what another judge does. In courts that I have had the opportunity to set bond, I look to the relevant practice book, factual questions that are helpful in the setting of bond, and make a decision on every particular case as it relates to that person's appearance in court.

To follow up with that, you asked a question. Why should a judge be interested in the relationship between a defendant and his or her bondsperson? My answer to you, I would not be interested in that because the decision that I would make concerning bond is based on what I thought, at that particular time, considering all the circumstances, all the factors, what is the fair and appropriate bond for that particular fact there. That is the decision that I would make.

SEN. COLEMAN: I suppose, to be fair, if I were a judge, and the defendant did not appear in court, I may perhaps be interested in what has occurred between the defendant and the bail-and-bond company or firm. I'd be interested from the point of view that this firm has provided this security, and it's now the duty of this firm to bring this accused to court or to forfeit the bond, and to pay to the state the amount that the state deems appropriate.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: That is correct.

SEN. COLEMAN: That would be my consideration, I suppose, if I was the judge.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Well, if the defendant, after setting a bond and posting the bond, and the defendant does not appear in court, there are a couple of options. One of the options is to issue, as you are aware, an order for re-arrest of that individual. If that person is arrested and he or she is in front of court, and then a judge sets an appropriate bond in light of the nonappearance of that person, then if they're not arrested, if they fail to appear, and if at some point in time, which I have not been involved with, there is a discussion about proceeding on the bond, if you will, with the bondsman.

As to what happened between the bondsman and the defendant as to how much money or how much security was put forth, as a judge, making that decision, I don't think that has become or will become part of my though process.

SEN. COLEMAN: I asked this question because I really don't know. I've heard others refer to statutory authority or statutory requirements that the bond agent's fee be 7% for a certain amount, 10% for a certain amount, 7% beyond a certain amount of bond posted.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I'm not aware of what their agreements are or what the regulations are. I am aware that this body is looking into that issue.

SEN. COLEMAN: The question that I'll get to is this. Is there some magic about 7% or 10% or 12%, for that matter, or 3%? As long as the entity is authorized to do business in the State of Connecticut, the business in this case being to provide security bonds for the reappearance of the defendant in court, do we really care or should we care about whether the person who is conducting this business charges 3% or 5% or 7%?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I can't answer that question, Senator. I think that what the regulations established through appropriate hearings and considerations of more people that are expert in that field will set what they feel is the appropriate percentage. I'm not experienced enough on that particular topic as to what the proper percentage should be.

SEN. COLEMAN: My question is a little more general than that. I'm just going to press it.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Just a little bit because I know you so well. The concern, the overriding concern is that the defendant reappear in court. I think we're agreed on that.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: That is the primary purpose, correct.

SEN. COLEMAN: In most other businesses, I think it's a common approach, particularly in this arena, to let the marketplace determine what the price of the service to be provided is. Why should that not apply in this instance?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I don't know, Senator.

SEN. COLEMAN: Okay.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I can't answer that question.

SEN. COLEMAN: I'll press you more when I see you again.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I'm sure you will, Senator.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there other questions? Representative Dyson on his way out the door asked, hold on for one second. He had a question. Let me just see if he's out there. Hold on. Will the distinguished ranking member do that for us? Anyone else, funny jokes, stories? Representative Cafero?

REP. MCMAHON: I just want to say as a native New Britainite, I'm delighted you're here. I've heard about your great work that you've done in the New Britain courts. I'm happy that you'll be continuing for another eight years.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you very much, Representative McMahon.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Thank you. How are you doing, Sir?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I'm fine. Thank you.

REP. DYSON: You've been around long enough to know the question I'm going to ask and the line of it. Without my having to go through it, do you have an opinion?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Well, I categorized, in my mind, your question, Senator. I'm aware of that study. I have had an opportunity to briefly look at the executive summary of that. The two things for the way I can answer, number one, that study, and especially the executive study, indicates a variety of agencies and departments that are involved in this situation and this issue. That study also talks about some recommendations. I think the term that is used is future steps that should be taken. I agree that those steps should be explored further with the people that were involved in that drafting and researched on that study.

The second part of the answer is, and I feel compelled to answer this, over the course of my career as a judge, I am aware of the issue. Of the different courts I've been in, I'm sensitive to it. I've tried very hard in every case that I handle to be sensitive to it, and at the same time, always be fair and administer justice as best as I can on every case that comes in front of me.

REP. DYSON: Okay. I appreciate that response.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Cafero? [Changing from Tape 2B to Tape 3A]

REP. CAFERO: Forgive me if I ask some questions that you might have gone over in the past. Many of us have other committees that are going on, and we're currently running back and forth. You're currently sitting in New Britain, is that correct?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: No. I'm sitting in GA 14, Hartford.

REP. CAFERO: GA 14 in Hartford. I'm sorry. You're from New Britain.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I'm from New Britain.

REP. CAFERO: And how long have you been in GA 14 in Hartford?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I just started with this new term, which was, I guess, September of 2004.

REP. CAFERO: Where were you prior to that?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: In my opening remarks, I indicated that for the last five years, I had sat in the Waterbury Judicial District Part A, a Criminal trial judge.

REP. CAFERO: I see.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Yes.

REP. CAFERO: And in your prior practice, prior to your becoming a judge, what was your area of practice? Was it general practice?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: For about ten years, nine years, I was an Assistant State's Attorney, practiced for a time, and then the Hartford JD Part A. Then there were six and one-half years that I was in private practice in a firm that did insurance defense work. I had a specialty of toxic torts and product liability, multi-tort litigation.

REP. CAFERO: I see. In your ten years as a judge, have you sat on the civil side?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Not yet.

REP. CAFERO: Not yet?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: No.

REP. CAFERO: Have you sat on the Family side?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: No.

REP. CAFERO: You've basically been in Criminal Court?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: I had one term in Juvenile.

REP. CAFERO: You had one term in Juvenile?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Yes.

REP. CAFERO: And how long did that--

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: My first assignment, one year, I was in Juvenile.

REP. CAFERO: One year, okay. Sir, the question I've asked everyone, in preparation of this hearing, did you have any assistance or professional services rendered to you by an accountant and attorney, etcetera?

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: No.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Do any other members have questions at this time? If not, thank you very much, Sir.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Congratulations.

JUDGE FRANK D'ADDABBO: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: The next judge is the Honorable Kari Anne Dooley of Sandy Hook. Before you take your seat, Judge, if you could raise your right hand.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Certainly.

REP. SPALLONE: Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I do.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Please, be seated, get settled, and begin with your opening statement to the committee.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Good afternoon, members of the committee. As you know, I was confirmed as an interim appointment to the Superior Court in November of last year. I'd like to, again, thank Governor Rell for this opportunity. I'm honored to be nominated for a full judicial term. With the committee's indulgence, I will not repeat all of the remarks I made to the committee in November, but will, in summary fashion, describe my education and legal career to date.

On a personal note, I'm married with two children, both boys, ages two and four. I was educated in the Ridgefield public schools, earned my bachelor's degree from Cornell University, and my law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1988. My first job as an attorney was as an associate in the litigation department of Whitman and Ranson, which is now known as Whitman, Breed, Abbot, and Morgan in Greenwich, Connecticut. For about four years, I was engaged primarily in civil litigation, ranging from complex contract disputes, collection work, housing matters, personal injury, as well as insurance. I also did some criminal defense work on the GA level.

In 1992, I joined the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut in the Criminal Division. I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for 12 years holding various supervisory and advisory positions within the Office during that time. When I left the Office in November of 2004, I was Council to the United States Attorney.

Since my appointment in November, life has been a bit of a whirlwind. For about two weeks, myself and my colleagues who were appointed with me employed an extremely intensive orientation program. It took us to many different court houses around the state, exposed us to the various philosophies of the current judiciary, and demonstrated the diversity of matters over which we will be presiding, and which we will be deciding. It was challenging, intense, and in some ways, exhausting, but I think, all in all, it was wonderful preparation for the duties we were about to undertake.

Beginning November 23^rd, I was assigned to GA 20 in Norwalk. I preside over what is called the Arraignment Court, though arraignments are only a small fraction of what happens there. As the Presiding Judge in that court, I hear guilty pleas, I impose sentences, most of the time, agreed upon dispositions. I oversee case progress through the monitoring of continuances, take applications for the many diversionary programs that the Legislature has enacted, and decide eligibility for the programs as well, as the propriety of granting those programs. I hear from victims on a variety of issues, from protective order applications, dispositions, requests for restitution or the granting of diversionary programs.

Every day is different. Each day is interesting. The job is both professionally and personally challenging. I've come to better see and understand the role of the judge in the GA where many people appear pro se, often are not particularly sophisticated, and can be, I think, overwhelmed by the process. Very often, they look to the bench for guidance. While I cannot and do not dispense legal advice, I do try to provide them with sufficient information to help them navigate the process a little better. I mention this because it was an unexpected part of the job, but I think a critically important one. My new colleagues in the Judicial Branch have been, to a person, tremendous. The judges are collegial and helpful. The support staff in the court and behind the scenes is knowledgeable, helpful, and friendly, not just to the judges because we're judges, but to the lawyers who appear in court and to the other people who appear in court.

While I am scheduled to hear the Civil Short Calendar in Stamford in a few weeks, I have not yet been called upon to hear any Civil, Family, or Juvenile matters. With your approval and that of your colleagues in the House and the Senate, I hope to look forward to those assignments as well. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much, Judge. Do any of the members have questions for Judge Dooley? Yes, Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to you.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Good afternoon. Thank you.

REP. CAFERO: Judge, you have been located, since you took office, I think you said late November, in Norwalk.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Yes.

REP. CAFERO: I'm from Norwalk. Nice town, isn't it?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Yes, lovely.

REP. CAFERO: Was that an assignment you requested or how did that get assigned to you?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I don't know how decisions are made. I will tell you that as an incoming class, we did not have input and were happy to receive whatever assignment the powers that be felt were appropriate.

REP. CAFERO: Now, you indicated before that you're scheduled to go to Civil Jury in Stamford, is that correct?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: No. I'm scheduled to hear a Civil Short Calendar. They rotate. Stamford no longer gives what they call a block assignment, and they rotate the judges through hearing the various Short Calendars, Foreclosures, Law and Non-Arguable, Law Arguable. No matter what your main assignment is, you'll be rotated through those Short Calendar days. So I'm scheduled for January 24^th, but I have not had that yet.

REP. CAFERO: I see. Obviously, you said you are newly appointed, and you have not had an opportunity to have experience yet as a judge in the Civil side or the Family side. Is that correct?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Correct.

REP. CAFERO: Do you have any expectation of having that experience during your tenure?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: It's my understanding that it's the current thinking of the Administration of the Judicial Branch that every judge should have exposure to and work in each of the four major divisions to develop a general expertise as a jurist, I think the issue came up earlier, as opposed to identifying expertise early on and keeping somebody in a particular area. So it would be in my expectation that over the course of my judicial career, whether it's eight years or beyond, I'll sit in all four.

REP. CAFERO: And have you ever had any Family experience in your previous practice?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Family law is the one area that I have never had any experience, either as an advocate or related. Frankly, it was just not an area of law that I was going to practice.

REP. CAFERO: If it comes to you being assigned to Family Court, how would you best prepare for that?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Well, the Judicial Department has really tremendous resources in terms of training, seminars, as well as books, and resources from all the prior Judicial Institutes. You start with the books. You start with the statistics. You start with the most common legal issues. The Judicial area has also shown itself to be a remarkable resource in terms of its people. I would spend probably a lot of time, more time than that judge would prefer, with a judge who has experience in that area, to know what the most common issues are and how best to handle, not only the procedures, but the substantive aspects of it.

REP. CAFERO: Are those resources available only to new judges or to all judges?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I think they are available to all judges. I don't think all judges go to all the training. Certain aspects of the training are required for the judges, but all the materials from the prior trainings are available to all the judges.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. My last question, in preparation of your hearing in November or the hearing today, did you have any professional services rendered to you or on your behalf?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: No, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Next is Representative Dyson, followed by Representative Spallone.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. Good to see you. I need to get something clear here. First of all, you were in the U.S. Attorney's Office starting in 1992.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Yes, Sir.

REP. DYSON: The name Dyson is not familiar to you.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: It is not, Sir, no.

REP. DYSON: Okay. Good. Then I'm probably clean then. I want to pose a question regarding the report on disparity.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Yes.

REP. DYSON: I don't know how familiar you are with the issue itself, but I'm looking for your opinion.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I have just received a copy of the report, and I look forward to reading it. It's my understanding, based in large measure by the commentary that was made today, that the empirical data suggests significant unfairness along racial lines within the Administration of Justice, whether it's in Connecticut or outside Connecticut's borders. My opinion, and it's not a studied one, is that anytime you have statistics or empirical data that suggests a wrong has been done, the assumption, I think, in going forward in terms of how to undo that or how to prevent it going forward or diminish it going forward has to include the notion that some of the causes for those numbers may or may not be within the system that generates the numbers.

I think that there are a number, whether they are financial resources, familial resources, educational opportunities, I think there may be other reasons for those numbers, independent of problems that exist within this system. I also think that it would be naive not to think that there are problems in the system. When you have hundreds, if not thousands of people making discretionary decisions throughout the entire process, whether it's a police officer deciding where to patrol, who to stop, what's suspicious, for so many hundreds of thousands of decisions that get made on a daily basis, I think we would be naive to think that perhaps consciously or subconsciously there is race at play.

That is not to disparage at all the many, many people who work in Law Enforcement. My experience has been that I have never seen anything that is remotely overtly racial conduct. I think if you want to address the subconscious, the unconscious or just perhaps the appearance that there is something broken in the system, that the answer is to train, to diversify the workforce at all levels and across the board, so that the possibility of the disparity is diminished. That is my opinion. I should probably say that is not necessarily the opinion of the Judicial Branch.

REP. DYSON: I'll agree with you on that. I'd like to commend you on something. You've had the courage to mention that word that no one else has mentioned that I've heard today. That is the race issue. I've kind of left that to others to say, rather than being the one to raise it myself. I've spoken in terms of the disparity. I've mentioned racial disparity in reference to the title on it here. At the very core, I think, is the very word that you've raised, race being an issue. I would love to think it's not.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I think I should—

REP. DYSON: I'm not asking you to back away from it.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: No, I understand that. Perhaps I made an assumption in the question because the report does deal with racial disparity. I assumed that racial disparity and the treatment of people within the system, for whatever reason, was the focus of your question.

REP. DYSON: Yes. It was.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Okay.

REP. DYSON: It was, and that is why I'm commending you for doing that.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Okay.

REP. DYSON: I think what we have, though, is that we have to have the collective will throughout the system that you've just referenced, how the police work at it, what the prosecutors may do, what are the issues that have us arrive at this point, the role that the judges play in this, Corrections, and all of that. I mentioned earlier it may exist in parole or probation and other places too. Obviously, the issue in resolving it is one in which all of us have to embrace trying to find an answer or finding out what is it that's causing this problem, and whether or not there is a problem.

I'm leaning to the side that there is a problem. Finding a way to deal with it is something that's going to take all of us doing that. That is why I'm asking your opinion. What is your opinion on this? So I appreciate your answer, and I'm glad to know that my name is not familiar with you. I did that not because of me, but because my son, I think, was around in 1992 in the U.S. Attorney's Office.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Okay. I don't know him.

REP. DYSON: Good.

REP. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Spallone, please?

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your Honor, I take note from your application that as you've discussed, you were in the United States' Attorney's Office practicing, primarily and almost exclusively, in the federal courts for 12 years. I was wondering if you could comment on the transition into the state system, any of the observations you may have made or difficulties in that transition or whether it was easy.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: It has been a transition, but I wouldn't call it a difficult one. If memories have muscles, mine have been exercised to go back to my days at Whitman and Ranson. I had spent some time in GA's, and I was familiar with how they worked. The real difference is in the volume, and the procedures, and the process by which the Criminal courts advance cases, and the extent to which they're involved with so many more people than the federal courts. The training was very good.

Although it appears chaotic, I think, from the outside, it really is controlled mayhem to the extent that it may only take 45 seconds to handle a particular case, but because of what happened leading up to that 45 seconds, 45 seconds was all it needed to address what issue was presented and to move on to the next one. So it has been a transition, mostly seamless, but I will say it has not been difficult. I think I'm addressing whatever hurtles I may have encountered.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Is the volume that you're encountering in the particular GA you are sitting in then, is it at all interfering with the appropriate disposition of justice?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I don't think so. I don't think so. I am not in a GA where we are constrained to get the court's business done by 5:00 by any stretch. We are usually wrapping up the end of the regular dockets between 2:30 and 3:00. Sometimes there is a 2:00 docket that will take you beyond that. For the most part, I don't think people are making decisions or behaving in a fashion based on the clock. I think that they're behaving in a fashion appropriate to the case.

REP. SPALLONE: That is good to hear. Thank you very much for your testimony. Congratulations.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any other questions for the Judge? Senator Meyer?

SEN. MEYER: Judge Dooley, I just wanted to make [inaudible - microphone not on]

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Thank you.

SEN. MEYER: [inaudible - microphone not on] that association.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I did very much, very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Senator Newton?

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. I was upstairs, and I want to commend you for your statement on the racial unbalance in our judicial system. I've asked all the other judges, what in your mind makes a good judge?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: I think that a willingness to withhold judgment until you hear from everybody who has something to say on a matter, to listen, and to be fair, and demeanored appropriately because you deal with a lot of different people from varying backgrounds, different degrees of education, articulation, just being nice. Be a nice person.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. I just want to point out something because I think it's important. When you talk about fairness, you know, not long ago in Bridgeport, a Bridgeport police officer shot up a neighborhood. He had to have a written promise to appear, no jail term, no nothing. I often thought, if I shot up my neighborhood, would I be given a written promise to appear? So you understand the frustration that Representative Dyson, and myself, and some of the members on the Judiciary committee feel when I hear judges say what makes a good judge is fairness, and temperament, and hearing all the facts. That would be nice, if that is the way our judicial system really worked. You know, when you look at the disparity, who is making up our jail system as it looks today compared to 20 years ago?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Well, I think that there are two issues there that are being joined, perhaps not necessarily or perhaps not causally connected. I think that the example you posited, I think goes directly to a decision that a judge made that you felt might have been disparate treatment. I don't know on what basis because I don't know what the facts are. The issue of who is populating the jails, I think, and it was a point I tried to make earlier, and perhaps I didn't make it particularly artfully, is that I think there are multiple causes and reasons why that is, some of which may lie within the judicial system, but some of which most assuredly do not lie within the judicial system.

Within that system, the judge is a small, albeit important, part of the process. So all I can tell you is that it's been my experience, the judges that I've dealt with and the courtrooms that I've observed, again, it's only been six weeks or seven weeks, it would be my intention and has been my practice to take ethnic, racial, gender issues off the table. They are just not appropriate for consideration when deciding a particular issue for a particular defendant. Beyond my commitment to continue to do that, I don't know how to answer your question.

SEN. NEWTON: Final question, and I mentioned it to the other judges, as it pertains to setting bail for defendants. I'm sure you probably already know what the law says, the three criteria in setting bail. Do you feel it's the judge's job to regulate the bond-bailsman industry?

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: No, I don't. I don't think it's the judge's job to regulate that industry. I think to the extent that the industry is going to be regulated in the first instance, that is the job for the Legislature. The enforcement of those laws, in the second instance, is the job for the Executive Branch. I do not take into consideration what the relationship with the bail-bondsman might be. When I set bail, I have no idea whether or not a bail-bondsman has been contacted, and if so, which one would be contacted, and if so, what their fees are. It's just not part of my consideration.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions for the Judge? If not, thank you, again, for appearing before the Judiciary Committee. It was a pleasure having you here a few months ago. I have to tell you, from the attorneys I know who have appeared before you, they say that your performance in the courtroom is just as wonderful as it is before this committee. Thank you very much for being here.

JUDGE KARI ANNE DOOLEY: Thank you. Thank you so much.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Constance Epstein of Glastonbury. [GAP - 5 seconds] Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, have a seat. Welcome, and feel free to provide any opening comments you wish.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. My name, again, is Connie Epstein. Excuse me. I'm honored and privileged to have been nominated by the Governor and to be before you today. Just a few months ago on November 8^th, I spoke to this committee, providing what was probably a pretty boring recitation of my accomplishments and my life, but along the lines of what I thought you needed to consider for my appointment. I won't repeat that performance today. I know you do have a transcript of those hearings. I will briefly summarize it for those of you who were not here.

I have practiced law for 25 years. For the first two and one-half years after law school, I worked for the Office of Legislative Research, working for this very committee, the Judiciary Committee. I then began a 22 and one-half yearlong tenure with the law firm of Howard, Conesburg, and Fitzgerald. During that time, I did mostly litigation at the trial level in civil matters. I've also done a great deal of appellate work at the Appellate and Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut, as well as the United States' District Court for the Second Circuit and the First Circuit.

I have served on various bar committees and have also served as President of the Connecticut Defense Lawyers' Association. I have written numerous legal articles for publication. I have served as a court-appointed voluntary fact-finder and arbitrator on numerous occasions and for long periods of time. I have also been employed as an arbitrator by parties in private litigation. I have had the opportunity, since my nomination on November 8^th of 2004, to serve as a judge of the Superior Court.

For the last seven weeks, I have been assigned to the Tolland Judicial District at Rockville, serving for the most part in the GA Court there. With the marvelous assistance of the Judicial Department, I must emphasize, knowing some of the questions that some of you have posed, that it is marvelous assistance that is provided by the Judicial Department and staff in terms of training us, and continuing or attempting to educate us, as well as the mentoring of the judges at the court to which I have been assigned. I think I've come a long way in a short period of time. I'm beginning to master knowledge of what I have to do in terms of beginning to master some of the skills that I need in fulfilling my responsibilities in this assignment.

In addition to the GA Court, which is three days a week at the Rockville Court, I also have begun to do some courtside Civil trials. I have been working at the Housing Court in Rockville. It has been a privilege to commence my service as a judge of the Superior Court. If I were confirmed by this committee, I would continue to strive for excellence in all aspects of the work to which I'm assigned and revel in the challenges that it presents. Again, I'm honored that the Governor has nominated me. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and I would be glad to answer any questions for you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Good afternoon.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Good afternoon.

REP. DYSON: It's nice to see you here. You're from the great city of Glastonbury.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: I am indeed.

REP. DYSON: Yeah. I have some people there that I know. You seem to represent them well.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Thank you.

REP. DYSON: Are you familiar with the line of questioning I have pursued most of the day pertaining to the racial and ethnic disparity within the system itself?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: I've heard this question.

REP. DYSON: I am trying to solicit your opinion.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Well, Sir, I haven't had the opportunity to read this report. It has just been presented to me today, so I cannot respond to that. I will tell you that throughout the course of your questioning of other candidates today, there is an incident in my life that I am reminded of. It keeps coming to mind every time that I hear you pose that question, so I'm going to relate it to you.

When I first interviewed for my position at the law firm that I was associated with for a long period of time, one of the then senior partners, who has now since left the firm, said this to me in a private one-on-one meeting after a couple of initial questions. He was not thrilled about interviewing me. In fact, he really didn't like women lawyers and didn't know how he would be able to work with a woman lawyer. He went on to discuss that a little bit more. My response to him then, which is a partial answer to the question you have posed, Representative, was this. That is, I was sorry that he had that opinion.

I was sure that it was well-based in experiences that he had had, but I also assured him that if it were I to whom he had been exposed previously, that I don't think he would have had that opinion. That is a partial answer to the inquiry that you have made today. That is, I think if there were more candidates such as I, and I believe that you are given a great many of those candidates here today, in fact, all of them, you would find less disparate treatment and more fairness. That is only a partial answer, obviously, to the inquiry you have made. I have not given study to the report or the significant problem that you're posing, so I cannot offer anything else in terms of an opinion or a resolution of some of those problems.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: You're welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Good afternoon.

REP. CAFERO: Welcome and congratulations.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Thank you.

REP. CAFERO: You are, and forgive me if you stated this in your opening, I was out of the room, where are you currently seated?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: In Rockville.

REP. CAFERO: I'm sorry?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: In the Judicial District of Tolland. It's in the town of Rockville.

REP. CAFERO: Rockville, I see. And is that the GA Court?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: I'm in the GA Court. In that particular court, the GA Court is only three days a week, so I also serve on the Civil side, doing courtside Civil trials. I've begun to do that as well as the Housing Court.

REP. CAFERO: I see. So you do Housing Court, Civil Side, and Arraignments, the GA?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: It's actually more than arraignments in the GA in Rockville. Every court is different, depending on the population of the district. In that court, we have arraignments. We have callbacks. We have sentencing. There are also the many diverse programs that are available through the General Assembly.

REP. CAFERO: Right. And is that an assignment you had requested?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Not at all.

REP. CAFERO: No. Why do you say it that way?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Because we have absolutely no say in our assignments. I will tell you I'm delighted with the assignment. It's an area that I had not been exposed to previously, that I was petrified of undertaking. And I'm just having the best time. I'm truly enjoying it. I'm learning every day.

REP. CAFERO: And I apologize because I did not hear your opening remarks, if you, in fact, included this information. What was your area of practice prior?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Civil.

REP. CAFERO: Civil?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Civil.

REP. CAFERO: Was it civil litigation?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: It was civil on the litigation side, yes.

REP. CAFERO: I see. So being assigned to GA Court right off the bat was a little frightening.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: It was terrifying. I will honestly tell you that.

REP. CAFERO: Did you ever do any Family practice?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: A long time ago, I did a little bit of Family practice, but it was very limited.

REP. CAFERO: Do you have any expectation during your tenure as a judge to be assigned to, say, Family practice or Criminal Jury?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: I have no idea to what I'll be assigned. My understanding is, from what I've seen with regard to the assignment of other judges is that there will be a variety of assignments, and that I will change from time to time.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: You're welcome.

REP. CAFERO: Lastly, I guess, is the question I've asked all of the nominees. In preparation of your appearance before us, today and back in November, did you have any professional services rendered to you?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: No, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: No. Thank you very much.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: You're welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Senator Newton?

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. Good afternoon.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Good afternoon.

SEN. NEWTON: I've asked all the other judges this question. You've had a short period of time to be there, but what makes a good judge in your mind?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Well, there is no one factor that makes a good judge. I think it varies from person to person because each of us has a different personality and brings different strengths and, obviously, different weaknesses to the job. So there are the very adjectives that you've heard earlier today and some of the nouns too, to be compassionate, to be understanding, to be patient. What I have found that is one of the hardest things to do, and you must strive to do it all the time, is to listen and to listen very carefully. And that is very difficult in some of the courts.

For instance, in our GA Court, there is so much going on. There are people going in and out of the doors all of the time. There are Public Defenders. There are private attorneys. There are states' attorneys coming in and out. You're trying to focus on what is being said, what you have to read, what you have to pay attention to. So you have to listen and listen hard. That is one of the hardest things to do, and I think it has to be done.

SEN. NEWTON: And what I asked the other judges, do you think it's a judge's role to regulate the bond-bailsman industry?

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: No, Sir, I do not.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, I thank you very much.

JUDGE CONSTANCE EPSTEIN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Marcia Gleeson of Avon. Good afternoon.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, be seated.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Welcome, and we look forward to your comments and your answers to questions by members of the committee.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today to discuss my qualifications for appointment as a judge of the Superior Court. I would especially like to thank, again, Governor Rell for the privilege and honor of allowing me to be here today before you. In the interest of brevity, I also will not repeat my presentation from November, since I was just here before you a couple of months ago. I'll just touch very briefly, if I may, on my background.

I do and truly regard myself as a product of the State of Connecticut. I was born and raised in New Britain and spent much of my life there. I now reside in Avon. I often say, you can take the girl out of New Britain, but you can't take New Britain out of the girl. I am proud of where I grew up, and I have very fond memories of that place. I attended the University of Connecticut as an undergraduate and also UCONN Law School. My professional life since graduation from law school has primarily been in private practice for 17 years for the law firm of Sat, Cutter, and Carson in West Hartford. Prior to that, I'll just tell you briefly, I was Assistant City Attorney in the City of New Britain. While in private practice in West Hartford, I did have a civil litigation practice.

In anticipation of one question, I handled one criminal matter my entire legal career prior to taking on the bench. So my experience has been largely restricted to civil. I was very active for many years in the community, notably the New Britain community, but also the larger community. I've worked in the areas of domestic violence and some other areas, which I went over in my last presentation. Since appearing before you last time, I went to judge school, which was a truly unique experience and a remarkable one in that I never would have believed how much information can be crammed into one human being in a two-week period. It was like condensing law school in the space of two weeks. It truly is a law school in a very real sense.

Like Judge Epstein, who you just heard from, although I did have a little mental trepidation about the concept of the first assignment being a Criminal assignment as opposed to a Civil assignment, once I went to judge school and went through a brief period sitting with another judge in the Hartford GA, any reservation I had literally dissolved. I have been at GA 14 since judge school. That was my assignment. I'm in Part B. My particular realm of responsibility is to handle Criminal Arraignments, and the Domestic Violence Docket, and also a variety of Criminal callbacks, and anything else that it is called upon me to do. I'm enjoying it immensely, and I'm feeling very comfortable there, remarkably enough. And I welcome any questions you have regarding either my qualifications or my recent experience in the bench.

SEN. MCDONALD: Let me guess, Representative Dyson, followed by Senator Newton, followed by Representative Cafero. How is that order?

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to see you.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Same here, Sir.

REP. DYSON: You have been here all day.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Yes, I have.

REP. DYSON: And you are aware of my concern. What is your opinion?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: I will say that I have not read the study. I would like to do so, and I will. I am very pleased to learn that that will be a primary topic of discussion among the judges at our next continuing education period, which, I guess, is late spring or early summer. And I think that is an excellent start, at least from the judges' points of view about truly looking at this, analyzing it, and seeing if there are any things the judges themselves can do to ensure that at least our part of the judicial process is scrupulously fair and not slanted either for or against any racial group, ethnic group, sexual orientation or gender.

As an undergraduate sociology major, I did learn to look behind numbers. That is why I'm particularly interested in the analysis and the text behind the numbers. I want to truly look at what the numbers mean in order to figure out how we got to where we are. It may sound a little bit simplistic, but I'm also very well aware that the system is huge and encompasses far more than the Judicial System. It starts with birth, the family, the local community, and works its way up to the United States Supreme Court. Every layer of that system has an absolutely essential role in making sure that all citizens have equal access to education and equal access to the larger system.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: You're welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Newton, please?

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Good afternoon.

SEN. NEWTON: I've asked this to some of the other judges. What makes a good judge in your mind? You've had some time to sit there and to maybe contemplate. In your mind, what would you think some of the qualifications should be for a good judge?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Well, there are many. I think the primary ones probably have been pretty well covered today. My personal opinion is that impartiality is the first and foremost. I don't just mean impartiality in how you're reviewing a particular case, but when you sit down and you take that bench, you have to ensure that you're not going to prejudge what anybody says. You're not going to prejudge a case or a situation. You're not going to make assumptions about people based on any external criteria.

You've got to look at every situation as unique, and listen to the facts, apply the law, and make a decision. After impartiality, which, of course, takes into account fairness, decisiveness is very important because you have to be able to make a decision and often quickly, at least in the arraignment environment. One thing that hasn't really been mentioned, it's secondary, but I think it's important nonetheless, is a sense of humor and also a sense of proportion about life in general.

SEN. NEWTON: I was reading some of the litigations that you've handled. I looked at one, number one on page 12 with the Ku Klux Klan. Were you working with the City of New Britain or were you working for the Ku Klux Klan?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: No.

SEN. NEWTON: I didn't know. Sorry. I thought I would ask. I just wanted to make sure. Since it's in here, I want to know what side you were all. That is all.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Well, that is probably the easiest question I'm going to be asked today. It's a pleasure to answer that. I was Assistant City Attorney of New Britain at the time. This goes back a few years too. We had recently completed a new stadium in the City of New Britain with taxpayer dollars, of course. And we were all very proud of that stadium. Well, lo and behold, who is one of the first groups that wanted to use the stadium? The Ku Klux Klan.

Among my many roles in that particular case was to secure injunctive relief to make sure that we could have the safest possible forum and also simultaneously safeguarding First Amendment Rights. You cannot make laws, which are going to restrict anybody's speech, unfortunately, even if the content is hateful. So that's what we did. I thought it was very successful. As a matter of fact, it was so successful that I think about seven people showed up.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: You're welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon and congratulations to you.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Thank you.

REP. CAFERO: Following up on Senator Newton's comment, you talked about impartiality. How would you feel if you were the judge in the very case that you litigated, at least that's what I understand? I don't know who the plaintiff was or the defendant. I presume the plaintiff was the Ku Klux Klan.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Well, no, actually—

REP. CAFERO: Was that civil litigation?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: It was civil litigation. The plaintiff was the City of New Britain.

REP. CAFERO: Okay. And who is the defendant?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: The Ku Klux Klan.

REP. CAFERO: If you were presiding over that, how do you keep that impartiality?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: That is a tough one because that is one of the most extreme examples you can give. Again, a particular group that is fostered on hatred and worse expects to be treated as any other litigant. That is what you have to keep in mind. In our system of government, an organization like that is entitled to be heard and be heard in an impartial form, just as any other organization. There are two issues there that make it a little easier.

One is, you know, how would you feel as the judge? The other one is, what would you do? So—

REP. CAFERO: I think it's probably more pertinent to say what would you do?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Right. Obviously, you'd have some pretty extreme feelings. One would hope that you would put them aside, and treat that litigation as any other, and listen to both sides, and be fair.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. Forgive me, again, you're now seated where?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: I'm in GA 14, which is Hartford, and it is Part B.

REP. CAFERO: Part B in Hartford.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: Right. I'm doing Criminal Arraignments, and the Domestic Violence Docket, and related dockets.

REP. CAFERO: And is that an assignment you requested?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: No. We are not given the privilege of requesting assignments after judge school. As a matter of fact, it's almost kind of ceremonial. You kind of look forward it. They pass out envelopes on the last day, and you get your assignment.

REP. CAFERO: What you get is what you get.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: What you get is what you get. I was delighted to get my assignment, and I've been delighted to be there.

REP. CAFERO: Okay. Did you have a choice as to where you get the assignment, Hartford, in your case? You go where you go [Changing from Tape 3A to Tape 3B]

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: --throughout my career. I mean, we have been told that we can expect reassignments, sometimes at a moment's notice, depending on a number of issues, including developments in other courts and where you're needed. So all of us know that, although we might form attachments in certain courthouses, we can expect that to change.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you. And in preparation of today's hearing and the hearing you had in November, did you have any professional services rendered to you?

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: No.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions from members of the committee? If not, thank you very much.

JUDGE MARCIA GLEESON: You're welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Elaine Gordon of Westbrook. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Yes, I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, have a seat.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Welcome, and thank you for your patience and perseverance, as well as all the other nominees today, for the length of the day.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Well, those are two of the qualities that judges should have, patience and perseverance. So I--

SEN. MCDONALD: Are you anticipating Senator Newton's question?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: I'd just like to briefly address you. Thank you for your attention. I am honored and privileged to have been nominated by Governor Rell, even more so, I believe, than 16 years ago when I was first nominated by Governor O'Neill. I was humbled and happy then. I have to say that all these years later and all the thousands of cases later, I feel that even more strongly. In the 16 years I've been on the bench, I've had a variety of assignments.

I started my judicial career in the GA in Waterbury. I was then assigned to Family in Bridgeport, then back to the GA in New Haven. Then I was the Presiding Judge for the Family Court in New Haven. Then I spent a few years sitting Civil in New Haven. I then was transferred to Middletown, where I was the residing judge of Family. I also did some Civil work there because it's a smaller court. In 1997, I was assigned to a single docket at the Regional Family Trial Docket. In 1998, upon the sorrowful event of the death of Judge Stanley, I succeeded him as the Administrative Judge of the Middlesex Judicial District.

While serving as the Administrative Judge of the Middlesex Judicial District, I held onto all the halves. I was the Presiding Judge for Civil, Family, and Criminal. After I finished my tenure, which is five years as an Administrative Judge, I was transferred to the New London Judicial District, where I sat Civil for one year. I am now, again, sitting in New London, but in the GA on the Criminal side as a trial judge. Throughout my judicial career, I have also served the Judicial Branch in a number of other ways. I served on the Judicial Review Council. I was a member of the Civil Task Force. I was the Chair of the Judicial Education Committee. I served on the Executive Committee, and I taught at that Judicial Institute more times than I can remember.

For all the legal and intellectual challenges I expected when I first went on the bench, I did not expect that the experience would be as rich as it has turned out to be. Sitting in a courtroom every day, meeting the people of the state in all of their predicaments, in all of their complexity has enriched my life in a way that I could never have anticipated. I believe that it has been a huge privilege. I truly feel that I've been of service. I think the experience has left me more honored, and that is why I say I feel that way today. I am humbled in the face of all these people I meet every day at the power that I wield, hopefully, judiciously over their lives. As I said, I'm appreciative and very grateful for the job I'm allowed to do, for Governor Rell's confidence in me. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have of me.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Hi. Good to see you.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Good to see you again, Sir.

REP. DYSON: I note that you've traveled around New Haven a bit.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Oh, a long time, sure. That was my home base before I went on the bench. That is where I practiced.

REP. DYSON: You are familiar with the question that I've been posing to other individuals who have come before the committee here.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Yes, Sir.

REP. DYSON: And I am seeking your opinion.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: I apologize that I'm not familiar with the report itself.

REP. DYSON: Well, I'm going to give you mine.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Oh, I'd like to read it.

REP. DYSON: Okay.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: But I have heard the question all day. You know, you only had to walk into what was the old GA 6 in New Haven, I'm not assuming, of course, that you've ever been in GA 6 of New Haven, but you only had to walk in to GA 6 to see, I think, some of what the report is counting in terms of disproportion. I remember my first day sitting in GA 6. You know, everybody in the audience was African American, and everybody on this side of the bench was white. You can't help but notice that. I think it's good that we be curious and studious about why that might be.

One of the other judges said, you know, it's also true that 25 years ago when I represented women in the Divorce Court, all the judges were men. We've had to study these things. We've had to monitor ourselves. We have had to educate ourselves. I am very glad that the Education Committee and the Judicial Branch have taken this issue seriously enough that they're devoting a good part of the Judicial Institute to it. You said something earlier that I think is interesting. You said, well, maybe all these people think they're being fair. I think most of us always do think we're being fair.

One of the things I've learned over 16 years is you have to stop often and try to figure out why you just made the decision you made, and really examine it. We can have an Educational Conference where we pose those kinds of questions, have an open discussion. You know, I can't speak to what the rest of the system is going to do. That is something that I think it helpful for judges to do, regardless of what the problem is. So I hope that is what we do.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Newton?

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you and good afternoon.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Good afternoon, Senator Newton.

SEN. NEWTON: Maybe your testimony is probably more helpful because you've been there 16 years.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: It's gone by in an instant.

SEN. NEWTON: And you've been able to see, you know, from where you started from and where you're at today, some of the changes that have taken place in our judicial system. I don't know if this is a loaded question or not, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Okay.

SEN. NEWTON: In your 16 years, have you felt or thought about our judicial system as being unfair as it pertains to the racial disparity that you've seen in your 16 years? Have you seen disparity in our judicial system? I know that's a loaded question.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Well, let me answer it this way.

SEN. NEWTON: Okay.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: I'm a 55-year-old woman who came of age during the '60s. I went to law school at a time when there weren't that many women in law school. I became a member of the bar when we were still unusual. Did I think that I was treated unfairly at certain times? Did I think that the system didn't respond to us? Well, sure, I did. I also understand that most times this happens without ill will and without intention. That is why self-reflection and education is the way we change a system. Over the years, the system has changed.

My courtrooms are so much more diverse. The cast of characters is so much more diverse today than it was 16 years ago, and certainly than it was in 1976 when I first started practicing. I mean, if you had told me that the cast of characters would look this way, I would never have been that optimistic. So I think it takes mindfulness, attention, and time.

SEN. NEWTON: I would just hope, and I see Judge Pellegrino here, that every judge get a copy of the reports from Program Review with the bond-bailsmen, and the diversity as new judges, so that, at least, you have an opportunity to read it.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: I think that would be good.

SEN. NEWTON: As new judges, well, not in your case as a new judge, but in the case of new judges. My last comment, do you feel it's the role of the judges to regulate the bond-bail industry?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: No. I don't.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions from members of the committee? Representative Gonzalez?

REP. GONZALEZ: Congratulations.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Thank you and hello.

REP. GONZALEZ: In those 16 years you've been there, do you think it's legal that if a judge is going to set a bail, if that person being [inaudible] more than once, do you think that if you are going to set up bail at about $10,000, but you know that person will come up with the money to bail himself out or maybe the family, and because you know that person is going to be able to bail himself out, do you think it's fair or do you think it's illegal, not fair, I should take that back, legal to increase the amount of that bond just because of that?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: I really think it's inappropriate for me at this committee to tell you whether I think things are legal or not. I certainly don't feel prepared to tell you whether I think things are legal or not because, like all cautious lawyers and deliberate judges, I would like to read a whole lot of stuff before I answered your question. I can talk about my personal experience, and I can tell you about what I would think. I would think that would be unfair, and that would be something I would not want to do.

REP. GONZALEZ: Thank you.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: I mean, it's not the point of bonds. It's not supposed to be punitive. It's supposed to ensure a person's presence and some other criteria in terms of protecting the community. I like to try to set a bond as low as I possibly can, which will still ensure somebody's presence in court. You know, absent horrendous horrible crimes, the reason we set them high on those is because there is every reason the person might want to flee because they are facing such high penalties.

REP. GONZALEZ: I agree. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions? Representative Lawlor?

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on this topic, interesting, the whole bail-bond topic.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Okay.

REP. LAWLOR: It's been reported to us that in, let's say, the last ten years or so, the amounts of bail have been increasing significantly in given cases. In other words, no particular judge, but just in general, certainly, there are far more people confined pretrial today than was the case five or ten years ago. The amounts of bail being set, reportedly, are very high. I mean, I, myself, have sat in the courtroom and watched routinely $25,000 bonds being imposed on people being arraigned on kind of routine drug charges, that type of stuff. What do you think accounts for that? Based on your experience, why are the amounts of bonds being set in given cases going up over the last ten years?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: You know, I wasn't really aware that they systematically had been going up. Off the top of my head, I really don't know why, if they were. I think, I mean, I don't mean to be flip, but $1 isn't worth what it was. People start thinking of money in different senses, and they start spending more money too. So you don't know what people are thinking of in terms of dollars. You know, we rely on others to give us information. I don't see any reason why they would be going up numerically. There might be more people incarcerated because they're going up. They're going up because we're getting more and better information that makes people seem more like a flight risk.

The other thing is that we're getting people, and I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but we have tremendous alternative release programs. I mean, we're all trying to keep people out of jail, pretrial, because it's very expensive, and somebody comes out the other end. You know? So we're trying to keep them out, but the stick at the end of all of those programs is that if you don't comply, you wind up getting incarcerated. So I'm not sure. It would be interesting to take a look and see whether or not noncompliance with programs has also increased incarceration. I don't know. We have had a lot of bad reports back about people not going to AIC and doing that kind of stuff. So I really honestly don't know.

REP. LAWLOR: How about this phenomenon called cash bonds? Do you find that you impose cash bonds from time to time?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: No. I think the only time I've ever imposed a cash bond is when somebody is already incarcerated, and they get arrested on a new file, and you want to make sure that they get good-time credit from the date. So you have to put a bond on it because if you're not being held on bond, you won't get good time. So you might throw a low bond on it or a low cash bond. But it's not a cash bond to keep somebody from making bond.

SEN. LAWLOR: Are you aware of this controversy about, apparently, the increased frequency in which cash bonds are being ordered for defendants?

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: No. I honestly was not, and I'm not an inexperienced judge on the Criminal side. I'm not as experienced as some of these judges on the Criminal side, but that has not been my experience. As a matter of fact, I've seen a lot more non-assurity bonds than ever before.

SEN. LAWLOR: There has been a great deal of testimony before this committee, as it relates to the racial disparity issue, complaining about the increased frequency of cash bonds being ordered by judges throughout the state. I was just wondering if you could provide any insight into that.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: No. It's not something I use, and it's not something I really know that people use routinely. I'm not saying that hasn't happened, but I'm just not aware of it.

SEN. LAWLOR: Okay. Thank you.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Sure.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions for the Judge? Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Hi there.

REP. CAFERO: Congratulations on your reappointment.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: Thank you.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you for your service over these past 16 years.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: My pleasure.

REP. CAFERO: Just a question I've asked all of the nominees, in preparation of this hearing, have you had any professional services rendered to you on your behalf—

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: No.

REP. CAFERO: Legal or accounting.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: No.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions? Thank you very much, Your Honor.

JUDGE ELAINE GORDON: You're welcome.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Patricia Lily Harleston of Hartford. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Your hand is raised. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, have a seat.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Welcome, and please tell the committee about your time on the bench and your expectations for the future.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the committee. When I was appointed eight years ago to the bench, I was assigned for the first two and one-half years to Criminal matters. I was first in New Britain and then in Enfield. I then went to Juvenile, where I served in Rockville and also New Britain. Since September, I have been serving in Family matters. I have loved this job from the very beginning. My enthusiasm has not waned one bit. It has been challenging at some times, but always rewarding. I believe that people look to us, judges, to help them, to help them solve their problems, their disputes, things they have not been able to do on their own.

They look to be treated fairly and with respect. I say that they wish to be treated with respect, and that is in spite of or regardless of whether you agree with them or rule in their favor. I think respect towards the people we are serving is of the utmost importance. We must bring to bear all of our education, experience, and knowledge to make the decisions, which we believe are in the best interests of the parties and the situations that are before us. This is what I have tried to do for the last eight years. I am grateful and honored for the opportunity to serve the people of Connecticut. I thank the Governor for nominating me for reappointment to this position. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Okay. The record is still turning. The needle is still there. The question is the same. What is your opinion?

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Well, as those before me—

REP. DYSON: And I suppose the record will show that my comment to you is about your opinion is referring to the report on racial disparity.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: And, unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to read the report either. I have been listening to your question. I am aware that there is disparity. It is quite obvious. As you stated, though, there is a problem in the system. When we see people as judges, I sense a sense of frustration on your part from some of the answers that you've been getting from us, but when we see men, women, children, boys, girls, they are defendants. When they get to us, they are defendants. They have already been through processes. They've been through the police. They've been through a decision-making process as to whether or not to use some of the Review Board or some other alternative.

When they get to us, they are defendants. That is why you're hearing from us that what we do, and I will tell you the same thing, what I do in my courtroom, when I was in the courtroom, I haven't been in Criminal Court for a long time, is to treat people as fairly as I can, to utilize, impartially, whatever resources I have, in other words, not to use a particular resource for one person, and hold it back from another because of their race or gender or anything like that. We just have to try to do what we can. I believe that we have to act impartially. I certainly do that. I don't treat people any differently or sentence them any differently based on race or gender or age or anything of that sort.

The system has a problem, and we have to address the system. You've stated it. The system goes back all the way, and it includes everything that you've heard from other people, police. It goes back into issues as to why a person has even been in the position of being arrested, poverty, education, all of these things must be addressed. The Judicial Branch will be doing what we can to address our part of it. One judge within one part of the system, however, is going to ultimately give you an answer that we will do what we can. We do what we can when faced with a situation in our courtrooms. The Judicial Branch can do more. The Legislature can do more. Other parts of the community can do more. It's a combination of all of these things that will ultimately bring about some kind of change to address that problem.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Good afternoon.

REP. CAFERO: Welcome and congratulations.

JUDGE HARLESTON: Thank you.

REP. CAFERO: Again, thank you for your service. Just one question I've asked everyone, have you had, in preparation of this hearing, any professional services rendered to you to prepare to appear before us?

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: No, I haven't.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Klarides?

REP. KLARIDES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Your Honor.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILLY HARLESTON: Thank you.

REP. KLARIDES: I also thank you for your service. I think that you all do such a great job. Any of us, whether on the bench or in public service, you know, we may have tough times as we go along, but we all serve a great purpose. I respect what you do.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Thank you.

REP. KLARIDES: I just had a quick question. You said you sat on Family Court recently.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: I began in September.

REP. KLARIDES: And I was just wondering how do you think our Family law process works judicially? Do you think that there are things we can change, things we can improve? We seem to see a lot of different issues because it's treated as an adversarial process as other types of civil law are, yet, the issues are so different than other types of civil law because you have so many emotions and people involved in a different context.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Okay. Well, I started Family in September, and that was the fist time I had ever seen the inside of a Family Court, so I don't really have anything to compare it with other than what I've been doing. And I've been very fortunate to be with some very seasoned judges who have helped me very much. One of the frustrations that I've had, and that I think would help the system, is more resources. We have to make decisions, I consider that, so far, the hardest assignment. They are decisions that have to be made where you need a psychological or you need some kind of assistance like that, and I don't have the resources to order those things.

There are cases that need to be heard, that are heard with pro se litigants that really need attorneys, but I can't appoint them an attorney because I don't have the resource for that, and they cannot afford an attorney. So they're having their own trials, and things are happening, particularly when there is a pro se litigant on one side and a represented person on the other side, you see these things happening. You know things that they should be doing, things they should be asking, resources that they should be able to tap into that they have no clue about.

One thing I think that could make that process better, and I don't know where it would come from, is more money and more resources that will be available for people in Family.

REP. KLARIDES: Thank you, Your Honor. Congratulations.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: --very hard.

REP. KLARIDES: Thanks.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Coleman?

SEN. COLEMAN: I just wanted to comment that I also am very proud and appreciative of your service and extremely, equally as proud that you're a resident of my district. I just wanted to make that comment.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Is there anybody else who has a question for the first time? If not, Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Just to follow up on a lot of questioning that just concluded, and I'm not taking you to task, so don't interpret any comment that I make that I'm engaged in trying to do that. I am asking a question, though. Is the role of a judge so confining that you can witness in your presence people operating at a disadvantage that will ultimately result in a decision where if there was representation, the outcome might be entirely different? Is that something that--

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: In some situations, it might be. As stated earlier, we can't represent people. We can't be their lawyers.

REP. DYSON: I understand.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: But the whole issue of pro se litigants is a big issue for Judiciary and how you handle that, what you do, how far one can go. Are you proactive or do you just say, well, you know, in some cases, people just don't want to get a lawyer, but you don't have a lawyer, it's up to you to go out and find out the process. That isn't always practical. Even when I order a psychological, for instance, using that as an example, in Family, if they're going to be able to do it, well, they have to go out and figure out how to actually accomplish that fact. I just think there should be more resources. It's not extremely confining, and I try to make a decision based on taking that into account. I would hate to make a decision that has penalized that person because they could not afford a lawyer.

REP. DYSON: What I'm trying to get to is this. Is the lack of resources part and parcel of decisions being rendered that for the absence of resources being available, the outcome would be different? If you had money, would it be this way? If you didn't have money, it is this way.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: I just don't think there is an across-the-board answer to that.

REP. DYSON: Okay.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: I'm sure that happens, but I'm sure it also doesn't happen.

REP. DYSON: How would you spend this money that you just talked about, additional resources? How would you spend it or on what?

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: In Family?

REP. DYSON: Yes. I think that was the exchange you were having.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: The availability of lawyers, money to appoint lawyers, money to order the kinds of assisting services that we may need in some of the kinds of decisions we have to make, such as evaluations, that type of thing.

REP. DYSON: Okay. Now, hypothetically—

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: There is a lot of pro se. There are more pro se litigants in Family than I've seen anywhere.

REP. DYSON: Someone comes before you that you think might have a mental problem. They are attempting to represent themselves, quite a combination, I would think. Is there any ability on your part, given resources available to you, to provide for that person representation that you know they can't do themselves or you suspect they can't do themselves?

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Well, we'd order a competency evaluation, first of all.

REP. DYSON: Okay. So someone else would be doing it.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Yeah. There is an office that does that.

REP. DYSON: Okay.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILLY HARLESTON: And if they're not found competent, I imagine that if a judge just pressed it and beat up a few people, you could get somebody to represent that person. We can prevail upon the bar. Bars are different. Some bars are very generalist, I shouldn't say that some are, most bars are probably very generalist. We are at the mercy at the generosity of the bar to take pro bono cases. That is usually not a problem, but sometimes they are just not able to do that, you know, because of the restraints of their own cases. It just may be a time where you can't get a lawyer to do this, not because they don't want to. They're just not available. There is just no one available. Then I'd have to start researching, and looking around, and digging, and trying to find somewhere where I could get this person represented.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Okay.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions for the Judge? If not, thank you very much.

JUDGE PATRICIA LILY HARLESTON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Barbara M. Quinn of Chester. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, have a seat.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Welcome, and please share your thoughts for the Judiciary Committee.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Thank you. Like some of the other judges you've just heard from, I was first appointed in December of 1996. In January of the next year, after completion of the judicial training program, I was assigned for a period of nine months to various GA's, first in New Haven, and then Manchester, and then to Windham County, rotating at that time between Williamantic and Danielson. My first full-year assignment was at the Child Protection Session in Middletown, which is a Specialty Docket for the trial of contested termination of parental rights cases from the One Judge Juvenile Matters Sessions around the state. I remained on the docket for a period of four years, the last two as the Presiding Judge.

Next, I spent a year and one-half in the New Britain Judicial District trying Civil Jury cases. In April of 2003, I was assigned to the Complex Litigation Docket in Norwich, after Judge McLachlan was appointed to the Appellate Court. I have been assigned to that Docket since that time. In January of last year, it was physically moved to Middletown, where I am now assigned to the Complex Litigation Docket in Middletown. I have personally found all of my assignments challenging and rewarding far beyond what I expected when I was first appointed. In fact, I cannot conceive of any assignment that would not be so, since the law is always changing, and each case, without fail, presents some unique features and challenges. I am honored to have been permitted to serve as a judge of this Superior Court for the past eight years. I hope I will be able to do so in the future. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: [inaudible - microphone not on]

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Yes, Sir. I am on the hot seat. I will say that I have not read the report. I have read reports of it in the newspapers, and I was saddened by what I read there as to what was reported to be the depth of the issues raised. Like many of the judges who have appeared before me today, I give you the frustrating answer of, I hear one case at a time in my courtroom. I try, within the best of my ability and my life, to afford fairness to all of the litigants that appear before me.

I also have heard the comments and agree that, in and of itself, obviously, from what I understand of the report, to say it's not enough. I expect in the near future, I will be studying the details of that report. I am encouraged that in the upcoming judicial districts, the judges will begin a dialogue around what more can be done, what more should be done, what initiatives, hopefully, we can undertake. Ultimately, one would hope that with the assistance of the Chief Justice and the Chief Court Administrator, we will develop some specific directives as to how to address the problem from our perspective and from the system as we have it.

Other judges have commented to you that, obviously, people come to us, defendants come to us having suffered certain forms of disparate treatment from the ways in which they may have experienced life within their communities, resources their families have to give them. So in part, I think, what may show in the statistics that I'm not familiar with is symptomatic of our society at large. It is a very important problem. Hopefully, as a group, we will be able to develop some mechanisms to do better than perhaps we have in the past. That is my hope.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Yes. In reviewing your information in your file, my recollection is that you had had three lawsuits against you as a judge and three claims. I don't know if you remember a lot of the details, but I believe you're the one that somebody actually filed a complaint that the flag that was in your courtroom wasn't properly--

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Yeah.

REP. FARR: --the fringe wasn't appropriate.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: That is correct. It was a lawsuit filed against five judges. His name is unfortunately not coming to me, Marion maybe. I was in the Windham Judicial District. This individual felt that the judges who sat on the bench with a flag that had fringe on it were not properly judges of the United States because of the fringe. He sued the court and the five judges individually. The case was ultimately dismissed for sovereign immunity and judicial immunity grounds. It was an interesting notion. I do remember him appearing before me and raising that issue.

REP. FARR: I guess my comment is an observation. I don't know how we, you know, society, I don't know how we cut back on this. It strikes me that we just have more and more, you know, the pro se's that go in and aren't successful. Then they sue the judge. Then they file a claim against the judge. Then before you know it, we've got three cases where there was one in the first place, and the first one, maybe, had no merit.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Yeah.

REP. FARR: And I don't know how to put a cap on that. Then if they have an attorney, then they grieve the attorney or they grieve the attorney on the other side. I personally have had a grievance by a defendant who brought a suit against somebody. Instead of putting a defense in, they filed a grievance that I dared to bring a suit against them. When I recovered, you know, the grievance was dismissed, but I'm sure they would have grieved the court, and complained against the court, and sued against the court. I've heard of people where that has happened in litigation. I don't know how to cap all of that, but it is an increasing problem in our court system.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: I think from, I guess, a judicial philosophy point of view, we as a society have to balance the fact that the courthouse door needs to be open to our citizens or the claims that they bring. One hopes that most of them, and I think most of them are meritorious, but among those claims, in the sense that they are issues that need to be tested, among such claims are ones of the nature you described. I think it's embedded within our life and an open society. Any thoughts one has about how you might screen it or how you might deal with it, then you begin to come to a prohibition against that openness.

REP. FARR: Yeah.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: So I think it's a balancing act.

REP. FARR: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. Other questions? Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Good afternoon.

REP. CAFERO: Congratulations, and thank you for your service. Your Honor, in preparation of this afternoon's hearing, have you had any professional services rendered to you to appear before us?

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: No, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you so much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions for the judge? If not, I thank you very much.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: The next nominee is Dale W. Radcliffe of Bridgeport. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Good afternoon.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, be seated, and welcome back to the General Assembly and the Judiciary Committee.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, thank you. Thank you, Senator. I will begin by saying what I said eight years ago. The view from this side of dais looks a bit different. Having been a judge for eight years, I believe I have a healthy respect for the work that is done by the members of the Judiciary Committee, and others in the General Assembly, and the lawmaking process. I hope the familiarity with the lawmaking process has helped me to be a better judge. I thank you for your welcome back.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any questions from members of the—

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Excuse me.

SEN. MCDONALD: Did you have other things?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I don't mean to presume, Mr. Chairman, but if the committee wishes, I know it's traditional for a judge seeking reappointment to indicate what he has done and where he serves.

SEN. MCDONALD: Oh, I'm sorry.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I'll be happy to do that if the Chair desires.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please do so.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: All right. I was initially appointed, as you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, in January of 1997. The reason for that later appointment than some of the other judges that are here is because of the statutory and constitutional provisions that prevent a sitting member of the General Assembly from accepting a position in the Legislative or Executive Branch during the term for which he was elected. So I was appointed in January of 1997.

I was immediately assigned to the Geographic Area in New Haven before the merger of GA 6 and GA 8, in what is now one Geographic Area. I spent approximately six months, nine months doing Geographic Area work and also doing criminal jury work in the Courthouse on Elm Street on the third floor in the courtroom, which, I think, the Co-Chairman is somewhat familiar with. Following that, I was sent to Waterbury for a brief period of time, less than a week. I was then transferred to Danbury where I continued to do that type of work. In February of 1998, I was given the opportunity to do Civil work, which was an opportunity I relished, given the fact that I felt I had a background in trial work and civil work as a practitioner before being appointed a judge. I did that in Danbury for the next few years.

In September of 2000, I went to Derby and actually was asked by the then Deputy Chief Board Administrator, Judge Flynn, who is also a former member of this committee, to attempt to start a Civil Docket in that courthouse. As you may know, and I know if any of the members here are from the Valley, they would know, that the Geographic Area of Ansonia and Milford includes an area running from West Haven to Milford and also goes all the way through the Naugatuck Valley to towns like Beacon Falls. I think it was a service to the ultimate consumer to have a courthouse in Derby, very close to Route 8 and Route 34, where particularly lawyers who practice in the Valley and as an accommodation to witnesses and others who use the court system. We were able to do that. I think we did it successfully for a year. That courthouse has continued to be used to reduce what, at that time, was an extensive backlog in the Judicial District of Ansonia and Milford to manageable levels.

I went back to Danbury for a year, still doing Civil Jury work. During this period of time, having acquired somewhat of an expertise, I guess, or I was doing and assigned by the Presiding Judge to do the Administrative Appeals Calendar, including zoning and tax appeal work. I wrote extensively in that area. Following that, I was, for a brief period of time, in Norwalk. I was then New Haven for a year where I first had an opportunity to do something I had never done before. In addition to Civil Jury work and Administrative Appeals, I also handled some habeas corpus cases.

I was assigned, in 2003, to your home district, Senator, the Judicial District of Stamford and Norwalk, to the Civil Docket at the courthouse on Hoyt Street, the new courthouse, which is a far cry from the courthouse that I recall at 123 Hoyt Street that used to be GA 1. I was reassigned there last year, doing basically that type of work. I would like to, as the other nominees have, thank the Governor for giving me an opportunity to continue serving as a member of the Judiciary. I've enjoyed that opportunity. I won't say that it's a greater honor than having served in the General Assembly because I think both are honors in which individuals who have been given that opportunity should take pride. I want to thank the Governor for that opportunity and would be please to answer any questions that the committee might have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Let me first say that you are in a privileged class of judges who never had to actually serve at the old 123 Hoyt Street. You have the best of the courthouses in the state.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I'm aware of that, Senator, but when I first was out of law school, I was a clerk at GA 1. At that time, one of the judges assigned there was Judge Ment. Many years later when I was first appointed judge, I indicated to him that, having working with him at GA 1, I was now working for him again. Over these 20 years, it didn't seem to have made a lot of progress.

SEN. MCDONALD: You can probably also testify at some other hearing about the transportation problems of getting from Bridgeport to Stamford, but I'll leave that for another day.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think that's for another day and possibly would be impinging on the jurisdiction of the committee.

SEN. MCDONALD: There you go. Are there questions from members of the committee? Representative Lawlor?

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Your Honor.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Mr. Chairman.

REP. LAWLOR: One question we've asked others here today is for advice. I'm just wondering if over the past eight years, you know, having been a member of the Legislature for a while, and being involved in policy making, are there things-- [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 3B to Tape 4A.]

--to our attention about whether major themes or minor technical details.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, Chairman, in any given day of the week, in one way or another, I'm reminded of the General Assembly. I believe part of being a good and effective judge is recognizing and respecting the prerogatives that belong, particularly to the public policy members, to the other branches of government. I saw my friend, Representative Godfrey earlier this morning, and we [inaudible – tape fades in and out] in Danbury during a legislative breakfast. An attorney had said, but this law doesn't apply. You ought to change the law. I indicated to him that they don't let me do that anymore, and he should see Representative Godfrey who was sitting in the front row because that was a matter properly committed to another branch of government.

I feel very strongly that judges, in an attempt to be fair, should not be result oriented, whether that is at the Trial Court level or the Appellate Court level. Apply the law fairly, evenly, and candidly to individuals who come before the, in my case, it has been Civil Court. I have not had a great deal of experience on the Criminal side, but it is something that I feel very strongly about. In doing a lot of the Land Use Appeals, I guess I have lots of suggestions because I've had to follow particular statutes [inaudible – tape fades in and out] in decisions that I've written that I may not have agreed with, but nevertheless, that is something that they don't give me the opportunity to change.

I've sat on Jury cases where I might have disagreed with the result, either from the plaintiff's standpoint or the defendant's standpoint. But the law says that a judge can only disturb a jury verdict if that verdict is the result of prejudice, partiality, mistake or corruption. I don't believe, as a constitutional officer, that it is my responsibility or my right to sit as a seventh juror in a case where parties have had that case fairly decided by a jury of their peers in a criminal case and by a jury of six disinterested citizens.

I can suggest one thing, if I might be so pretentious, Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, I think we talked about this. There is a constitutional provision in this state that provides that juries in Civil cases should be no less than six. This General Assembly has passed a statute that states that jury trials in a Civil side should be to a jury of six. Often, particularly in long trials, and I've had to do this, where you might lose a juror due to illness, due to circumstances, a death in the family, circumstances we can't anticipate while the jury is deliberating. Now, I know the statute was changed several years ago on the Criminal Side, but if the statute were to say, no less than six, then you would have the opportunity for, say, a panel of eight, if we eliminated that particular distinction. Then if a juror were lost, you would still comply with the constitutional provision.

I think there is a real question. If there are six jurors, and then there are five deliberating, since the State Constitution says it should be to a [inaudible – tape fades in and out] no less than six, whether that provision will be working. If you can waive the statute and [inaudible – tape fades in and out]. I'm not sure the same is true of the constitutional provision.

REP. LAWLOR: I was surprised to find out that some states, in misdemeanor cases, have juries even smaller than six and don't even require unanimous verdicts.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is correct. I don't think that can be done here because of the constitutional provision to which I alluded along with the right of individual [inaudible – tape fades in and out] which is contained in the same section. I guess the one other area, since you have asked, and I hope I'm not presuming on the committee on this, would be in the land use area. There was a recent decision by the Supreme Court that stated that a decision by a municipal land use agency to accept a settlement is not itself an appealable decision. It puts the onus where it belongs, in many respects, on the court to hold a hearing to make certain that abutting landowners are notified.

I attempted to do that when I had responsibility for that type of docket. But taking just a subdivision, let's take a simple subdivision request. An abutting landowner who statutorily agrees, because we said that, might feel, gee, I agree with the decision where someone requests five blocks, and they're given three. Suddenly, there is a settlement where they're given five blocks. The court approves that. The decision to approve that is not appealable. It puts the onus on that person to be a party in the initial case, to convince a court of things that perhaps in the first measure or the first instance really belong to the local officials to whom that task is properly assigned.

I also have a couple of things. I suppose I could give you more, but I don't want to presume on the committee's time.

REP. LAWLOR: No problem. Thank you. Those were good ideas, Sir. I'm sure someone will have a press conference tomorrow. Judge [inaudible – tape fades in and out] and I wondered if you could just explain what were the circumstances behind that?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It was an argument on a Friday afternoon. It was an unnecessary argument, as all arguments are. And I could go through what transpired prior to that argument, I really don't think that is the significant thing. The significant thing is that any argument is wrong. It could have been avoided. I didn't avoid it. I wish I could have. The admonishment simply said that the conduct should not be repeated. It has created the appearance of impropriety. And I believe that any argument, at any time, under any circumstance like that makes the appearance of impropriety. I agree with the Chief Board Administrator's decision in that area. I'm not particularly proud of that, but on the Governor's form, it had to be disclosed. I did disclose that. It was an argument. It was an unfortunate argument. I would sincerely hope not to have it repeated.

REP. LAWLOR: And I think you're aware, since you were a member of this committee, what a high value we place on this notion of judicial temperament, appropriate temperament. I think you've just indicated that whatever transpired on that day was not an example of appropriate judicial temperament.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It was inappropriate. I hope that that 15-minute argument, I sincerely hope does not reflect how I performed over eight years. I have had occasion to look at the performance evaluations at that time, and I think they've been very good in that area. As some judges will tell you, performance evaluations sometimes come from individuals who are dissatisfied. I think mine have been good, and they've been from lawyers involved in a wide variety of areas.

In preparing for this hearing, I noted that I had accepted 110 civil verdicts in the past eight years in different districts, as well as doing some writing, and court trials in these other areas. So it came from a broad cross-section, and there were a lot of them. Many judges, simply because of the area to which they are assigned, perhaps don't have an opportunity to do as much writing. That doesn't mean that the work is not worthwhile or necessary. I think I would point to that. I hope, I sincerely hope that is more representative of how I tried to treat the public, and tried to treat the litigants, and the lawyers who come before me.

I think I have a reputation as being perhaps no-nonsense, but I think a fair judge in terms of allowing parties to present their case. It took me at least two years not to look to the prospective attorneys when I thought an objection should be made, but to look straight ahead, and recognize that, no, you're not supposed to be telling him to make an objection. It's a reflex action that I think most experienced trial lawyers would have and I try to avoid.

REP. LAWLOR: I think you can understand why the committee would be appropriately concerned. Apparently, an admonishment of this type is unprecedented.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't know that it's unprecedented. I think there are many situations where a referral could be made to the Judicial Review Council. Certainly at that time, when I was asked about that, the Chief Board Administrator who was handling the matter felt that was appropriate. You know, I would not attempt to dissuade him from doing that. That would have been after hearing. I simply would say that it was something that was inappropriate, is inappropriate under any set of circumstances. I'm not going to sit here and really try to justify it. I suppose I could try to explain it, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think that's what's important.

REP. LAWLOR: My concern, I just want to make sure we're clear on this, is that a moment ago, you mentioned that it's important to be appropriate with the public and with litigants. In this particular case, it involves staff at the courthouse. I just wanted--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I should have added that. It was an unfortunate omission, Representative Lawlor, that I should have added.

REP. LAWLOR: There is anecdotal evidence available, you know, but I just want to ask you. Since that time, this was about two years ago I understand that this admonishment was issued, maybe three years ago, do you feel that that type of conduct has not been repeated?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That was the recommendation, and I don't feel that it has been repeated. I think we all get into situations, I certainly have, where on reflection, I would have done something differently. I don't think anything of that nature has occurred, at least no Presiding Judge in an area where I've been assigned has indicated that to me. If you're indicating that there is something of that, I am to consider myself informed by that. I will try to act accordingly.

REP. LAWLOR: The reason I say that is that I'm not sure whether the anecdotal reports of that were pre-date or post-date this particular incident. I know in the incident itself, there were other letters, etc, indicating this was not the first time this type of conduct had happened in that courthouse.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think I was only assigned to that particular courthouse for less than a week, so it transpired contemporaneously. I did have one situation where I felt that, in other courthouse I've ever been in, I'll follow the docket, and they didn't. I expressed an irritation in a way that could have been handled better. I certainly acknowledge that.

REP. LAWLOR: Your Honor, in the forms that are prepared for this committee for each nominee, one of the questions is, have you ever been reprimanded by any court judge or by a grievance committee? You indicated no. I was just wondering why you didn't provide the information at that--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Because I didn't believe that the statutory admonishments were covered by the questionnaire. That was certainly no attempt to avoid that. As a matter of fact, in the questionnaire submitted to the Governor's Office, it was specifically mentioned. I didn't believe that was required because it is not a reprimand, and the Judicial Review Council's powers are listed by statute. I think what you just read are the policies of the Judicial Review Council, and I didn't feel that was an appropriate answer. But certainly, the word admonishment was used. I did report it.

REP. LAWLOR: But I just wanted to make sure there was no intentional, there was no intent to evade that particular incident.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely not. It was reported to the Governor's Office. It was reported to the Judicial Selection Commission. I didn't feel the committee's questionnaire required that. Maybe in an excess of caution, I'll indicate that I should have put it down.

REP. LAWLOR: That is appreciated. I'm going to think for future reference, not just for yourself, but to your colleagues, I think those are the types of things that we feel ought to be brought to our attention, especially when there is some type of formal action. Maybe we should amend the questionnaire to be more precise. It does say, have you ever been reprimanded by any court, judge, in this case, it was a judge, or by a grievance committee [inaudible – tape fades in and out] assigned by a judge. Acting on behalf of the—

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: [inaudible – tape fades in and out]. That is correct.

REP. LAWLOR: Another matter that has been brought to our attention is the fact that you are currently without authorization from the powers that be. The judicial establishment went to another court to cover dockets for your [inaudible – tape fades in and out] Superior Court. My understanding is that is not [inaudible – tape fades in and out] for procedure. I just wondered if you could comment on that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, that happened on [inaudible – tape fades in and out] case. In fact, there was obviously no attempt to hide that either. That was reported to the Administrative Judge in that district. I was pushed into service late afternoon, I think about 4:30. And I did cover the docket on one occasion because my wife had an emergency come up. It was [inaudible – tape fades in and out] to do this. That was being pressed into service. Another Monday, as you realize, the Juvenile Court System is under Federal Court Monitor. The Monitor, along with Judge Chatiney, was going to be visiting the Bridgeport Courthouse, which is a single-judge Courthouse, on that morning. When I saw that I had no [inaudible – tape fades in and out] responsibilities in Derby, and yet, Monday is a short calendar day. I said, would you cover for an hour or so while I give Judge Chatiney and the Monitor a tour of the facility and the detention center. I did so, returned to Derby. Subsequent to that time, I was told that couldn't be done, and it hasn't been done.

REP. LAWLOR: So it's your testimony that happened on two separate occasions.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: The second of those occasions, you were told that is not appropriate. And that has not happened again.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is correct.

REP. LAWLOR: Do you now understand that is not appropriate?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I understand that is the position of the Judicial Department, and I accept that.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: All right. Thank you. Actually, let me just follow up on that, Your Honor. Forgive me, I just don't know, this may not even be a question to you, it may be a question for the Chief Court Administrator. When you are assigned to a particular courthouse or a particular judicial district and session of court, is your authority limited to cases pending in that judicial district?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't believe so, Senator McDonald. I believe judges of the Superior Court are appointed on a statewide basis. We don't have, such as we do in some states, surrogate courts or other courts where the courts are limited jurisdiction or someone who is appointed to a Family Court bench or the Criminal bench. I know those types of things have been discussed periodically. While we have an informal basis for specialization, I'm assigned to Stamford. I can do Civil work, if Judge Black were unavailable, as she was recently due to a death in the family. An Administrative Judge asked if I would cover her docket in the Family Court or would take some matters, it certainly would the authorities acting as a Superior Court judge, even though we don't have a Family Court assignment. That is my understanding.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. And forgive me, these two occasions that you referenced, you were assigned to Derby at the time?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I was in Derby at that time. That was my one-year mission from Judge Flynn.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. For both of these instances, you were in Derby.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: And your spouse was—

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Was assigned as the only Juvenile Court judge at the Bridgeport Facility on Fairfield Avenue, which has now been closed, hopefully, in anticipation of the new facility within the City of Bridgeport shortly.

SEN. MCDONALD: And what is the, and I understand that there are cases, and an ebb and flow of dockets, if you will. What is the established procedure for dealing with situations where you need to cover? I mean, is it normally something that you would go to the Administrative Judge of the judicial district? Would you go informally to another judge and make those arrangements on your own?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think it depends. I think if it were for a period of time, you would certainly go to the Administrative Judge. I think as a courtesy, the Administrative Judge should always be informed if anything like that is happening. But if it's a simple case, for example, if it's a situation in Stamford where a judge has to be excused for an afternoon and says, can you cover a pretrial, I don't think, under those circumstances, I think it has to be case specific, Senator.

SEN. MCDONALD: And finally, with respect to the answer on your questionnaire about whether or not you were reprimanded, you indicated that given the fact that what Judge Ment issued was an admonishment rather than a reprimand, you didn't feel that it was necessary to—

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: --to state that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is correct. I didn't. In an excess of caution and with the added benefit of 20/20 hindsight, there was no attempt to hide it, it undoubtedly should have been disclosed.

SEN. MCDONALD: Just out of, and I appreciate that, frankly, I appreciate it because I think that all nominees have a duty of candor to this committee, just as litigants and lawyers have a duty of candor to courts and courtrooms. We depend, frankly, on the frankness and honesty of the information that is provided to the committee in evaluating nominees. So let me ask you the question because, apparently, at the time that you answered the question, there was a distinction in your mind, what is the distinction--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't think there is a distinction.

SEN. MCDONALD: Let me finish the question.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Oh, I'm sorry.

SEN. MCDONALD: What is the distinction in your mind between a reprimand and an admonishment?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I think a reprimand usually occurs following some form of hearing or formal process. An admonishment, in some cases, can be an informal process. For instance, I know the Judicial Review Commission has given admonishments, although there is nothing in the statute that specifically talks about it. I think a reprimand usually occurs following some sort of formal hearing process of complaints. The statutes under which this admonishment was issued talk about the appearance of impropriety or improper judicial purpose. This was a situation where what was cited was the appearance of impropriety, which I don't dispute because I think any argument is inappropriate, and improper, and certainly does that.

SEN. MCDONALD: And I appreciate that comment. The individuals who apparently complained about the argument were, I believe, all court personnel in the Norwalk courthouse.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: In your assignment in the Stamford courthouse, do you have occasion to work with those individuals any further?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Not that I recall, but I couldn't say definitely, Senator, because people are assigned to the courthouse. I was reassigned to the same district. I don't recall that. I wouldn't want to say yes or no.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. I believe Senator Meyer is next.

SEN. MEYER: [inaudible - microphone not on] If I can just come back for a second to the two instances in which you apparently took over for your wife on the bench.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes, Sir.

SEN. MEYER: We have a report in front of us that indicates that she, at that time, what the report says, was overwhelmed by her docket. You came in, and she left the bench. You came in to finish her docket. Is that approximately what happened?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: My recollection, Senator, you'll have to forgive me, this was something that happened some time ago. I haven't reviewed the events at all. My recollection is that I arrived late, very late in the afternoon. She had something come up with a case that she had to take care of outside the courtroom that demanded her attention. She was the only judge assigned to that particular courthouse, and I was asked to conclude the rest of the day. I know in a conversation later on, that was discussed with Judge Rush, who at that time was the Presiding Judge in Bridgeport. That was how that came about. I don't think it was a case of being overwhelmed and needing another judge. I think it was a case of something happening that was unanticipated outside the courtroom. That is my recollection.

SEN. MEYER: And the Administrative Judge did look over that situation after--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No.

SEN. MEYER: --the fact.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I don't know if he looked over the situation. I know I told him about it, almost in an offhand comment, saying, I was in your district working the other day. When we explained the situation, he thought it was somewhat humorous. Others didn't, and I accept that verdict.

SEN. MEYER: Okay. Ordinarily the Administrative Judge would be the only person to have the power to place a different judge on a docket. Isn't that correct?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is my understanding.

SEN. MEYER: Yeah. The same report that we received alleges, I emphasize allege, that you and your wife visited criminal defendants in a detention center, conversed with a criminal defendant, and that your wife played cards with him. Can you give us a response to that allegation?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Number one, there was never any card playing, not by me or by my wife. Secondly, yes, we had visited the detention center, which if you're familiar with the old complex, Senator, was adjacent to what was then the Juvenile Court in Bridgeport, which is now on Golden Hill Street. And I had visited that with her when she was assigned there. I had visited the detention center in the courthouse previously on several occasions as a member of the General Assembly when the discussion was prevalent concerning additional bond funds for the relocation of that facility and the reconstruction of the new facility. So that's, I visited that facility in--

SEN. MEYER: So--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: --spouse as well as a member of the General Assembly.

SEN. MEYER: The charge here--

SEN. MCDONALD: Excuse me, Senator Meyer, I don't think the judge was finished with his answer.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That's all right. I think I tried to indicate, and, Senator, if I haven't been responsive to your question, I apologize. I had visited the detention center in my capacity as a member of the General Assembly and a ranking member on this committee feeling that the facilities at that time, both the detention center and the Juvenile Courthouse, were a disgrace. I felt that way when I was on that side. I feel that way today.

And I had also visited it with my wife when she was the Presiding Judge. She would go in there on occasion. There was some conversation with the inmates. Since I was not assigned to Juvenile, I really was not handling any of those cases. She knew what boundaries existed. I don't think that there was any, I don't see anything improper in doing that. I have not had an opportunity or been given the report that you're reading from. To that extent, that is what happened.

SEN. MEYER: The allegation, Judge, was not that you visited the detention center, which, of course, is perfectly understandable.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Okay.

SEN. MEYER: The charge that's made here is that you visited specific defendants in the detention center.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That did not occur, as far as I know. No card playing occurred. I think they had a basketball hoop there, but there was no card playing.

SEN. MEYER: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions from members of the committee? Representative Cafero?

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Good afternoon, Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Congratulations on your nomination, and thank you for your service over the past eight years. Prior to appearing before you, I did have the privilege of being in jury duty when you oriented the jurors. You did a fine job. I want to commend you on that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Representative Cafero, if the problem surfaces in the hallway where you've gotten another request—

REP. CAFERO: I did.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I know you're exempt while the General Assembly is in session, but I will swear that you were there.

REP. CAFERO: I appreciate that. Your Honor, I had one question, but the line of questioning has brought some other questions to mind. You discussed, it's been discussed about an incident that took place in a Norwalk GA. I believe we referenced two. Correct me if I'm wrong. One was a, I'll use the word confrontation between yourself and someone regarding files being brought in to a docket. Is that correct?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, there was, and I did bring a, I did have a discussion. I think I had expressed some irritation, but every courthouse I'd ever been assigned to, Senator, the files and the dockets follow one another. In this case, it didn't. I don't know if it was a new situation, but I had lawyers who were waiting there, people who didn't know if they were supposed to be in Courtroom C, which, as you know, is the largest courtroom or one of the other courtrooms. And I did ask the marshals to go into Courtroom C to announce that certain dockets were being called someplace else. I know that later that day, there was some confusion.

I think we owe it to the public who uses that courtroom as well as members of the bar to try as best we can to make certain that people know where they should be and are accommodated. I don't know much about that one. I perhaps did express, and I would indicate that freely, I probably did express some irritation at that. The other was the argument that did happen, shouldn't have happened. And I think the action taken was appropriate. I would not try to sit here and justify an argument. I don't think an argument can ever be justified, regardless of who is right or who is wrong.

REP. CAFERO: I appreciate that. I know that you said also with regard to that first incident, you had, at least I thought I heard your testimony, you said that you had reacted in a way that, upon reflection, you might have reacted differently.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I think I was surprised by what, in my experience as a judge, was unprecedented. I don't have a specific recollection of it, but I might have expressed some irritation.

REP. CAFERO: Was that subsequently brought to your attention, the person?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes, it was. I was unaware of it until that happened.

REP. CAFERO: I think the reason I asked the questions about those two incidents is you certainly expressed regret that they occurred. In hindsight, I think we're very clear that you would have handled the situations differently.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely.

REP. CAFERO: I think you were very clear about the fact that though you did not put that under the section, which calls for a listing of reprimands, that you certainly distinguished that by putting it in another section of the applications that went before Judicial Selection and the Governor's Office.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: [inaudible]

REP. CAFERO: I guess what I'm curious about are the individuals that were involved in those instances. The one case, I believe was a clerk, I guess they were both clerks. How did you handle the situation, if at all, with them afterwards?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I was immediately, after a discussion with the Chief Court Administrator's Office, I was transferred to New Haven. I did not have occasion to interact. That was a decision that was made at another level.

REP. CAFERO: So after your transfer, which was immediately after those instances--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Right. And that is not unusual at the outset of a term. People are transferred all the time.

REP. CAFERO: Did you make any attempt to contact the individuals?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No, I didn't. I didn't think that was appropriate in light of the actions that had occurred and in light of what Judge Ment had done.

REP. CAFERO: Now, getting back to the instances wherein you covered for your wife. I know I've been in court several times where I was scheduled to appear before one judge, and for either personal reasons or other scheduling reasons, I'm told by a clerk, Judge Jones can't see you. You'll have to see Judge Smith in Courtroom C or what have you.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Right.

REP. CAFERO: And I realize that happens from time to time. Is it your understanding that during those times of instances within a courthouse, that protocol does not, to your knowledge, make it necessary to inform the Administrative Judge that that is exactly what is happening?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think it would be handled on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it would be appropriate, I think it would be appropriate, out of courtesy, in every case. In some cases, it might not be possible, if it were just a matter of one judge covering for another. I clearly have never discussed this with anyone in an administrative capacity.

REP. CAFERO: When you had occasion to cover for your wife, and those two occasions in Derby, forgive me if you said this, I did not catch it, did you have occasion to notify either your Administrative Judge where you were coming from? I believe you said you were in Bridgeport.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I was in Derby, and she—

REP. CAFERO: You were in Derby. She was in Bridgeport.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I didn't. There was no pre-notification because the first instance was a surprise to me. In the second instance, the Administrative Judge in Milford was notified after the fact. I had called and said, since I didn't have any short calendar obligations, I had done that. I discussed it with him, but I did not do so until after the fact. In retrospect, that probably should have been done differently.

REP. CAFERO: So neither the Administrative Judge in the Bridgeport Court, nor the Administrative Judge in the Derby Court where you were coming from were notified.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Right, not in those two instances. As I said, the second one was simply a matter of having a one-judge court, trying to comply with the Federal Court Monitor and Judge Chatiney, who were going to be there. My wife thought she couldn't do that. She asked if I had short calendar responsibilities that morning. I didn't, so I stayed there for about an hour, I guess, an hour and one-half, during the course of the tour and to assist. I then went right back to work in Derby.

REP. CAFERO: In that situation, whether it arrives again, how would you handle it?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I would handle it by notifying everybody because I was subsequently told, although it is not uncommon for judges to cover for one another, I was subsequently told that the Chief Board Administrator's Office didn't think that was appropriate. Therefore, those are the rules.

REP. CAFERO: And going back to those other instances, I indicated or asked you if you had an opportunity to speak to the two individuals involved, I'm talking about the Norwalk clerks, you indicated you did not, that you were transferred right afterwards. Had you had that opportunity, what would you say to them?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I would have said that I was sorry it happened and regretted it. An argument is never necessary. It's always avoidable. It always should be avoided, and that I could have walked away and not had that argument, and had a discussion in a calm and rational atmosphere at a later time, and didn't do that.

REP. CAFERO: With regard to the, what's the term, confrontation or words that you had with the clerk who was late bringing in or did not have the dockets--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't think there were any words spoken. I don't recall having said anything that morning.

REP. CAFERO: What was the complaint then?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think the complaint was that I may have been irritated, and it may have been conveyed that I was irritated that the trials were not following the docket sheets in the courtroom. I don't have a chance because I never reviewed the transfer, so I really don't know.

REP. CAFERO: Though, and I think properly, you still have that expectation that that should have taken place. How would you have handled that instance differently?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think, first of all, I would have apologized to the assembled lawyers because there were some lawyers in the room, as I recall, who were there and that I know had other commitments and responsibilities, particularly on a pre-trial docket where they're not expecting to be there all day for a variety of reasons, particularly the private law. I probably would have taken a quick recess, would have made a telephone call to see where they were. I would have, again, instructed the marshal to do what I did, and that is, to go to the other courtroom, retrieve the files, and bring them back here, and please make an announcement, so that people are not sitting in the wrong courtroom, which not only can be inconvenient, but might result in someone being unfairly rearrested.

REP. CAFERO: With regard to the questioning that Senator Meyer just asked you, again, I think he properly characterized it as an allegation, that you and your wife, Judge Lopez had visited a detention center, wherein you said you did, and there was some reference to playing cards. You said that did not happen.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It did not happen.

REP. CAFERO: The purpose of your visit to the detention center was what?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I was accompanying my wife, and she was the Presiding Judge there at the time. We went in and visited it. And that was about the extent to it. The purpose was to accompany my wife on a visit there during hours that were not normal court hours.

REP. CAFERO: And was it a tour of the facility?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No. It wasn't really, well, in a way, it was, yes, I would have to say it was a tour of the facility, similar to other tours I've had as a member of the General Assembly. In other words, it's not the first time that I had been in the detention center.

REP. CAFERO: Was there interaction with some of the people being detained in the center?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: There may have been interaction. I don't recall anything specific.

REP. CAFERO: Okay.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I mean, I'm sure there was a hello, Senator, that type of interaction, but I don't recall anything specific. As I said to Senator Meyer, this has me at a little bit of a disadvantage because I have not reviewed the materials you have.

REP. CAFERO: Okay. Finally, Judge, the question I've asked everyone, have you had any professional services rendered to you in preparation for appearing before us?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Not specifically before this committee, but an accountant did retrieve the income tax returns, which had to be submitted.

REP. CAFERO: And did you have a written agreement for compensation of such?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: With the accountant, absolutely not.

REP. CAFERO: You don't have a--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No.

REP. CAFERO: Is that part of his services to you?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: He did not charge us for that. It was last year's returns that he had on file and that I retrieved from him because our copies weren't legible in some areas. So I got the copies from him and submitted those particular copies. I did interact with an accountant. I don't know that that was specifically for this committee, but it was for the State Police Investigation, which includes the Governor's Office and this committee. So that is the reason I say this.

REP. CAFERO: So in your initial retention of the accountant for purposes due to your taxes, that was a service that you contracted for and paid.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: We paid the bill.

REP. CAFERO: Paid the bill. And there were no other services that you contracted for in preparation for this?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Your Honor.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. The next is actually Senator Kissel. If you have questions, please raise your hands. I'll take them. So Senator Kissel?

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Judge Radcliffe, it's nice to see you.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It's nice to see you, Senator, and it's nice to see you in your new position, Sir.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you. As I recall, my very first term here, now about 13 years ago, I don't believe I was on the Judiciary Committee my first term, but you were here. So we both did serve in the Legislature at the same time. This is perhaps somewhat of an admonishment from me coupled with a question. Our previous judicial candidates came before us, and the question that my good friend Senator Newton posed for all of them was, what really makes up a good judge? I believe each and every one of them said temperament is first and foremost.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely.

SEN. KISSEL: The colloquial term is [inaudible]. When a person is made a judge, on occasion, it might go to their head. And I'm not alleging that that has ever been the case in your instance. At the same sense, the pressures that a judge undergoes, both administratively and weighing decisions regarding complex and difficult matters, can be stressful. Much as the Chief Board Administrator sent you an admonishment, and that was in writing, and it was left in a litigated manner, it strikes me as unusual that something would get to a point where a disagreement with a fellow employee would get to the level where the highest judge in the system would have to write a letter and say that is unacceptable behavior. So it strikes me, from your previous answers, that you've learned from that.

I think that it's important to recognize that while you're a judge, and other staff members are not judges, you are all state employees. You are all a reflection of state government. You all are integral in your own ways to the system where justice is carried out. I noted in response to Representative Cafero questions, you stated that you would apologize, and it is probably too late to do that now. It would have been nice shortly after that incident occurred for you to recognize that that individual deserved an apology. That was an outburst, and it was an outburst over the underlying matter, getting a docket prepared for a Monday hearing, it just strikes me that it must have been a stressful period for that to occur. Would you agree with that?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think it was a stressful period. I would characterize it as an argument. I would say that any argument is unnecessary and improper.

SEN. KISSEL: What concerns me is when you say it's an argument, that almost sounds like it was two ways. But don't you believe that you, in your capacity as a judge, you have a duty to bend over backwards to be as patient as possible, not only with litigants, not only with defendants, not only with attorneys, but with everyone that is working within that system? I know quite often, especially in the last several years where there have been early retirements, I know in my practice before the courts, that quite often, clerks would tell me, because I was there, you know, listening to my district, and I'm their State Senator, they would say, we lost personnel, and I'm now having to do double duty. When is the budget going to be brought in line? When are we going to get more staff? And those things happen. Don't you feel that in your capacity as a judge, you are a role model for almost everyone in that courthouse?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: And if I didn't convey that fully in my answer to Senator McDonald, I apologize. I think I said that I could have avoided it by stopping it, and I didn't do that.

SEN. KISSEL: Okay. I just wanted a nice, clear, and bright-line acknowledgement. The second thing is the point about you and your wife. I'm not, I've never served with Judge Lopez. To be honest, I could look out in the audience, she was probably before us eight years ago when I was serving on this committee, but I couldn't recognize her to this moment. But I think that when you are married to another judge, it's a very unusual situation.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It is.

SEN. KISSEL: And clearly, we have no control over that, but it strikes me that that is a situation where you have to be almost doubly on guard for any appearances of impropriety, both to the public as a whole, to fellow employees, and to the system. And it could be perceived, even though you were only perhaps just helping out a spouse by covering the docket, but that you're sort of running your own show. You can't run your own show. We can't allow you to run your own show. You have a tremendous amount of authority within your courtroom as it stands, but there is a hierarchy of authority. The public needs to be able to depend upon that to have faith in the system.

In response to some of the questions Senator Meyer said or Representative Cafero, you had indicated you didn't think that anything inappropriate took place, but that is the rule, and you will follow the rule. I'm looking for you to acknowledge that it's a good rule. Even though your instincts were to help a spouse with a judicial matter, the rule that protocol must be followed is, by its nature, a good rule. It fosters the respect of the public for the system.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I think rules have to be followed. As I believe I indicated, Senator, once that was communicated, there have been no further instances of covering. I will indicate that I felt at the time, and this is at the time, this is not with the benefit of hindsight, I felt at the time that if I did not have duties that required my presence in Derby, and I could help, cooperate with my wife's attempt to answer questions from the Federal Court Monitor and the Federal Judge who were going to be there on that Monday morning, that that was a service, not only to her, but also to the Judicial Department. Then other judges in the district of Bridgeport who might have had other assignments wouldn't have to be freed up to go to another building. I recognize that people feel that's inappropriate, and it has not happened subsequently.

SEN. KISSEL: Well, that concerns me a little, Judge Radcliffe, only because it's almost like a grudging acknowledgement that that's the rule. Again, what I'm stating is that you're in a very unique position. I'm not aware of other judges that are married. That could be the case throughout the State of Connecticut, but if she was not your spouse, it seems to me that that wouldn't be a natural thing, for one judge to call another judge in another jurisdiction--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No. I don't think it would have been.

SEN. KISSEL: --can you drive over here and help me out? So it strikes me that it makes sense to have a hierarchy. It makes sense to have that construct. Even though it's a rule and needs to be followed, what I'm looking for from you, Judge, is an acknowledgment today that, not only is it a rule, and not only should it be followed, but that it makes sense, and it's a good rule.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't know if it's a good, necessarily a good rule in all circumstances, as I indicated to Senator McDonald. I think it's a good rule where there is a policy in place, and the policy is announced, that that policy be followed. I do think your point is well-taken. It is particularly appropriate given the marital relationships to perhaps be doubly careful.

SEN. KISSEL: Well, I'll conclude with this. I think that it's such a tremendous privilege to serve as a judge in the State of Connecticut. There is a list of many dozens of people that have been approved that would love to serve on the bench. Those candidates have served, would do it, and recognize that it is a tremendous, tremendous privilege. When you're in a unique situation, when you happen to be married to an individual that shares such a distinct privilege, I think-- [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 4A to 4B.]

--fellow jurists on the bench and those that one reports to up the ladder know that they can have the utmost confidence. Therefore, these rules are created such that all judges follow them. So I would only state that while I haven't gotten the answer that I was hoping that I would get, an acknowledgement that that rule is a good rule—

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think it is. I thought I said that.

SEN. KISSEL: That is all I was, that what I was looking for.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Okay. If I didn't say that, Senator, I didn't communicate that. In fact, I thought I had said that.

SEN. KISSEL: Okay.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Perhaps I had said that, and I had added to it, and that tended to obscure the answer.

SEN. KISSEL: Okay. Well, that makes me feel a lot better because I think the rule is in place. Again, it's not just our Judicial System vis-à-vis the public it serves, and indeed, you are a servant of the public, but, indeed, it is your relationship with other jurists, with the Judicial System, with the Chief Board Administrator. And I think a sensitivity to that is of the utmost importance. With that, you've answered all my questions, and I thank you very much for your years of service. With those answers, I look forward to supporting your re-nomination.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Quickly, Representative Lawlor?

REP. LAWLOR: I just have one final question, Judge. On this issue of going to the Bridgeport Juvenile Courthouse, you testified that when you went over there, the reason was because without Judge Lopez, the court would be uncovered. Is that correct? They wouldn't have a judge there.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I'm sorry if I gave, that was not the detention center. I indicated that the one time, that it was not at all planned. At the time that it was planned, it was because Judge Chatiney and the Monitor were going to be touring the detention center and the Juvenile Court Building consistent with the Consent Decree that was in effect. My wife asked me if I had the time to cover that morning for an hour or so, which is what I did, while she tended to Judge Chatiney and the Federal Court Monitor.

REP. LAWLOR: I thought you said, and I guess in both cases, it was to ensure that there was a judge in the courthouse at that time.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No. She was in the courthouse on both occasions.

REP. LAWLOR: I understand.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It was to ensure that any work that had to be done on the docket was, in fact, completed.

REP. LAWLOR: So these two times, she never actually left the court.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No, Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: You were just actually in the courtroom. And when you left, in both occasions, was it leaving from the Derby Courthouse?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No. In one occasion, it was coming from home to go there on my way to Derby because I didn't have the responsibilities early in the morning that day.

REP. LAWLOR: And on the other calendar--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: --a short calendar day.

REP. LAWLOR: And the other occasion--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: And the other occasion was coming from Derby and not knowing, and on the way home, and stopping by very late in the afternoon.

REP. LAWLOR: So when you left Derby, was there another judge behind covering in Derby that day?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Oh, yes. The day had been concluded. Yeah.

REP. LAWLOR: So this happened after working hours?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: Approximately--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Oh, no. It happened between 4:30 and 5:00 on that particular day.

REP. LAWLOR: So you had left the Derby Court early.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Oh, yeah. Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: What is the rule on staying? I thought judges were staying in the courthouse for the full day.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, I think you stay in the courthouse until all work is completed. I had completed all work that day, I think, and I don't remember this exactly. I think there was a jury trial that was in recess. I think we had concluded because there was no business until tomorrow morning. So I took the necessary work I was going to have to do, took it home with me, and stopped by to see my wife on the way.

REP. LAWLOR: And I thought it was customary to have at least one judge available to sign warrants, that type of things.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Oh, there was somebody available for that, yes.

REP. LAWLOR: You're certain of that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Oh, yeah. Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: And do you know which judge that would have been at the time?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That would have been either Judge Sylvester, Ripley, Nanceny. There were several of us--

REP. LAWLOR: In the courthouse at the time you left?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I believe so. I don't have a specific recollection.

REP. LAWLOR: But is that something you would have made sure of prior to leaving?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I would think so.

REP. LAWLOR: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: All right. Next is Representative Spallone, followed by Senator Newton.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't belabor this too long because Senator Kissel covered a lot of the ground that I thought was important. I do appreciate you taking the time to answer all these questions. I just wanted to ask, frame the question this way. Do you agree with me that as a judge of the Superior Court who is asked to rule in situations where people are angry or upset or have issues affecting their family or their liberty, where we come to court to avoid having unseemly arguments or confrontations, do you agree that as a judge of the Superior Court, you have a special duty, even more than we do as Legislators or members of the bar to avoid the type of conflict that we've been discussing today?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely, Representative. That is why I said that it doesn't matter who was right or wrong in the argument. An argument is inappropriate regardless. Yes, I absolutely agree with that.

REP. SPALLONE: And do you agree it's particularly inappropriate, though, because you are a Superior Court judge?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: It could have been stopped. It would have been stopped by walking away, and it wasn't.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Newton, followed by Senator Roraback, and then Representative Dyson.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you, and good afternoon, Judge. Let me ask the question. I'm not a lawyer. This is like my first time serving on this committee. I know reference has been made to your wife and you covering for your wife.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Right.

SEN. NEWTON: For the record, and I'm just going to pick a name off this here slate here, if Judge John Cronan of Wallingford had called you and said, John, you know, I need somebody to cover me. Are you available to cover me? Would you have gone?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I think I would have. But to answer Senator Kissel's question, I think first, I would have said, all right, check it with your Presiding Judge, and I'll be there.

SEN. NEWTON: Okay. Now, we know protocol, so I understand that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Right.

SEN. NEWTON: I'm just talking--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely.

SEN. NEWTON: You got a call, and you were asked to come to cover while something was happening.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: As long as it's okay with the Presiding Judge, I'll be there.

SEN. NEWTON: So if another judge had called you prior to your knowing the protocol, would you have gone?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely.

SEN. NEWTON: Okay. I first want to say thank you. I'll thank Attorney Lopez later for bringing attention to the deplorable conditions in our Juvenile Detention Center and the Courthouse that has moved it over to another place in Bridgeport. I read some of the complaints that happened in Norwalk. You have to explain to me because I'm a layperson, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what goes on in courtrooms. Help me walk through this. I assume a docket is prepared for every day.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes. That is right.

SEN. NEWTON: So when the judge gets there, he has the dockets of what cases are supposed to come before him or her.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: And what cases are supposed to be in a particular courtroom.

SEN. NEWTON: Is that accurate?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is accurate. That should be prepared in advance.

SEN. NEWTON: In advance. So this docket is prepared in advance, so when Judge Jones walks into the courtroom, he or she, they know what's going to take place in their courtroom for that day. Is that accurate?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes, Sir. There should be a courtroom prepared. In a Criminal Court, you might have an Arraignment Court--

SEN. NEWTON: Right.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: You might have a pretrial courtroom. You might have another courtroom where there would be a jury trial in progress. There would be different things. My feeling, at that time, I know it wasn't the custom there, but as a service to everybody, those docket sheets should be posted outside the appropriate courtroom as an accommodation to people who are using the court.

SEN. NEWTON: So as the judge, as I said, I read the complaints from the individual workers who felt you crossed the line as far as speaking to them as human beings. Is it the practice where a judge comes into a courtroom on any given day, and things aren't prepared the way they should be prepared?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I suppose that has happened everywhere.

SEN. NEWTON: So is it safe to say that judges, because this is their chamber, might get a little upset because they come to go to work, and if stuff is not prepared--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Might get a little upset, Senator, but I don't think, I think you can get a little bit upset in chambers by taking a recess, as I indicated to the questions before. I don't think it's appropriate, if in fact it happened, and I have not seen the transcript, I don't think it's appropriate to get upset in open court with anyone. I don't think that is appropriate.

SEN. NEWTON: So--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Because it's not a question of whether or not the anger or the upset is justified, it simply shouldn't be expressed in certain ways. Yes, I agree with that.

SEN. NEWTON: So on hindsight, you would have handled this situation maybe by recessing or handling it a different way--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely.

SEN. NEWTON: --than some of the outbursts that happened.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

SEN. NEWTON: So is that accurate?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is accurate.

SEN. NEWTON: And just for the record, again, if any other judge had called you and asked you, Judge, I understand you have a light case today, would you have gone?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes, Sir.

SEN. NEWTON: You would have.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Consistent with the notion that you say, well, if it's all right with your Administrative Judge, I'd be happy to cover for you.

SEN. NEWTON: Final question, Mr. Chairman, prior to becoming a judge, was it ever brought to your attention in order to leave your jurisdiction, you must get approval by the Chief Administrative Judge?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: No. I don't think that was ever specifically stated, but I think it's an appropriate policy.

SEN. NEWTON: Well, I'm sure there will be a new policy now. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Just for the purposes of an announcement because the hour is getting late, I just want to let members of the committee know, members of the public know, and members of the staff know that we are probably going to be here for several more hours. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid that for predominately two reasons. The first is that we, ultimately, after this public hearing, have to have an organization meeting according to the rules. It has to take place today. The second reason is, as was mentioned at the beginning of the public hearing, many of these nominees are time constricted because their terms end on January 28^th. Frankly, because of the way the calendar works, because we're closed on Monday, we really need to press on this evening. So I apologize to all of you, but I suspect that we will be here for several more hours. I just wanted to let you know that. There is no way to avoid it. The next questions were coming from Senator Roraback and then Representative Dyson.

SEN. RORABACK: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My questions, actually, were going to be directed at you, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just to change the pace. Good evening, Judge Radcliffe.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Good evening, Senator. I am aware of your new status. When I was here last, you were in the House.

SEN. RORABACK: Yes. I recall. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee have been furnished with a whole raft of correspondence, and emails, and the like. It has become clear in our questioning of Judge Radcliffe that the nominees don't have the benefit of the information that committee members have. It just strikes me as a matter of fundamental fairness that if we're going to be questioning nominees with respect to documents that we have before us, that they ought to be in possession of that same information. I don't know if what we're looking at is confidential or what your thoughts might be on that question.

SEN. MCDONALD: Let me just say that--

SEN. RORABACK: Through you, to you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Through me, to me. Representative Lawlor and I, I believe, on Friday sent a letter to the Chief Court Administrator asking for documents relating to any candidate who had information in their files that was relevant to the consideration of the nomination. We were provided with the materials that have been passed out to all of the members of the committee. We got them yesterday afternoon, and they were distributed today. The documents that we were furnished were furnished in accordance with our request for those documents. To my knowledge, they are not confidential in any manner. Though they are related to personnel matters, they are not related to what is considered privacy matters, such as somebody's health or their Social Security number, something like that.

That is why they've been furnished to members of the committee. If Judge Radcliffe, and I have no reason to doubt you, says that he has not seen the letters, they've been floating around here all day. If you haven't seen them, we are going to ask you, I'm going to ask you at the conclusion of this portion of the public hearing for you to actually remain at the public hearing anyway. I am happy to call you back later on in the public hearing and have you make any statement that you wish in response to reading those materials.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Senator, let me first indicate, and I thank my former colleague for raising the issue, but I don't fault the committee in any way. I would not fault the committee in any way for asking for this information. My wife and I did ask some time ago for copies of all information in our personnel file. You would think that this is the type of information that would be included in a personnel file. Evidently, it was not. I don't feel that any of the questions have been unfair or that I'm at a disadvantage in answering any of the questions. If there has been a failure of disclosure, it is not the committee's problem. I certainly would not fault the committee or the Chairs for the actions that you've taken in terms of disseminating any information.

SEN. MCDONALD: I thank you for that, Your Honor, however, the invitation still remains. If you want to review those documents after your testimony now and see anything that would cause you alarm or you wish to respond to, you will be afforded another opportunity to do that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I'm happy to respond to anything on the committee, and I appreciate the Chair's consideration.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Roraback, anything further?

SEN. RORABACK: Mr. Chairman, my intention here was not to find blame or fault. It was trying to understand whether this process was going to be conducted in a manner, which permitted the people being questioned to know what it was we were looking at in questioning them. Specifically, Senator Meyer had a line of questioning when he was saying that it's being charged that you played cards. We have a letter in front of us, which pertains to another nominee, and there is a sentence that says, the judge, can I read an excerpt from the letter?

SEN. MCDONALD: Sure.

SEN. RORABACK: The judge held conversations with the defendants and even played cards with them. But I think that that allegation, when I read this, is not an allegation directed at Judge Radcliffe, but rather an allegation directed at Judge Lopez. When Senator Meyer was questioning the nominee, because the nominee didn't have the benefit of this document in front of him, I think he might have been able to, it might have been a clearer exchange, I guess. So through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to think, and with respect, we have another nominee coming up. We might save ourselves a lot of time if we furnished the nominee with what we have in front of us, so that she might prepare herself to know what's on our minds.

SEN. MCDONALD: If that has not been already provided, it should be. I would ask one of the members of our staff to do that. My only comment, and I think it's a follow up to what Judge Radcliffe has indicated, we asked for information from the Judicial Branch. It was provided to the committee by the Judicial Branch. I understand that the information that was provided to us formed the basis of the admonishment that was given to Judge Radcliffe. Is that correct?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yeah. I did not mean to imply, Senator, that I did not have that information. Senator Meyer's questions had to do with some allegations concerning the detention center. Only related to that, that I indicated that I did not have certain information. I would say that that allegation concerning card playing was made. It was made by the predecessor Chief Board Administrator shortly thereafter. It was denied. It has been repeatedly denied. Unfortunately, some rumors are easier to start than they are to stop.

SEN. MCDONALD: Very good. Anything else, Senator Roraback?

SEN. RORABACK: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the indulgence.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I was about to call you Representative Radcliffe.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I've been called worse, Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: I understand. I understand. I understand, Judge Radcliffe, you have been here all day. You know my line of questioning. Probably my line of questioning now is going to be a relief.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Representative Dyson, your line of questioning would never be a relief. I think your line of questioning might lead one to believe that he was responding or she was responding to a question and not realize what they had actually said because you are so expert in that particular area, Sir.

REP. DYSON: Thank you so much. That flattery will get you everywhere.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Nowhere.

REP. DYSON: Yeah. I just want you to know that. But I've been pursuing a line of questioning all day.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I heard that.

REP. DYSON: I feel obligated to ask each and every individual that comes before the committee, to pose the same question to them. Apart from it being a change of pace, I know that you have had some time to probably think about this. You don't need to elaborate extensively, but do you have an opinion as to how we can deal with this issue that confronts us regarding racial disparity and ethnic disparity within the system?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Representative Dyson, I heard your initial question. Quite frankly, when I first heard it, and I've heard it several times since, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Of course, there is an overrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanics in the Criminal Justice System. The report demonstrates that by way of empirical evidence. Anyone who has been at GA 2 in Bridgeport or GA 6 in New Haven or anyplace else of that nature can use their own eyes to determine that any day of the week. It exists. Now, the reasons for its existence may be complex.

All of them may not be reasons that a judge can deal with in capacities of a criminal judge. I have not sat Criminal for some time. My principle responsibilities have been Civil. Certainly, the situation of overrepresentation exists. The empirical evidence and the observable evidence would indicate that. How we deal with it, I think I would not absolve the courts of their responsibility, but I think some of this takes place before it gets to court. It may take place in the enforcement phase. It may take place in terms of discretionary decisions made concerning probation or discretionary decisions made concerning sentencing, concerning recommendations. There may be lots of reason for it.

Your initial question of former Representative Wollenberg was, did it exist? I think that is a rhetorical question. The answer is yes.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much. Let me just say, I read an awful lot of your comments. That and with my experience of knowing you [inaudible - microphone not on].

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative, could you turn on your microphone?

REP. DYSON: I feel that your answer is sincere. That doesn't say that all the others who responded were not being sincere. So I take your answer for what it's worth, and know that you will do whatever you can, and offer your opinions to those who need to hear that, and recognize that a problem does exist. I think, given that we have other things we're going to be doing, I don't need to have another answer out of you today. So that was just fine.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: You can get an answer out of me any time you want, Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Sir.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I'm happy to talk. You did mention something. I saw earlier today that, Senator, at the request of impinging on the committee, I can say one thing that I remember. You were concerned about the overrepresentation of minorities in the system for many years.

SEN. MCDONALD: That is correct.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I remember your concern when we did an amendment to the [inaudible] REHABILITATION BILL. At some point, when it was originally done, I know Chairman Lawlor will recall this, the bill said that A and B felonies would no longer be considered for that. You indicated you thought that would have a disparate impact. I made an argument, which was consistent with the legislation at the time, and which I believe, and which I think is still true. No, A and B felonies include things such as larceny 1 and embezzlement. Whether it is an individual in blue jeans or a blue suit, they would be treated the same way and would not be eligible. I made that representation to you. I think that statute has subsequently been revisited. Maybe those representations are no longer applicable.

REP. DYSON: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I just have a couple questions. I wanted to clarify the issue of assignment of judges. I guess I don't understand it fully. If you are assigned, are you assigned by the Chief Court Administrator? Who communicates this to you?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Under the statutes, and this is by statute, I can't recite it off the top of my head, Representative Farr, but under the statutes, the Chief Court Administrator assigns or reassigns judges. Assignments are usually made at the beginning of the term in September, but people can be assigned and have occasionally been reassigned during the course of the years. Assignments are made by the Office of the Chief Board Administrator, who, as far as I know, has absolute discretion on where a judge is to be assigned.

REP. FARR: And how is this communicated with you? Does somebody call you? Does somebody write you?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: You receive something in the mail, and subsequently receive a law journal saying this is where you will be assigned.

REP. FARR: And then if you're assigned in a courthouse--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: There are requests for opinions. I should indicate that judges are asked to put down preferences, but as I have learned, those preferences are not necessarily, I'm sure all the judges have learned, those preferences are not necessarily honored.

REP. FARR: And if you're assigned, are you assigned, not only a courthouse, but a specific duty? For example, if it's a courthouse that has both Criminal and Civil or Criminal, Civil, and Divorce like Rockville has all of these things, are you specifically assigned to the Divorce Docket?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I hesitate to respond to that because I believe, and I'm not really the appropriate party, I don't think so. The answer is yes and no. There are some courts, for instance, when I was in Danbury, there were six judges assigned there for four years. That is what is known as a block assignment. A judge could be doing Civil, could be doing Family, could be doing Criminal, and could be doing it at any particular time. That is what is known as a block assignment.

In many of the larger districts, judges are assigned either to the Civil, the Juvenile, the Criminal, or Housing sessions. I think that is all of them. So in some of the larger districts, you would be assigned to Civil. I have an assignment right now in Stamford, which is not a block assignment. I'm assigned to the Civil side of the court in Stamford. So the answer is yes and no, I guess. I don't know what category Rockville falls in off the top of my head.

REP. FARR: You indicated that the Administrative Judge has some authority of where judges are sitting. Presumably, if you are in a Civil Courthouse where there is more than one judge sitting Civil, there is a Chief Civil Administrative Judge in that courthouse who would then decide who sits short calendar. Is that correct?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Well, presumably, there is a Presiding Judge Civil. There is a Presiding Judge Criminal. There is a Presiding Judge Family who would do some of the administrative assignments. Frankly, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I don't mean to avoid your question, but that would vary from district to district.

REP. FARR: Well, I'm just trying to understand how you get, when you report in a courthouse that morning, how do you know where you go?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: You have been assigned a courtroom, to go to that courtroom. You then proceed to administer whatever, whether it's a Civil, Criminal, Family, Juvenile Courtroom.

REP. FARR: And so normally, if you wanted to get, if another judge asked you to cover something, the Presiding Judge would tell you to do that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I would think so. I would think so. I wouldn't want to generalize, and I can't speak for districts in which I haven't been assigned.

REP. FARR: Okay. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Green?

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up a little bit on Senator Newton's and Representative Farr's thinking because I got a little confused also. I just want to be very clear. It appeared, I guess it sounded like that judges were not made, it was not made clear to judges what the rule is about covering other cases. Is that clear? Is it a written policy? Were you made aware of it?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't know that there is a written policy, Representative Green. I've never been aware of a written policy. That policy was orally communicated. I can tell you that.

REP. GREEN: Mr. Chair, I guess I would just like to request, if it's possible, and I don't really know how to do this, if our Judicial Department has a policy on the process for judges when they cover, if they could at least make that available to us. I think, for me, I'm getting a little confused. I want to be fair. Whatever the process is for covering cases, I don't want to single out necessarily because the judges may be married versus what the process is. It would be helpful to me, if it was written, so I could see what it is. I guess, it doesn't appear that it is a written policy because you had indicated that through some discussion. Someone indicated to you, that's the rule. I didn't know if that was the rule at that moment or--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Representative Green, I'm not indicating that. There may very well be a written policy.

REP. GREEN: Right.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I don't know of the existence of that policy. I do know that that particular factor was communicated to me orally.

REP. GREEN: That will be one of the questions I'll share with Representative Dyson. I guess for the next three or four judges that come up, I'll ask them the same question. The other thing that I guess I was concerned about, and I was more concerned about court procedures, in a sense, what is helpful and what is helpful to the judges. I guess my first assessment of what you said was that you had been to a number of courts. It appeared that in a Norwalk Court, somehow the files didn't follow the docket that you had. That was your first time experiencing that. Did I hear you correctly?

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Yes, you did.

REP. GREEN: Then later on, I think Senator Newton had asked, had you been aware that this sort of thing had happened in other places. Then you seemed to indicate that you had been aware that this practice or this had happened in other courts.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I'm not aware of that practice in other courts. I think I indicated that if I had been aware that there was a different practice there, I certainly would have, with the benefit of hindsight, would have handled the situation much differently.

REP. GREEN: So this was the first time you had experienced that--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That is correct.

REP. GREEN: --where the court procedures and the support staff at court was always able to make sure that files follow dockets. This was your first experience with that.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: That was my first experience where that did not happen, yes.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. We will follow up on Representative Green's request with the Judicial Branch. Are there other questions for Judge Radcliffe? Seeing none, I thank you very much for your time, Judge.

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: And as I indicated earlier, Judge Radcliffe, we would ask that you, I suspect you would stick around for Judge Lopez's--

JUDGE DALE RADCLIFFE: I will remain, Mr. Chairman. I think all of the questions that could be asked have been asked. If I desire an additional opportunity, I appreciate your offer.

SEN. MCDONALD: Great. Thank you very much. Next is Robert T. Resha of Brookfield.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank You, Your Honor. If you could, please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: It is.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Please, be seated, make yourself comfortable, and begin with your opening statement, if you wish.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you, Sir. Good afternoon. To serve the people of this state in the capacity of a Superior Court judge has truly been an exceptional honor. Since my appointment, I've enjoyed assignments in Criminal, Juvenile, and Family law, and am currently completing over three years as a Presiding Judge in Family matters. I feel this diverse experience will be beneficial to me, if I'm fortunate enough to continue my work as a judge. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present myself before you and respectfully ask you to allow me to continue this most important work. I would, of course, be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your statement. I was remiss in not thanking you for your patience as we went through our long docket his morning.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: It's been a long day for all of us.

REP. SPALLONE: Yep. Thank you. Do any of the members have questions for Judge Resha at this time? Yes, Representative Green, please proceed.

REP. GREEN: Thank you. I started to say that I was going to ask for the remaining judges these two questions. Do you know the policy on how you should cover another judge's chamber or courtroom?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: I'm not aware of what policies there might or might not be in the Administration regarding that specific isolated instance that has just been referenced. I trust that will answer your question.

REP. GREEN: I'm not sure. If you were to cover another court, what would you do? How would you do that? Would someone call you and say, I need you to cover for an hour? Who would tell you to cover someone? I mean, what happens? What is the process?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Well--

REP. GREEN: Excuse me. Have you ever covered another judge's courtroom?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Yes, under limited circumstances. I believe, as Judge Radcliffe indicated, it is fact specific. I've frankly never been asked to cover a judge's courtroom outside of the courthouse that I was in. And when I've been asked to do that, it's been for isolated matters. But I've never been called upon to leave my courthouse to go to another courthouse to cover a docket.

REP. GREEN: Have you ever seen a written policy or protocol as to what to do when asked to do that or how to do that, if you wanted to do that?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: No, Sir. I've never had occasion to encounter that, to ask about it. I've never been asked to do it.

REP. GREEN: Do you know if there is a written policy that guides how judges should cover another judge's courtroom?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: In another courthouse?

REP. GREEN: Internally or externally, within the same courthouse or another GA.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: No. I'm not aware of that, Sir.

REP. GREEN: Okay. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: I believe Representative Dyson has questions. Please, proceed.

REP. DYSON: Good afternoon, Sir.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Good afternoon.

REP. DYSON: I know you have that tired look on your face.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Yes, Sir.

REP. DYSON: You've been here a long time.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: As we all have.

REP. DYSON: Growing weary.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Oh, yes, Sir.

REP. DYSON: I understand. Let me make you even wearier.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: I'm sure you will.

REP. DYSON: I've got my question to put to you regarding this racial and ethnic disparity within the Criminal Justice System. I'm looking for your opinion.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Well, Sir, frankly, I was unaware of the report until the first question started to be asked today. I will reiterate what many judges have said here, and I believe it's true. I believe it's a fact that we are entrusted with the responsibility of creating a level playing field for people in court. And many times, that playing field is not level. I think it is up to us to make sure that it is, whether it be prosecutors and Public Defenders, whether it be DCF or a state-hired attorney, whether it be a client represented by counsel in a dissolution, a divorce, a pro se litigant. We have an obligation to make sure that playing field is level. I believe that we take that responsibility seriously.

If we are, as a group, somehow responsible for a conclusion that is not appropriate, and I say if because I don't know that to be the case. I don't know the study. I don't know the basis upon which it was created. I can't comment about that. If we are, I can assure you that we will be responsible and responsive to that. I've already heard that the Judicial Department is planning a seminar on this at the next Judicial Institute. It already shows me that this issue is being taken seriously.

We, as judges, live under a microscope. We are evaluated by attorneys that appear before us. It's public knowledge that when anything goes on in a courtroom that may be inappropriate, the press somehow is there. We really do live under a microscope. If, again, we are part of a conclusion that is not appropriate, I feel confident that it will be addressed. I think the judges individually do believe that they try to create a level playing field, and that they are fair, impartial in their handling of people that come before them and dispense justice fairly.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: You're welcome.

REP. SPALLONE: Do other members have questions? Yes, Senator Roraback, please proceed.

SEN. RORABACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the privilege of representing 15 communities. Brookfield is one of them. Judge, I just wanted to thank you for your service to our state. And, actually, it is not a bad thing to be from Brookfield these days. Congratulations.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Senator Cappiello, please proceed.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your Honor, welcome.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: I first want to congratulate you on your eight years of service. I will not hold it against you that you are really from Danbury, and that you now live in Senator Roraback's district. You have done a wonderful job over the last eight years. I know you have two wonderful boys that you're very proud of, one who is hopefully following in your footsteps at Quinnipiac Law School. I want to wish you the best of luck and thank you, again, for your service.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.

REP. SPALLONE: Representative Godfrey?

REP. GODFREY: Thank you. Your Honor, good to see you.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you.

REP. GODFREY: I had the pleasure of working with the then-attorney Resha back when he was Corporation Council with the City of Danbury. I was in the City Council. He is a man of integrity, a man of honesty. He's very much forward in his thinking. He's gotten a great reputation in his eight years on the bench, so I'm pleased to see that you're going for another re-up. I look forward to seeing this through very soon. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you. I appreciate those comments.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Do other members have questions for the Judge? I believe Representative Cafero had indicated he had a question. I believe he has left the room. Does anybody know his location? We don't want anybody to miss their opportunity. Okay. Thank you. I recognize Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me, Sir. Welcome, congratulations on your re-nomination. Thank you for your service. The question I've asked every nominee who has been before us, in preparation in appearing before us, have you had the assistance of any professional help, professional service rendered to you?

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: No, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: You're welcome.

REP. SPALLONE: Do any other members have questions? If not, thank you very much, Sir. Congratulations.

JUDGE ROBERT RESHA: Thank you, Sir. Have a good afternoon.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Good evening. The next judge to come before the committee is the Honorable John Turner of Hamden. Good evening, Your Honor. If you could raise your right hand, is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Yes, I do.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay. Thank you. Please, be seated, make yourself comfortable, and if you wish to make an opening statement to the committee, please proceed.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Well, thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement. As you know, I've been a judge at the Superior Court for eight years now. I am grateful for the privilege of having had the opportunity to serve, and I do mean serve the people of the State of Connecticut. I am also thankful for the opportunity to be reconsidered or considered for reappointment. Since my time on the bench, I have sat primarily in two areas, in the GA and in the Juvenile Court. Currently, I'm sitting as the Presiding Judge in the Juvenile Court in New Haven.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay. Thank you very much. I also thank you for you patience as we work into the evening here at the Judiciary Committee. Does anyone have questions for Judge Turner? Yes, Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Sir. Good to see you, Sir. Your response, do you have an opinion about this?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: If your question is, do I believe that there is disparity in our Justice System--

REP. DYSON: You've got that right.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: --the answer is yes. I believe it, and I have seen it. I believe that there is, and I've seen that there is a disproportionate representation of African Americans and Hispanics in our Juvenile Justice System on the Delinquency side and in our criminal Justice System as well. I also believe that there is some disparity in treatment, that is, how African Americans and Hispanics are treated when they are brought into the system. That is not to say that it is always intentional, and I don't believe that it is.

I do think that, and I welcome all persons who are involved in the Justice System to be held accountable for what we do. I think there is a need, an appropriateness for work, everyone involved in the system, from the police to the prosecutors to the State's Attorneys to the Public Defenders to the bail commissioners to the judges, for everyone's work to be scrutinized and for all of us to be held accountable for the choices and the decisions that we make. I welcome that to be done by those who have the appropriate authority to do that. As I said, we ought to be held accountable for the decisions and the choices that we make.

In my courtroom, I do attempt to do that, and I see other judges attempting to do that. I see instances of cases that I think should be referred for non-judicial handling are not being referred for non-judicial handling. When that occurs, I make an appropriate inquiry. More often than not, I am provided with a satisfactory explanation. If I don't receive a satisfactory explanation upon further discussion with the State's Attorney and with the defendant's counsel, there is usually an agreement that the matter is going to be referred for non-judicial handling. I believe that judges should not, and I don't believe that judges always do, rubber stamp agreements when they have been entered into by the defendant along with the State's Attorney and, of course, the court's defendant's counsel.

I believe that judges have a responsibility to make sure the agreements are fair and that they reflect justice to the extent that justice can be achieved in our system. I think we all need to make an earnest effort to try and arrive at justice. So that is my position.

REP. DYSON: Judge Turner, I appreciate your response and thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Do other members have questions? Representative Farr?

REP. FARR: Yes. Good afternoon, Judge Turner. Just a couple of comments. First of all, I just wanted to comment that we do get copies of the evaluations that are provided. I always take them a little bit with a grain of salt. I can't help commenting that yours are one of the highest of anybody before us. I congratulate you on the fact that there seems to be a lot of people who think you are doing a great job. I haven't had the privilege of appearing before you. Right now, you're sitting on Juvenile Court. Did you have any experience before you went on the bench with Juvenile?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: The answer is no. I had no substantive experience in the Juvenile Court.

REP. FARR: [inaudible - microphone not on] The other judges have described the fact that judges are assigned and there is a rotation. Are you comfortable doing Juvenile Court?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Yes. I am very comfortable doing Juvenile Court. In fact, I'm so comfortable with it that I've asked for the assignment for three consecutive years.

REP. FARR: Did you ask for it originally?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: No. I did not. The assignment was given to me. I willingly accepted it, as I would any assignment [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 4B to 5A]

--in the Juvenile Court, and I was a little uncomfortable with that. Having been assigned to the Hartford Juvenile Court along with two excellent Juvenile Court judges with whom I worked, and enjoyed working, and who also gave me proper guidance and tutelage, I grew to like it in a very short period of time. I have, indeed, found it to be one of the most rewarding and satisfying experiences as a judge that I have had.

REP. FARR: Very good. Thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Representative Green?

REP. GREEN: Thank you. A similar question, in your orientation when you became a judge, were you made aware of the protocol or policies if you were to cover other judges' court cases within the court system or outside the GA or the court?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: I believe I have an understanding of how judges should go about covering and arranging coverage for handling matters in another jurisdiction or another court. That understanding has come to me primarily through an oral explanation given to me by the Administrative Judges at the commencement of each new assignment term. At the beginning of each new assignment period, there is a general orientation meeting. All of the judges in that judicial district are brought together, have the opportunity to hear from the Chief Administrative Judge for that judicial district. Usually, at that time, there is an explanation of various policies and procedures, sometimes covering assignment and coverage of other courts.

We are also presented with a written packet. I'm not sure that it happens in every jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction or judicial districts where I have been assigned to sit, I have received a written packet of policies and procedures. From time to time, I do have a need, and I do reference that. So in addition to having received some written materials and having been presented with an oral explanation by the Administrative Judge for the judicial district, I have had conversations with the Presiding Judge and with others to enhance my understanding of how coverage is to be arranged.

As I mentioned, I am now the Presiding Judge in New Haven. I have a need, from time to time, for someone to cover in my courthouse, so I need to know how that is to be handled. So I discussed, at the beginning of the term with the Administrative Judge, how should we go about it? I thought it would be appropriate with the Administrative Judge's permission to directly contact a judge in the judicial district to enquire about their willingness and availability to cover in my courthouse any time that a judge was needed.

I was advised that it's okay to do that, but first, go through the Administrative Judge. Secondly, the Administrative Judge will contact the judges within that judicial district to enquire about their availability and willingness. So that is my understanding of what the procedure is, and that is the procedure I employ in my capacity as a Presiding Judge.

REP. GREEN: In your dealings with various courts, have you ever run into the problem of dockets not following the files and the similar problems that we heard about, it just not being prepared in the courtroom?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Before I address that, let me just speak to one other thing, respond further with one other thing. Within a courthouse, a judge may have a need for another judge to cover his or her docket. Now, in New Haven, we have two judges who sit there. So we consult with one another about the need for one or the other to cover our assigned dockets for that day. So if I'm in Courtroom A, and I need to spend time doing some writing or doing some research, and the judge covering Courtroom B has a light docket, then I feel free to ask the judge who has a light docket in Courtroom B to cover for me in Courtroom A while I'm doing the research and writing that I need to do. And that is within the courthouse. I don't feel the need to go through the Chief Administrative Judge in that case to get permission to have another judge cover for me in that courtroom.

With regard to dockets, every morning, I have presented to me a carefully prepared docket, which is annotated. It is always available to me. Sometimes it's late in arriving, but I do recognize that the people who prepare the docket for me usually do a very good job of preparing and presenting the dockets to me in a timely manner. It doesn't always happen. Sometimes it's late. Sometimes it's not annotated.

I do recognize that people sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes people have a bad day. Those people have already built up with me some credit in their account. So when they make a mistake, they are entitled to have a withdrawal from that account. As long as the credits exceed the withdrawals, I'm okay with it.

REP. GREEN: One further question, what is your opinion on whether or not Juvenile Court proceedings should be opened to the public?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: I know that is a question that a lot of judges and others struggle with, but I'm in favor of opening up the courthouse in the Child Protection side to the public. Then judges have the discretion to exclude from the courthouse anyone to whom there is an objection made to their presence in the proceedings. So I think that, yeah, it ought to be opened to the public on the Child Protection side. I think that judges ought to have the ability to exclude, for valid reasons, anyone whose presence is not necessary.

On the Delinquency side, no. I think there is an even greater need for confidentiality. So on the Delinquency side, I would favor it being presumptively closed with the judge having the discretion to allow others to sit in at the request and with the permission of all the other parties involved.

REP. GREEN: I just want to be clear. On the Delinquency side, I guess you tempered that. You're not sure it should be open.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: No. I'm saying that on the Delinquency side, it should be presumptively closed. If parties desire to have outsiders brought in on the Delinquency side, then they can make that request of the court. If there are no objections by the State's Attorney, for good reason, by the child or the respondent or the defendant or by the victim, then I think the judge should have the discretion to allow others to come in.

REP. LAWLOR: Other questions? Representative Cafero is next, followed by Senator Newton, and then Representative Walker.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Good afternoon.

REP. CAFERO: Welcome and almost evening, 15 more minutes. Welcome. Congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for your service. The question I've asked all nominees, have you had any professional services rendered to you in preparation of appearing before us today?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: No.

REP. CAFERO: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. Good evening.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Good evening.

SEN. NEWTON: And I want to thank you for responding to Representative Dyson's question on the racial part of our courtrooms. I didn't get the chance to ask the other Afro American judge, but the Legislature has made an attempt to add minority judges to our bench. Do you ever feel, as an Afro American judge, that for some reason, you're looked upon as having to be harder on Afro Americans or Latinos because you are an Afro American judge?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: There are some people who may have that view. There are some other people who may feel that way. I personally don't feel that way. I feel that my responsibility is to be fair to everybody, as fair as I can possibly be.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Thank you. Good evening, Sir.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Good evening.

REP. WALKER: Congratulations on your re-nomination.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Thank you.

REP. WALKER: First of all, I just want to follow up a little bit on Representative Green's question. Why is it that you drew a line of distinction between Child Protection Services and Delinquency? Why would you open up for Child Protection and be much more reluctant in Delinquency?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: It's been my experience that on the Child Protection side, more often than not, it's the Assistant Attorney General that seeks to exclude people from the courtroom. It is not the child or the child's attorney. It's not the guardian, and it's not the parents. Oftentimes, the parents or sometimes others desire to have other parties come into the courtrooms to help them understand what's going on.

Even though they have a lawyer, sometimes a lawyer isn't always able to talk in a language, and I don't mean English necessarily, that they understand. Sometimes they just need them there for support. When there is no valid reason for excluding others from the courtroom, and the families, and the child, and the child's attorney wants to have them in the courtroom, sometimes because they are interested in following the case and being available as a resource, if things are not going right, then I'm willing to allow them to remain in the courtroom.

REP. WALKER: But yet, you--

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Also being mindful of the fact that if there is potential for them to be called as a witness down the road, and there may be information divulged that they should not hear because it may compromise them or taint them as a witness, then I think they should be excluded. That would need to be brought to the court's attention at the appropriate time.

REP. WALKER: But on the Delinquency side, you think there are much more private matters that are internal for family issues, and that is why you choose not to open it up for that reason.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: That is correct.

REP. WALKER: Thank you. Now earlier, Judge Wollenberg testified today that he, in the Juvenile Courts, finds it very frustrating because he doesn't have enough options for placement for children, especially girls in the Delinquency side or truants or runaways. He said that is one of the most frustrating situations that he has. How do you address that or do you have the same frustrations?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: I agree with that, and that is true. There are not enough options with respect, first of all, to young girls to be placed in a secure facility. There is sometimes a need to place them in a secure facility. When that need arises, our options are minimal. Secondly, I believe that there is also a need to place both young men and young women in a secure facility, not 24 hours a day, but maybe release them during the day, and have them stay in a secure facility in the evenings or vice-versa. Allow them to be in a secure facility during the day, and release them to go home in the evenings.

I think we need that kind of flexibility, so that we can fashion an appropriate plan for each individual. We don't always have those options available to us. Too often, we either have to keep them in a secure facility for 24 hours or we have to release them back into the community. Sometimes returning them home isn't in their best interest.

REP. WALKER: Do you feel that you have enough support systems available for the families as they go through this process or is that one of the areas that you also feel that we're negligent in supplying?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: I think that there are enough services available. My concern is with respect to the quality of the services and with regard to the genuine concern, and the caring, and effectiveness of the service providers.

REP. WALKER: Thank you. I have one more question. I did talk a couple of times today about a Juvenile Review Board. Are you familiar with that, Sir?

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: No.

REP. WALKER: No.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: I am not.

REP. WALKER: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions for the Judge? Representative Hamm?

REP. HAMM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief, Your Honor. Juvenile Court is one of my real passions in trying to move public policy ahead. I just wanted to put on the record that you are a breath of fresh air. Your candor, your intimate understanding of what kids need, and how the system is broken presently and not working is really very much appreciated. Thank you very much.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions for Judge Turner? Thank you very much.

JUDGE JOHN TURNER: Thank you all.

REP. DYSON: Mr. Chairman? This is not another question. I just wanted people to know that breath of fresh air is from New Haven.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you for that comment, Representative Dyson. I note that the next nominee is actually from downstate a little further in my neck of the woods. Good afternoon, Judge White. Good evening, I should say.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Good evening.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE GARY WHITE: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please, have a seat. I note, not withstanding the fact that you live in Norwalk, you commute to Tolland.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: How convenient. Welcome.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Yes. Good evening to the Co-Chairs and to the members of the committee. I want to thank Governor Rell for submitting my name for reappointment as a judge of the Superior Court. It's been a great honor and a privilege to serve the people of this state. During my judicial tenure, I've had a variety of assignments, several different judicial districts, including Bridgeport, New Haven, Danbury, and Tolland.

I have sat in the Criminal, Civil, Habeas, and Family Courts. The job of a Superior Court judge has been challenging as well as rewarding. I would appreciate the opportunity to continue serving the public. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for me.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. I appreciate, at this hour, I appreciate the brevity of the statement. Are there questions from members of the committee? Representative Farr, followed by Representative Dyson.

REP. FARR: I'm sorry. Where are you currently serving?

JUDGE GARY WHITE: In Tolland, in Rockville.

REP. FARR: In what capacity?

JUDGE GARY WHITE: I've been doing Habeas work, and I'm supposed to start Family Court.

REP. FARR: And before you went on the bench, what was your experience in?

JUDGE GARY WHITE: I was a Public Defender for 12 years.

REP. FARR: So you never did Family before.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: No.

REP. FARR: Okay. I noticed, in looking at your evaluations, that you just had an extraordinary, you appear to be a judge who, for a while, was under siege here. You listed, I think, five lawsuits against you. Of course, four included other judges. Apparently, they sued everybody. I think there were 14 complaints against you, one of which was so trivial that, as I read it, it said that you didn't use your full name when signing some kind of warrant. I wonder if you could just comment on the experience of being on the other end with all of these complaints and lawsuits.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: To a large degree, I view it as the cost of doing business. Sometimes litigants, in lieu of making an appeal, will file a grievance against a judge or they file a lawsuit. As you mentioned, I've been the subject of a number of lawsuits where I had minimal or no connection with the controversies that the plaintiff was involved with. I try not to take it personally, and I try to just take it in stride.

REP. FARR: But ultimately, all of these things have been dismissed. You've never had any complaint that has been found to be meritorious, as I understand it. Is that correct?

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Every single complaint made against me was dismissed for lack of merit, and the same has been true of every lawsuit.

REP. FARR: Okay. Thank you very much.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Dyson?

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Judge.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Good evening.

REP. DYSON: Good evening, Sir. You know what my question is.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Yes, I do. I have not personally reviewed the report. I am aware of it. I agree that there is a racial disparity within our Justice System. It needs to be taken seriously, investigated. We need to do our best to vigilantly rout it out. I, as an individual judge, and I believe other judges do, try their best to treat people evenhandedly and fairly. I mean, that is about the best I can say. I just echo what has been said by the others.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Sir.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Representative Dyson. Senator Newton.

SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. Good evening, Judge.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Good evening, Sir.

SEN. NEWTON: This is basically the same question I just asked the other judge. Being Afro American, do you feel any pressure that somehow you have to be or you feel you have to be harder on Afro Americans or Latinos because you are Afro American?

JUDGE GARY WHITE: I don't feel anybody has put pressure on me to do that. I think sometimes people might feel that way. I try my best to apply the rule of law to the facts and to render a just decision. I think that fairness and justice should be a byproduct of the rules, and I should follow the rules to the best of my abilities. That is what I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? Representative Lawlor?

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon or almost good evening, Your Honor.

JUDGE GARY WHITE: Good evening.

REP. LAWLOR: I think we had a